Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
David hume ideas and impressions
Human cause and effect
Hume & cause & effect
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: David hume ideas and impressions
"There are more things n heaven and Earth than dreamt of in your philosophy" (Shakespeare, 211). This quote from William Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark presents quite an idea. It suggests that in our modern philosophy we have not even began to scratch the surface of what causes the nature of things around us. Our philosophy is centered on the idea of cause and effect. Whether a person realizes it, every standpoint that they argue from is based on a cause and/or its effect. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with this, but most people don't bother to analyze what the true connection is between a cause and it's effect. David Hume does an outstanding job of presenting a point of view that many people do not consider at all. He asks what is this connection and what makes us impose this connection immediately. If all of our findings are based on causes and their effects, and yet, we do not completely understand the connection between the latter, then how can we presume to hold our finding absolutely certain? Maybe this is partly what Shakespeare was hinting at in the aforementioned quote. Hume's exploration of the matter of cause and effect is an excellent tool for use in understanding the possibilities and limitations of our "matter of fact" knowledge.
Hume begins his paper by pointing out that humans are essentially ignorant to the world around them. Everything that we understand is based on someone else's findings or research. Hume points out that on his own, with no input or previous experience, Adam would not have been able to look at the ocean and say "Gee, I could be suffocated by that water." Though we now know through experience that fire can burn us and water can drown us, Hume suggests that we should try to rid ourselves of the ignorance that pertains to what is the relationship between cause and effect. He accurately points out that anytime that we think we truly understand the nature of an object, we are just describing that object with as much detail and precision as we have accessible to us. This idea is interesting because it leads one to question whether our most valuable truths in science are in fact, viable.
In science classes, instructors stress the importance of determining causation. The modern scientific method allows for many ways to describe every imaginable characteristic of something.
Hume defines the laws of nature to be what has been “uniformly” observed by mankind, such as the laws of identity and gravity. He views society as being far to liberal in what they consider to be a miracle. He gives the reader four ideas to support his philosophy in defining a true miracle, or the belief in a miracle. These points leads us to believe that there has never been a miraculous event established. Hume’s first reason in contradicting a miracle is, in all of history there has not been a miraculous event with a sufficient number of witnesses. He questions the integrity of the men and the reputation in which they hold in society. If their reputation holds great integrity, then and only then can we have full assurance in the testimony of men. Hume is constantly asking throughout the passage questions to support proof for a miracle. He asks questions such as this; Who is qualified? Who has...
The figure of David Hume looms large in the philosophical tradition of English-speaking countries; and his two famous analyses, of human apprehension and of causality, were the...
Dianne Williams Stepp's The Filbert Orchard portrays a uniquely haunting experience. Dianne Williams Stepp's "The Filbert Orchard" portrays a uniquely haunting experience. The poem blaintly attempts to draw the reader in through its critical lense and perspective. Stepp's usage of many carefully connected literary devices creates a distinctive tone, effect, and message that exposes the tragedy behind southern ideology and values during the civil war. The success of "The Filbert Orchard" can then be traced to its tight construction and use of historical
David Hume, in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, discusses how we cannot predict the future. Even though our experiences and our reasoning tell us that objects act in a predictable way, we still cannot prove how objects will act in the future based upon previous interactions. After biting into a piece of pizza we expect an enjoyable taste. This enjoyable taste is expected because our past experiences have proven this to us. Even though we think we can predict that the pizza will act the same as our previous experiences, it may just blow up upon biting. Hume explains that there is no way to predict the future based on our previous experiences and reasoning and I will explain the logic he uses to prove this.
First, Hume shows how necessity is present in our lives. He points out that we exist in an orderly and logical world, and that many events that we perceive to be the result of another action are actually determined by logical laws of nature. Hume argues that the exactness of these effects stems solely from the natural forces responsible for guiding our lives, and also that we falsely assume causal relationships between events because of our limited viewpoint.
Recent developments in quantum physics, biology and information science have put us in a position where we question the uniqueness of the causal-mechanical model of science. But these developments, even though science based on non-causal concepts might dominate the culture, would not eradicate the causal way people view the world and themselves, but only relegate the concept of cause to the realm of metaphor, a rhetorical way of putting things. The concept of cause then would no longer be a scientific concept, but would still be alive in the culture. What brings about a change in the general worldview then? This is the question I still have to ask.
The next major theory on how one obtains knowledge comes from David Hume’s Empiricism. Empiricism itself is the idea that all knowledge obtained is done so through senses or experiences throughout life. This theory itself clearly contrasts with rationalism as rationalists believe at no point that they should gain knowledge through senses/experiences. Furthermore, as an empiricist, he does not value anything that is not attained through experience. One of Hume’s beliefs is the idea that everyone is born with a mental “blank slate”. Because all knowledge we gain is thought to be gained through experience (which a newborn would have none at that point) the “slate” starts as blank and will filled in as the person learns through experiences. This
Megan Darnley PHIL-283 May 5, 2014 Compatibilism and Hume. The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions is on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event is because of some prior cause.
