More handpicked essays just for you.
Epistemological comparison between kant and hume
Hume vs Kant self
Epistemological comparison between kant and hume
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Metaphysics as Addressed by Kant and Hume In the Prolegomena, Kant states that reading David Hume, "awakened him from his dogmatic slumber." It was Hume's An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding that made Kant aware of issues and prejudices in his life that he had previously been unaware of. This further prompted Kant to respond to Hume with his own analysis on the theory of metaphysics. Kant did not feel that Hume dealt with these matters adequately and resolved to pick up where Hume had left off, specifically addressing the question of whether metaphysics as a science is possible. Hume basically asserted in his writings that metaphysics, as a science, is not possible. He specifically drew on the theory of "causality", which is the attempt by people to rationalize situations. These rationalizations deal with the experience of cause and effect. People tend to attribute patterns to things according to their cause and effect. For example, gravity causes the anything that goes up to come down- we have become so used to this principle that we have made a very definitive statement on the subject. Hume however, attacks this principle by claiming that we have not experienced every instance of this matter. It is not that it must come down, but that it happens to come down. He believed that any "all" or "must" statement is not reinforced through reason but through repetition. Because Hume feels this way, he then concludes that metaphysics is not possible. Hume's writing posed an interesting starting off point for Kant's theories. As said before, Kant attributes Hume's writing with waking him from his "dogmatic slumber." He recognizes both Hume's intelligence and the validity of his statements. However, he does n... ... middle of paper ... ...th much like Hume stood by skepticism. He relies blindly on faith to explain a large part of what he is trying to discredit Hume for. It is almost as if he is not making a definitive statement on the existence of metaphysics. Rather, he is caught in the middle, claiming that it may be true in one instance, but not in another. Kant directly deals with the problems presented in Hume's analysis of metaphysics. Where Hume stops his line of thinking and becomes skeptical as to the existence of metaphysics as a science, Kant picks up. He proceeds to analyze both the validity of metaphysics as a science and a force in our lives. Turning to the methods of other credible men in the scientific field- such as Copernicus- Kant develops a whole new approach to looking at the world. However, like Hume, Kant encounters an obstacle and does not find a solution for it.
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...
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.”
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
His claim is that the mind is merely a bundle of perceptions that derive ultimately from sensory inputs or impressions. He follows on to say that ideas are reflections of these perceptions, or to be more precise, perceptions of perceptions, therefore can still be traced back to an original sensory input. Hume applied this logic to the perception of a ‘self’, to which he could not trace back to any sensory input, the result was paradoxical, thus he concluded that “there is no simplicity in (the mind) at one time, nor identity in different; whatever natural propension we might have to imagine that simplicity and
Kant deals with the issue of metaphysics in his two prefaces of Critique Of Pure Reason. In the first preface, metaphysics is described as ‘the queen of all the sciences’ (Kant 1). This imagery is highly influenced by the time that Kant lived since many European countries had monarchical governments. Just like how a queen is the most influential figure in a monarchical country, metaphysics, in Kant’s time assumes this elevated role in philosophical inquiries and other fields have subordinate ones. Hence, the image of queen undoubtedly implies that metaphysics has a major role to play and other fields of study have subordinate roles. However, the empire of the ‘queen’ fell because of its firm grip on dogmatism, anarchy and scepticism which reigned from within.
Because ideas cannot be experienced directly, they do not have causes and are positioned in the a-temporal or metaphysical dimension. As such, no one can properly know that ideas such as God, freedom, or immortality exist; they cannot be subject to understanding. Thus in the end, Kant’s critique of metaphysics does in fact rehabilitate a supersensible reality. Only now, universals exist within the interior of the human mind rather than in external, objective reality. These ideas are not simply flights of fancy or chimeras. Although we cannot experience them, they nevertheless follow logical rules of thought, and we can reasonably act as if they exist. For Kant, acting as if freedom were possible is not delusional. In fact, it makes us act morally to conceptualize and act upon the ideas of God or freedom. Kant’s humanistic side is most clearly articulated in his theory of freedom. For Kant, humans are not simply the aggregate of natural forces. Humans are distinctly unique because we freely give to ourselves an imperative to follow. To be moral is to act in accordance with a universal law. In Kant’s writings there are essentially two versions of this categorical imperative: act according to a maxim which can be a universal principle and act in
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
The transcending, or going beyond, empiricism, and ascertaining the fundamental principles of human knowledge. Kant (1724-1804) was born and educated in East Prussia. He founded critical philosophy and Transcendental Logic. “Kant made significant revisions to just about every branch of philosophy.” (www.philosophy.ucdavis.edu). In the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) Kant showed the great problems of metaphysics: the existence of God, freedom, and immortality and how they are insoluble by scientific thought. Kant’s writings had a major influence on Emerson and Thoreau during the time of Transcendentalism and “still have an influence on modern philosophy to the present day.” (www.ilt.columbia.edu).
... and faith are not based solely on empirical evidence and absolute proof. It is the will to believe, the desire to see miracles that allows the faithful, to believe in the existence of miracles, not on any kind of sufficient evidence but on the belief that miracles can happen. Rather than Hume’s premise that a wise man proportions his belief in response to the eviddence, maybe a wise man would be better off, tempering his need for empirical evidence against his faith and his will to belief.
That is a good question and there are probably a lot of answers to this question but coming u...
Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Critique of Pure Reason is held universally as a watershed regarding epistemology and metaphysics. There have been anticipations regarding the notion of the analytic especially in Hume. The specific terms analytic and synthetic were first introduced by Kant at the beginning of his Critique of Pure Reason book. The mistake that metaphysicians made was viewing mathematical judgments as being “analytic”. Kant came up with a description for analytic judgments as one that is merely elucidatory, that is, what is implicit is transformed into explicit. Kant’s examples utilize the judgments of subjects or rather predicates, for instance the square has four sides. The predicates content is always already accounted for in
Kant. I, (2001). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Immanuel Kant’s Metaphysics (1724 – 1804): Duty Retrieved October 12, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/k/kantmeta.htm#Empiricism
To understand Kant’s account on causality, it is important to first understand that this account came into being as a response to Hume’s skepticism, and therefore important to also understand Hume’s account. While Hume thinks that causation comes from repeated experiences of events happening together or following one another, Kant believes that causation is just a function of our minds’ organization of experiences rather than from the actual experiences themselves.
I tend to agree with Kant, I don’t know that we can answer the questions we have on metaphysics. It is a matter of ones own opinion, thoughts, and interpretation.
Hume held the belief that all the contents of the human mind were derived through experience only. He divided the mind’s perceptions into two groups, impressions and ideas. He declared that “the difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness with which they strike upon the mind” (Hume, pg. 10). Impressions are those perceptions which are the most strong, “which enter with most force and violence” (Hume, pg. 10), while ideas are their “less forcible and lively” counterpart. Impressions are directly experienced, they result from inward and outward sentiments. Ideas, conversely, are copying mechanisms which reproduce sense data. They are formulated based upon the previously perceived impressions “By ideas, I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning” (Hume, pg. 10).