What Came First: The Chicken or the Egg? David Hume moves through a logical progression of the ideas behind cause and effect. He critically analyzes the reasons behind those generally accepted ideas. Though the relation of cause and effect seems to be completely logical and based on common sense, he discusses our impressions and ideas and why they are believed. Hume’s progression, starting with his initial definition of cause, to his final conclusion in his doctrine on causality. As a result, it proves how Hume’s argument on causality follows the same path as his epistemology, with the two ideas complimenting each other so that it is rationally impossible to accept the epistemology and not accept his argument on causality. Hume starts by explaining definitions of causes and characteristics that make up the popular definition of cause. Contiguity is the idea that things go together, or are results of each other. Whatever objects operate together as causes and effects are seen as contiguous. There are chains of causes that lead to every effect, whether or not they can be discovered they are presumed to exist. As Hume puts it, “Heat and light are collateral effects of fire, and the one effect may justly be inferred from the other” (160). Along with contiguity is the concept of succession. The cause must precede the effect. An object can be contiguous and occur prior to another without being its cause, a necessary connection between the two must be established. The relation of cause to effect does not depend on the known qualities of objects, but instead on the ideas of contiguity and succession, which are imperfect. Hume refutes the definition of cause as something productive of another, because cause and production are synonymous, and therefore one definition using the other is circular. Hume questions why it is necessary that everything whose existence has a beginning, should also have a cause. He also questions why particular causes must have such particular effects, and why is an inference drawn from one to the other. The statement that whatever has a beginning has also a cause of existence is not implied by any of the relations of resemblance, proportions in quantity and number, degrees of any quality, or contrariety; therefore, it is not able to be refutable using reason. Using that logic states that everything that exists must have a beginning, thus ne...
... middle of paper ...
...ause and effect. Impressions are based on experience, and the impression that formed the idea of a necessary relation between cause and effect was no different. The only reason for the idea of cause and effect being related was a previous experience, or custom that tied cause and effect together. Hume’s doctrine on causality is firmly founded in the concepts from his epistemology. His theories on the relation between impressions and ideas tie in directly with his idea of a necessary connection between cause and effect. We have internal impressions that form the ideas of necessity, and those ideas are based on repetition and resemblance, but do not prove the claim that there is a necessary connection between cause and effect. Ideas are not original, they are formed from impressions and influenced by resemblance, and experience. Cause is not an original idea, it is formed from impressions, which are in turn formed from experience. Therefore, we accept the idea of cause not because it is rational or well reasoned, but because of custom. Hume’s position is consistent, and ultimately if you accept his epistemology, you must accept the reasoning behind his ideas on cause and effect.
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.”
A notable image that readers of the twentieth-century literature easily recognize is a bell jar. A bell jar is an unbreakable, stiff glass container that confines objects within its inescapable walls. It metaphorically represents the suffocating and an airless enclosure of conformism prevalent during the 1950’s American society. More specifically, American societal standards approve men to have the dominant role as they are encouraged to attend college in order to pursue professional careers. They are given the responsibility of financially supporting their families. In contrast, a women’s life in the 1950’s is centralized around family life and domestic duties only. They are encouraged to remain at home, raise children and care for their husbands. Women are perceived as highly dependent on their husbands and their ability to receive education is regarded as a low priority. Thus, the social conventions and expectations of women during the 1950’s displayed in The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath correlate to Esther Greenwood’s downward spiral of her mental state. Throughout the course of her journey, Esther becomes increasingly depressed because of her inability to conform to the gender roles of the women, which mainly revolved around marriage, maternity and domesticity.
In the Second Analogy, Kant argues that we must presuppose, a priori, that each event is determined to occur by some preceding event in accordance with a causal law. Although there have been numerous interpretations of this argument, we have not been able to show that it is valid. In this paper, I develop my own interpretation of this argument. I borrow an insight offered by Robert Paul Wolff. In Kant's argument, our need to presuppose that the causal determination of each event rests not upon our need to impose a 'necessary' and 'irreversible' temporal order upon representations of the states of an object, as Kant is usually interpreted, but upon our need to generate a comprehensive representation that includes a certain a priori conception of events in the world around us. Although the argument I attribute to Kant is valid, it cannot compel the Humean skeptic to accept the necessity of presupposing the causal determination of each event: Kant has not successfully responded to Hume in the Second Analogy.