Hume states that all reasoning related to Matters of Fact is from deriving a relation between cause and effect (Hume, 296). However, the relation between cause and effect is not discovered by reason, either, but also by observation and experience (Hume, 297). Since they are connected by observation only, we can never certainly know whether causal relationships exist, and he claims that effects are distinct from their causes (Sepielli). He offers the example of two billiard balls, where one is moving in a straight line towards the other. He thinks that there are hundreds of events that can result from the billiard balls striking each other, and we cannot be sure which one will occur (Hume, 298). Even if we have examined the billiard balls and the table (Sepielli), and we have observed the same observation every time the balls moved towards each other, Hume believes that we can only use these observations to learn about the balls would be affected here, in the present, but we cannot use them to learn about what will happen in the future. In this case, Hume’s Problem of Induction can be summarized as follows. If we truly believe that the future will be like the past, and we want to justify that belief, but we cannot justify it demonstratively or by yielding similar observations repeatedly, then how are we supposed to justify that
In order to go beyond the objects of human reason, Hume proposed that reasoning was based upon cause and effect. Causal relations help us to know things beyond our immediate vicinity. All of our knowledge is based on experience. Therefore, we need experience to come to causal relationships of the world and experience constant conjunction. Hume stated that he “shall venture to affirm, as a general proposition which admits no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not in any instance, attained by reasonings ‘a priori’, but arises entirely from experience.” (42)
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems such as those regarding existence, reality, knowledge, values, the human mind and language. “I think, therefore I am” is a famous quotation that attempts to define this study very simply, and the philosopher quoted was Rene Descartes, a 17th century Frenchman who is widely regarded as the Father of Modern Philosophy. David Hume was an 18th century Scotsman who is considered by many to be the most important philosopher ever to write in English. The intention here is to explain Hume’s theory of virtue and vice in the light of his views about practical rationality, which is the use of reason to help one decide how to act.
Hume contends that all human behavior is predictable given certain circumstances. Every nation, in any period of time, will have citizens that will act in a similar fashion to other nations, in any other period of time (53). Hume supports this idea by asserting that this is why the philosophy of human nature is possible. Spinoza has similar ideas about behavior but is more thorough in his analysis. Spinoza begins his critique from a naturalistic approach. He believes that the universal laws of nature give us an understanding of affects. Affects such as hate, anger, love, lust, happiness, and joy are all determined by nature. It is nature that affects the individual, not the individual affecting nature. Thus, nature affects everyone in a similar fashion and gives rise to similar ideas and feelings. From a naturalist perspective, the laws of nature can help understand the laws that govern
David Hume believes that there are connections between all ideas in the mind, and there are three different kinds: resemblance, contiguity in space-time, and cause-and-effect. He confirms that there must be some universal principles in the connection between all the ideas, but he has not shown what these universal principles are. In section IV, David Hume talks about the differences between relation of ideas and matter of fact. Relation of ideas are related to awareness or logically true statement such as “the sky is blue”. Matter of fact will go with cause-and-effect. When you see the sky dark, you will know it is going to rain because you have experiences this before. David concludes section IV that “our knowledge from experience is based on the principle of cause and effect”, “the principle of cause and effect is grounded in induction”, “induction relies on uniformity principle, that the future will resemble the past”, and “we come to know the uniformity principle from experience”.
In Appendix I., Concerning Moral Sentiment, David Hume looks to find a place in morality for reason, and sentiment. Through, five principles he ultimately concludes that reason has no place within the concept of morality, but rather is something that can only assist sentiment in matters concerning morality. And while reason can be true or false, those truths or falsities apply to facts, not to morality. He then argues morals are the direct result of sentiment, or the inner feeling within a human being. These sentiments are what intrinsically drive and thus create morality within a being. Sentiments such as beauty, revenge, pleasure, pain, create moral motivation, and action, and are immune to falsity and truth. They are the foundation for which morals are built, and exist themselves apart from any reasoning. Thesis: In moral motivation, the role of sentiment is to drive an intrinsically instilled presence within us to examine what we would deem a moral act or an immoral act, and act accordingly, and accurately upon the sentiments that apply. These sentiments may be assisted by reasons, but the reason alone does not drive us to do what we would feel necessary. They can only guide us towards the final result of moral motivation which (by now it’s painfully clear) is sentiment.
In Robert Browning’s dramatic monologue “Fra Lippo Lippi” we as the readers are presented with a lot of background information about the speaker itself. This monologue overall subjects a monk/painter of Renaissance Italy. I find this monologue very interesting because of the fact that Browning uses sarcasm and witty personality in his favor at the beginning of the poem. The trait of the authorities being overzealous in the monk’s eyes is what charms the beginning first half of the monologue. For this writing assignment, I will analyze specific lines of 1-60; I believe the monk reveals a lot about himself as a character in the very first half of the poem which is why I find this of significance. While analyzing these specific lines, I will also describe how these lines help us as readers better understand this character in question.