Doğanın Metafizik Bütünlüğü Hakkında İçkin Zorunluluk Savunusu

Öz

Bu makalede, doğanın “tekdüze” (uniform) ve “güvenilir” (reliable) yapılarını meydana getiren metafizik bütünlüğün temellendirilmesi amacıyla üç ana yaklaşım incelenmektedir: düzenlilik tezi, dışsal zorunluluk tezi ve içkin zorunluluk tezi. İlk olarak düzenlilik tezi, nedenselliği gözlemlenen olayların sık tekrarlarına indirger; Hume’un etkisiyle, ardışıklık ve birliktelikten öte zorunlu bir bağlantı kabul etmez. Bu yaklaşımın en önemli eksiklikleri, neden-sonuç ilişkisini açıklamak yerine yalnızca betimlemesi, kavranabilirliği mümkünlükle karıştırması ve özne-nesne etkileşimini ihmal etmesidir. İkinci olarak dışsal zorunluluk tezi, nedensel zorunluluğun nesnelerin içkin yapılarına bağlı değil, evrensel tümeller arası ilişkilere veya ilahi iradeye dayandığını savunur. David Armstrong’un tümel kuramı ve Gazzâlî ile Descartes’ın Tanrı’nın dünyayı yaratmasına ilişkin yorumları bu kategoriye örnektir. Ancak bu görüş, tikellerin (bireysel nesnelerin) belirli tümelleri nasıl ve neden örneklediğini açıklayamamakta, yasaların keyfi bir şekilde nesnelere uygulanması sorununu doğurmaktadır. Üçüncü olarak ele alınan içkin zorunluluk teziyse, nedensel zorunluluğu nesnelerin özsel niteliklerine ve taşıdıkları potansiyellere bağlı olarak yorumlar. Aristoteles’in potansiyel-aktüel ayrımı ile Sydney Shoemaker’ın nitelik ayrışması analizini birleştiren bu yaklaşım, doğa yasalarının nesnelerin içkin etkinliklerinden türediğini, karşıolgusal senaryoları ve olumsuz nedenselliği de tutarlı biçimde açıklayabildiğini gösterir. İçkin zorunluluk tezi, doğanın metafizik bütünlüğünün hem tekdüzelik hem de güvenilirlik ilkelerine uygun olarak nesnelerin kendi doğalarından kaynaklandığını savunarak en sağlam açıklamayı sunmaktadır. Bu nedenle, doğanın birliği hakkında bağımsız bir karşı-argüman geliştirilemediği sürece, içsel zorunluluk doğanın işleyişine dair en güçlü metafiziksel temel olarak öne çıkar.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nedensellik
• Metafizik Zorunluluk
• Doğa Felsefesi
• Metafizik
• Doğa Yasaları
• Karşıolgusal Analiz
• Doğal Türler

A Defence of Intrinsic Necessity on the Metaphysical Unity of Nature

Öz

This article analyzes the three approaches proposed to explain the metaphysical unity of nature, which is thought to be implied by its uniformity and reliability. The study concludes that both the Regularity Thesis and the Extrinsic Necessity Thesis fail to account for the uniform and reliable structure of nature compared to the Intrinsic Necessity Thesis. While the Regularity Thesis reduces causation to observed patterns and overlooks the causal connection between the object and the subject, the Extrinsic Necessity Thesis weakens its explanatory power by transferring epistemic regularities between universals into ontological facts and leaving the relationship between particulars and universals unexplained. In contrast, the intrinsic necessity theory offers a much stronger justification for nature’s unity by attributing causal necessity to the intrinsic properties of objects. This view allows for differentiating objects by their causal capacities and explains why certain properties are manifested by particular objects rather than others. In doing so, it accounts for the unity of nature without relying on external authorities or arbitrary laws. Unless an independent counter-argument is developed against the unity of nature, an intrinsic causal necessity remains the most robust metaphysical explanation for the operation of the natural world.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Causation
• Metaphysical Necessity
• Natural Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Laws of Nature
• Counterfactual Analysis
• Natural Kinds

