Hume had absolutely no reservations when it came to challenging those who came before him. In a way, he changed philosophy forever. In this paper I will be discussing some of the claims Hume made and the reasonings behind these beliefs.
One of the main theme in Hume’s ideology is the fact that causation is unknowable and uncertain. For example, as we discussed in class, we once believed that malaria was caused by “night air.” After extensive research and the advancement of technology, we discovered it is caused by mosquitos (class lecture). We assume the connection between two things, but Hume points out that there is no way to be absolutely sure of that connection. He points out that we as humans are naturally inclined to think this way. If you have ice cream at an ice cream parlor and it didn’t agree with your stomach, chances are you will shy away from getting ice cream at that particular place again. Hume encourages people to come to terms with the fact that we are finite and that although we can assume things, the absolute truth is basically unknowable.
In addition to stating that we cannot be certain about the connection between two things, Hume touches on induction. Hume insists that one cannot predict an outcome based on one specific incident, nor can we assume that something will happen just because it has happened countless times before. For example, I cannot assume that my friend will drink coffee every single day for forever just because I have seen her with coffee in hand consistently every morning in the past. We may be introduced to new information that provides proof that our previously made assumption is in fact incorrect. Simply put, hume strives to communicate that we are not all fortune tellers and therefore...
... middle of paper ...
...e take that reason and implement it. Therefore, logic and reason are not the basis for ethics, they are only helpful in the decision making process but do not influence the final decision as much as passion does.
There are countless claims that Hume made to challenge and change the face of philosophy. I personally love that he was not afraid to voice his opinion and stand up to those who came before him. Hume strongly believes that in the end that you need evidence to prove something, simply believing something must be true does not make it true, and that humans act on their biological patterns more than logic and reason. All of Hume’s ideologies were rejected by the people of the time but he did not care and essentially called out the majority of philosophers that came before him. In the simplest of terms, Hume is badass.
Works Cited
Class lecture, class notes
Hume’s notion of causation is his regularity theory. Hume explains his regularity theory in two ways: (1) “we may define a cause to be an object, followed by another, and where all the objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second” (2) “if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.”
Before Hume commits himself to this affirmation, he establishes several things first. He explains that all reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on the relation of Cause and Effect. In support of this, Hume explains that, if asked, any man believing in a matter of fact would give as a reason in support of this fact, some other fact. It is from this that Hume concludes that all reasonings concerning fact are of the same nature. It is here that one continually assumes that there is a connection between the current fact and that, which is inferred from it. Furthermore, Hume states where there nothing to bind them together; the inference would be entirely precarious.
In section VI, Of Probability, Hume says that there is no such thing as chance in the world and that it is our ignorance towards the real causes of events that leads us to believe in chance. He continues to say that our beliefs are more engraved upon our imagination because it is more likely to occur due to “experimentation” which is through past experiences. In section VII, Of the Idea of Necessary Connexion,
Hume is afraid that a lot of ideas that philosophers talk about are A priori, meaning before experience. He feels that to make a judgment before the actual experience of it, is simply undependable. To further understand this let us look at Hume’s distinction between cause and effect. Hume believes that cause and effect are two completely different and distinct entities. For example, let’s look at fire and paper. The two are completely different, even if the fire burns the paper. One cannot find an impression...
He holds that determinism is true, yet free action is still possible. He sees freedom of will as liberty, which he holds to “mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will” (Hume 63). He proposes that an action, even a predetermined one, can still be an act of free will as long as it is of the agent’s will. Suppose someone arrives at a fork in the road: one path leads to the left and one to the right. Suppose then that her will is to travel the path to the right; when she is able to, she acts in congruence with her will. It does not matter that the world is deterministic and thus, in those circumstances, she has no choice but to go right; instead, Hume focuses on the agent’s ability to do as she willed, illustrating
...ntrollable, and while this feeling is hard to define, it is simply known, as “every man is every moment conscious of the sentiment represented by it” (p. 50). A major distinction to note is that belief is generated through custom. Belief in some perception is guided by the framework built by past experiences which leads you to make judgments about the world. This framework allows you to believe in what you observe, and to reject any ideas that do not make sense in regards to the custom. While Hume may not have been exact in some aspects, the writings provided remain strong, and this allows for an understanding of belief and fiction.
