Causality

Causality or the idea of necessary connections between two [or more] objects/things is of great debate within metaphysics and epistemology. It may seem intuitive that when you light a flame the fire *causes* heat, but does it necessarily do so? That is, is it impossible for it to have been any other way (I.e. the fire doesn't cause heat)? Philosophers have studied metaphysics to determine an answer in hopes of deriving necessary truths about contingent things. Though this task is much more difficult than it seems, for finding this bridging link between the two seems inconceivable, especially for certain empiricists. David Hume argues against this idea of necessary causality by saying that the idea of one thing (I.e. fire) does not have any a priori connection with anything else that is not it (I.e. heat). So, when we observe a constant presence between the two of them - we are in reality only perceiving a constant and contingent conjunction of contingent objects in which, in theory, contains no necessity or absolute certainty with it. It also deprives us of true instructive knowledge about the workings of the world. With causation such a huge feature of our lives and what we consider 'knowledge', it is definitely a huge problem. Further, apart from the question of how physical objects act upon each other, the dualists also need to examine how exactly the mind (an immaterial substance) can act upon the body (a material substance), and vice versa. Now, many skeptics of causality do not raise an issue with how we use the term in everyday life or practical language (since it is clear that fire will always produce heat), but though we may not be practically concerned with issues of causality we need to look at the actual philosophical issues behind them. This conversation around causality spans into many other debates as well, including that of motion and of induction.