Kaynakça

1. Aristotle. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, One-Volume Digital Edition. Edited by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton University Press, 2014. google scholar
2. Armstrong, D. M. What Is a Law of Nature? Cambridge University Press, 2016. google scholar
3. Avicenna. The Metaphysics of “The Healing”: A Parallel English-Arabic Text = Aš-Šifāʼ: Al-Ilāhiyyāt. google scholar
4. Translated by Michael E. Marmura. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2005. google scholar
5. Ball, Philip. “The Tyranny of Simple Explanations.” The Atlantic (blog), August 11, 2016. https:// www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/. google scholar
6. Beauchamp, Tom L, and Alexander Rosenberg. Hume and the Problem of Causation. New York: Oxford U.P., 1981. google scholar
7. Bigelow, John, Brian Ellis, and Caroline Lierse. “The World as One of a Kind: Natural Necessity and Laws of Nature.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43, no. 3 (1992): 371–88. google scholar
8. Carroll, John W. Laws of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. google scholar

9. Chakravartty, Anjan. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. google scholar
10. Descartes, René. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes: Volume 3, The Correspondence. Cambridge University Press, 1984. google scholar
11. Ghazālī. The Incoherence of the Philosophers = Tahāfut Al-Falāsifah: A Parallel English-Arabic Text. Translated by Michael E. Marmura. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1997. google scholar
12. Griffel, Frank. Al-Ghazālī’s Philosophical Theology. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009. google scholar
13. Hanoğlu, İsmail. “Gazali Düşüncesinde Nominalizm ve Eşyanın Hakikati Sorunu.” Birey ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2, no. 3 (2012): 85–97. google scholar
14. Hanson, Norwood Russell. Patterns of Discovery; An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge University Press, 1958. http://archive.org/details/patternsofdiscov0000hans_i5v6. google scholar
15. Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Peter Millican. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. google scholar
16. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. google scholar
17. ———. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (Second Edition): And the Letter to Marcus Herz, February 1772. Translated by James Wesley Ellington. Hackett Publishing, 2001. google scholar
18. Koons, Robert C, and Timothy H Pickavance. Metaphysics: The Fundamentals. John Wiley & Sons, 2015. google scholar
19. Kripke, Saul. Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell, 1980. google scholar
20. Lewis, David K. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. google scholar
21. Lowe, E. J. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford: Clarendon, 2007. google scholar
22. Mackie, John Leslie. The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation. Clarendon Press, 1974. google scholar
23. Mumford, Stephen. “Laws and Dispositions.” In The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics, edited by Robin Le Poidevin, Peter Simons, McGonigal Andrew, and Ross P. Cameron, 471–79. London & New York: Routledge, 2009. google scholar
24. ———. Laws in Nature. London: Routledge, 2006. google scholar
25. Ott, Walter. Causation and Laws of Nature in Early Modern Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. google scholar
26. Psillos, Stathis. Causation and Explanation. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002. google scholar
27. Richardson, Kara. “Avicenna and the Principle of Sufficient Reason.” The Review of Metaphysics 67, no. 4 (2014): 743–68. google scholar
28. ———. “Avicenna’s Conception of the Efficient Cause.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21, no. 2 (March 2013): 220–39. google scholar
29. Ross, James F. Thought and World: The Hidden Necessities. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. google scholar
30. Salmon, Wesley C. Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1984. http://archive.org/details/scientificexplan0000salm. google scholar
31. Shoemaker, Sydney. “Causal and Metaphysical Necessity.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79, no. 1 (March 1, 1998): 59–77. google scholar
32. Strawson, Galen. The Secret Connexion: Causation, Realism, and David Hume. Revised Edition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. google scholar
33. Tekin, Ömer Fatih. “Doğa Yasaları Bağlamında Klasik Humeculuğa Karşı Yapısal Humeculuk.” Felsefe Dünyası, no. 77 (August 6, 2023): 89–111. https://doi.org/10.58634/felsefedunyasi.1290557. google scholar
34. Tooley, Michael. “The Nature of Laws.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, no. 4 (1977): 667–98. google scholar
35. Wright, John P. The Sceptical Realism of David Hume. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983. google scholar