If "causes" are pointless then why the word "be-cause"?

Question

If "causes" are pointless then why the word "be-cause"?

Answer 1

I think we should not consider Theories of Causality with Linguistics Analysis completely the same! If we use Linguistics it is true that from this perspective "because" would relate a causality between two premises or propositions e.g. But, as I said before, the conlusions of Causality Theories are far more wider: in contempary terms they consider its objective as a system that function in a way of cause and effect. There are more or less complicated systems but its one have certain characteristics like the tension of rebalance when certain procejures have taken place, that is to say inputs, in other words causes provoke effects, some times in a very predictable way.

There are ages before Philosophers like Hume that doubted Causality in the Perspective of Pure Empiricism. He holds that we can not be sure of the causality of thinks in Nature because we can not predict the future. We can not be certain of the teleology of things.

Now, I just used above the word "because" and I think this where I approach to the core of your question! Well, using words in order to discribe thinks in the Perspective of Linguistic Analysis, takes an Ontological Version. I have written before the saying that "Il n'y a rien dehors le text" which some Philosophers believe. Still, I've been reading some of Hegels' Phenomenologie of the Spirit and he holds that, if I am not wrong, that in order to percieve empirical experience we have to obsess the right tools. This is why I believe that considering the use of the word "because" by Analytical Philosophy to Justify Causality or maybe in another case the other way around, would be a use of a notion beyond its field of application like Hegel holds. This is what I think!

Answer 2

Who says causes are pointless, while the whole world moves on cause and effect.  It is true we have lost sight of causes because we are too concerned about the effects, not realizing that the effect itself might be a cause for future.  So because assumes great significance in the context.