Talk:SS4.4
From Chapel Hill History of Philosophy
Here is a relevant snippet from Duns Scotus' Ordinatio [Wolter's LLA trans. of the ``Question: Among beings does one exist which is actually infinite? Part I,b, ``Primacy of Finality] The part of this that we need now comes early, but, if we ever get to the second part of the third critique, the traditional reduction of causes per accidens (chance and fortune) to per se causes will become important to Kant's arguments. Scotus: ``The first conclusion is that some end is simply ultimate, that is, it can neither be ordained to something else nor exercise its finality in virtue of something else. . . . . The second conclusion is that the ultimate end cannot be caused in any way. This is proved from the fact that it cannot be ordained for another end; otherwise it would not be ultimate. It follows in addition that it cannot be caused by an efficient cause. This latter consequence is proved from the fact that every agent per se acts for the sake of an end as is said in Physics bk. ii, where the Philosopher understands this proposition to hold also of ``nature,", where it seems to apply less than in the case of an agent who acts according to purpose. Now a thing cannot be produced if no per se efficient cause of it exists, for the first of any given kind of cause is never an incidental cause (causa per accidens). This is clear from what is said in particular of incidental causes, which are chance and fortune, These, according to Aristotle in Physics, bk. ii, must be reduced respectively to the prior causes of ``nature and ``intellect as purpose, neither of which are incidental causes. Hence, whatever has no per se efficient cause has no efficient cause whatsoever. But whatever has no end, also has no per se efficient cause. Therefore, it will not be something that could be produced, for whatever could be the result of a final cause will be surpassed in goodness, and consequently in perfection, by the end.
I believe that this reduction of chance and fortune to nature and intellect is an error perpetuated by Kant in the work we are reading. (The Spanish late medieval--early modern Catholic philosophers launched the first assault on the view in question.)