The cases that Hume presents are not reliable support for his argument. For example, it is nearly impossible to have an infinite or extreme amount of abundance. These rare and unrealistic situations dramatically seek to prove his argument and lack any actuality or practicality. If Hume’s purpose is to tell his readers about how justice works in the real world he needs to provide realistic examples that can be applicable to real world situations. His argument is not illustrated realistically if he uses imaginary or erratic scenarios to get his point across. To make his argument stronger, Hume’s should have considered examples that can be applicable to real life situations. Using these dramatic cases like extreme abundance, altruism, or scarcity as an argument is not realistic and should not be used as his
Hume draws this distinction in recognizing further our own subjective and objective world. In this, through our own personal experience we associate certain facts with moral judgments and values. For example, there may be the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, we place a judgment whether we dislike or like the sun rising tomorrow. Hume has merely recognized the distinction between the fact (sun) and values (likes/dislikes) of the sun. Hume’s link between facts and values was a push to further understand moral philosophy and our understanding of it.
You had to be one hundred percent certain on something to consider it knowledge. He didn’t agree with the questionable ideas of chance. Hume relies more on the seven philosophical relations when it comes to our knowledge and the ideas that we have. Hume believes that we believe God to exist because we go to church and are taught his ideas and life through the Bible. Because he existed there, he must still exist now. Unlike Descartes who believes the existence of God reflects our knowledge, Hume thinks God has nothing to do with our knowledge. The seven philosophical reasons do not allow knowledge of the outside world to be considered, and in this case God would be considered the outside world. He exists in a world besides the ideas the flow through our head. Sure, we can have knowledge in the sense that we believe God exists, however there is absolutely no proof of God’s actual existence. We can’t force someone to believe in something based on the ideas and thoughts we have running through our minds. He also believed that just because something happened in the past, there is no chance that the same result will ever happen
It is clear, Hume says that the idea of cause must be derived from a relation between objects; we cannot find any quality common to the impressions we call 'causes'. He argues, firstly, that causes and effects are usually contiguous, that is, physically adjacent in space, either immediately or mediately. Further, a cause is temporarily prior to its effects. Of even greater importance is the idea of necessary connection. “Or in other words where, if the first object had not been, the second never had existed", Hume said. The principle is discovered neither by intuition nor by demonstration, it is not a relation of ideas; there is no contradiction in denying that something can begin to exist without a cause. The causal inference must be grounded in experience not in any intuitive knowledge of 'essences'. And our belief rests on what he calls constant conjunction of particular instances. What Hume means is that we observe event A on a number of occasions as being both contiguous with and prior to event B, and call A the cause and B the effect. It is from observation of these repeated impressions that the idea of necessity arises through the activity of the
According to Hume, “we reason inductively by linking conjoined events.” For Hume, knowledge consists of two types: Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact. Relations of Ideas are analytic statements, mathematical truths or necessary truths, “every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain”. These are truths we cannot change without having a contradiction. Matters of fact are “the second objects of human reason” and are strictly synthetic. They are all required through experience and our beliefs of the world; they rest simply on causation. These types of statements are more easily changed and can be edited or revised. As previously stated, Hume says that “there are no real beliefs for causation; it all depends on multiple experiences.” Therefore, matters of fact can only be acceptable by recourse to experience, but any attempt to do so is “circular” according to
Also, he argues that our concept of the self is just a result of our natural habit of wanting to attach the existence to any collection of similar parts to make a whole. These are reasonable “anti-self” points to make, however besides these, Hume falls flat at presenting a compelling argument that isn’t filled with pure dislike for a substrate point of view. I do agree with Hume when he says that we have not “clear and intelligible” concept of self. It is true, when I try to describe what makes Langston well Langston, it’s really hard to do so without using perceptions. On the other hand, I firmly believe that one can’t be perceive without having a perceiver. It’s that simple you cannot read without a reader, listen without a listener,
Hume attempts to prove that human understanding comes not from reasoning but from experience. He begins by stating the role of the sense. He continues by providing arguments for experience and thereafter stating the different types of reasoning. He concludes by stating that experience is the answer behind the concept of human understanding because it relies on custom, a very common human principle.
“The great variety of Taste, as well as of opinion, which prevails in the world, is too obvious not to have fallen under every one’s observation”(text pg 255), Hume states in his opening. He then points out, “Every voice is united in applauding,”(text pg 255) all kinds of values like “elegance” and “simplicity” that are supposedly seen in an object. Hume conveys the idea that every person has their own unique tastes in art, and they all seem to agree on the aesthetic value of an object. He then brings in the critic who analyzes the pieces of the object and proposes that all previous judgments were not accurate. Hume says, “But when the critic comes to particulars, this seeming unanimity vanishes”(text pg 255).
The Scottish philosopher, David Hume, was a pure empiricist; he believed that all thought and understanding could only be made or created by being exposed to an experience prior to the idea and that everything we know, understand, learn or imagine can only be done by using our senses. We can only have an idea of something based on an impression that we have observed at some time in the past. As Hume said, the “most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation.” With this, Hume suggests that we can grasp something but unless we have or are experiencing it, we will never completely understand it as well. For example, I have grown up in a mixed cultural heritage, my family is from Pakistan but I was born and raised in America.