Find in Library

Causality, in metaphysics as well as natural sciences, has been discussed for long by western philosophy and Islamic philosophy. Metaphysical explanation of causality, however, has been of a great importance in Islamic philosophy.  Empirical philosophy together with Hume’s criticism and finally through philosophy of Kant who denied any metaphysical knowledge, have made it impossible for causality to be metaphysically explained in the modern period of the West. It was, then, hardly possible to prove Divine existence based on the principle of causality. However, Islamic philosophy, particularly Mulla Sadra's philosophy, has taken the principle intact. Comparing, at first, David Hume and Morteza Motahari on the causality, this paper outlines theirs differences and finally we present our conclusion.  Based on the very fundamental principle of priority of existence and regarding western thinker’s literature, Motahari made a new look at Sadra’s philosophy and attempted to makeup a rational explanation of the  necessity and symmetry of cause and effect and  showed that causality  is a factual and external principle. Hume, however, aimed to an empirical explanation of principle of causality. And in doing so, he destabilized the necessity and symmetry of cause and effect and reached to a subjective causality. Yet, it is, to some extent, difficult to appropriately answer some challenges made by Hume against natural causality. His criticisms are still in need of some refashioned answers.