Causation can be explained as the natural relation that basically exists in the natural world and happens between certain situations and is in many times related to explanation as well. However, the confusion that exists explains that if causation is a relation, then explanation is not in any way related to it. The relationship that exists between causation and explanation is often confused by many people. This relationship is more philosophical than ordinary and this is the main reason why many people find it hard to understand it. In this paper, we shall explain and asses Strawson’s argument concerning causal transactions. According to Strawson, we can directly observe causal transactions that happen between events, where a particular event brings about another event.
According to Strawson, there does not exist any natural relation that can be detected as in the specific situation that holds between different events and can be identified as the causal relation. Further Strawson states that there is no plurality of relations that can be detected in certain cases that holds between particular situations and events and detected as distinct varieties of a general kind of relation referred to as the causal. In this case, the idea of causality is distinct form the categorical idea of a distinct substance where it becomes locally and correctly associated (Strawson, 1992 ). Strawson further believes that the two notions are highly different and that they do not originate from the notion of particular observations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
While there exists a list of expressions for certain types of individual things that are birthed from a particular observations, one can comfortable claim that they are detectable events of a particular kind. However, there is no evident parallel for it in the case of causality. On this point, the ancient view holds. However, it would be a great mistake to hold on to this point (Strawson, 1992 ). It is also a great mistake to take this point and make it the onset in elucidating the idea of cause. Although the idea of cause when viewed from the point of relation between different but every specific events does not find any footing in the observable vocabulary but a wider scope of the idea of causation finds a strong foundation in the vocabulary of observation. Besides, Strawson states that there is a huge variety, a colossal replication of different types of actions that are specific case and that can correctly be described as causal.
The aforementioned lack of balance is easy to explain; because under normal circumstances, when reporting such visible behaviours or activities, we use two local indicators (suitable for the type of activity involved) Transitional verbs), but the two parts are not identified by specific occasions or situations. At least one of them is filled, and usually all are filled with the name of a particular substance (Strawson, 1992 ). Typically, though not unique, this attorney represents some specific dynamic exercise caused by animated or inanimate media; and often (though not always) provide this strength to the patient.
So, there is nothing more common than looking at a variety of things brought about by objects under certain circumstances (Strawson, 1992 ). The investigative vocabulary is rich as a name in the type of substance in the type of action that produces the effect. In fact, two names (a type of substance and a type of action) cannot be separated from each other. So, to say one thing is to give an effect, a new state of affairs, perhaps in another thing through the use of the unique power of reason. And when looking at such activities, people already have new information (or at least direct information) of the status of that activity. There is no doubt that the transaction is divided into a transaction column (a series of "obvious presence"), and you want to know if that sequence is a sequence of causes, or not. Humans have observed changes brought about by certain behavioral patterns. People who look at the results instead of the results can search for details of the results. For him, results can be explained by referring to visible but invisible actions by him to achieve results. Thus, in these cases, the interpretation is directly related to the apparent connection between the genes (Strawson, 1992 ).
In many cases, explanation is not always easy. If not, then start or maybe start looking for a reason. This behaviour is partly guided by the practice model of the factors that lead to the study of nature, and in part by the examination of different corporate rules that are valued by opinion holders. If through the construction of a theory or in-depth investigation, we can find or assume a copy or a picture or an example of our general model to integrate simple link rules, and then we are satisfied or temporarily satisfied, and have reached the Level of information; reason (Strawson, 1992 ).
Even when looking at vocabulary gives us actions or verbs experiences, in a sense, we have understood their effects by looking at their general production methods, and we can be persuaded to seek a deeper or more comprehensive understanding. So, in order to study the small production process, the most important is the most subtle process. There is no doubt that in the development of complex body theories, the use and application of our general style has diminished, and may be completely exhausted. At this point, the concept of reason has lost its impact on theory (Strawson, 1992 ). But this is a position we have not taken much time, and few of us take it.
Hume looks at the natural source, which he believes is a distinct feature of our concept of reason as a natural relationship. It usually refers to this unique service as an important connectivity idea. Its list of adjacent synonyms includes "impact", "institution", "power", "energy", "importance", "integration" and "production quality". It does not deviate from the scope of its intimate meaning. When searching for ideas for their true sources, he actually followed or demanded to follow his main principle: seeking opinions that generate ideas (Strawson, 1992 ) . But, surprisingly, Hume ignores that principle that can lead him in the most obvious direction. If we consider the three" strengths "," power "and" forces "and ask them from which point of view, it is obvious. The clearest answer is related to our experience of using force we have pressed on ourselves. We push or pull, and feel the pressure or tension, or force exerted or it has been an experience for us. This is the immediate experience that may be needed: a sense of force used or tortured.
Here is one of the comments that Hume ironically uses. But, in fact, we do not place the concept of power on the technical activities in which we or our colleagues engage as agents or patients, pushing and pulling. We extend the idea to all such activities. As Hume asks, “is there an element of anthropomorphic projections in this extension?”. However, it does not matter whether this item of estimation is based on the use of concepts or roaming on its basis (Strawson, 1992 ) . The main thing is that in these technical activities, these push and pull or hit or collide over the manifestation of force, examples of our behaviors that have a natural connection, whether living or inanimate objects can focus on these behaviors directly by one experience), and after an investigation (or experience) or accurate report, provide a completely satisfactory explanation of the results and conditions of termination.
References
Strawson, P. F. (1992). Explanation and Causation. Analysis and Metaphysics , 109-131.