Lewicki et, al. 2011, identifies ten best practices for improving negotiation skills. The best practices include practical, action oriented solutions such as preparation, identifying negotiation structure, recognizing the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) and learning negotiation paradoxes. They are also comprised of less tangible practices including being aware of intangibles and willing to walk away, as well as actively managing alliances, recognizing that fair and rationality are relative, the criticality of reputation and finally, continuing to learn (Lewicki et, al.
The Bell Jar was an exceptional novel that can be used to view the ideas of gender roles. Ester, who despised marriage and focused on education, went through multiple events that pushed her to subvert and conform to society’s expectations. Women’s literature—such as this work—of the nineteenth century provided confirmation of society’s emphasis on “The Cult of Womanhood and Domesticity”. Plath’s life mirrors Ester’s and ultimately brought awareness to the oppression of women.
Cause and effect is a tool used to link happenings together and create some sort of explanation. Hume lists the “three principles of connexion among ideas” to show the different ways ideas can be associated with one another (14). The principles are resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. The focus of much of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding falls upon the third listed principle. In Section I, Hume emphasizes the need to uncover the truths about the human mind, even though the process may be strenuous and fatiguing. While the principle of cause and effect is something utilized so often, Hume claims that what we conclude through this process cannot be attributed to reason or understanding and instead must be attributed to custom of habit.
Keep in mind that negotiations are not really about who wins but more of producing an outcome that both parties have a satisfied outcome. Another point to keep in mind is do you see yourself with having to negotiating in the future with the other party, if so then this is even more of a reason to try and work out a win-win situation instead of trying to get the bigger piece of the
Most of the common activities in our daily life present an opportunity to negotiate, whether or not we realise it. Meta-reflecting upon my negotiation experiences during the class and other activities have led me to identify few common themes. In this assignment, the two themes I will be discussing are (1) the importance of being clear on the strategic intent and big picture thinking, and (2) the importance of managing the negotiation process through understanding the various phases and visualising negotiation as a train journey.
In science, Hume recognized a problem with scientific causality. He saw science as being based on inductive reasoning, which results in generalized rules or principles.
Integrative negotiation is often referred to as ‘win-win’ and typically entails two or more issues to be negotiated. It often involves an agreement process that better integrates the aims and goals of all the involved negotiating parties through creative and collaborative problem solving. Relationship is usually more important, with more complex issues being negotiated than with Distributive Negotiation. Integrative negotiation is the process of defining these goals and engaging in a process that permits both parties to maximize their objectives.
Hume states that in nature we observe correlated events that are both regular and irregular. For instance, we assume that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has continued to do so time and time again and we assume that thunder will be accompanied by lightning for the same reason. We never observe the causation between a new day and the sun rising or between thunder and lightning, however. We are simply observing two events that correlate in a regular manner. Hume’s skepticism therefore comes from the belief that since we do not observe causal links, we can never truly be sure about what causes anything else. He then goes so far as to say that if this is the case, it must be a fact that nothing causes anything else. In Hume’s theory, there is not only no objective causation, but no objective principle of cause and effect on the whole.
Self-determination theory is one that assumes all humans are born with an innate drive to better oneself, basically becoming self-actualized, which is referred to as full-functioning. In self-determination theory, or SDT, full-functioning is characterized as “being aware and mindful, acting autonomously…, and pursuing and attaining intrinsic life goals” (Deci, Ryan, and, Guay 2013). SDT describes three autonomous behaviors: intrinsically motivated, extrinsically motivated, and emotionally motivated. SDT also describes three psychological basic needs of every human: the needs for competency, autonomy, and relatedness. The need for competency causes people to try tasks slightly tougher than they can currently manage, in order to improve upon
...w to apply these tactics into practice. Understanding the meaning of each tactics is just the first stage, flexibility in the use of appropriate tactics in future issues is more important. Besides, I need to make a detailed plan before the negotiation. Firstly, analyzing the interests, perspectives and weak points of the opposite side and selecting suitable tactics. Secondly, preparing several response strategies will help me to control the situations. Thirdly, setting the minimum level what I can agree on the issue is also essential part of negotiation.
During this course, I have learned a lot about negotiating. We learned about almost every negotiating technique there is. We learned about cross-cultural negotiations, body language, Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), variables in negotiating, and many more. Before this course, I did not know that much about negotiating. I thought that negotiating was just about trading or convincing someone to give you what you want and you did not care about the other side, resulting in a win-lose. I now know that negotiating is about getting what you want, but also giving the other side what they want as well to result in a win-win. This paper is about how I am going to improve my negotiating skills over the next six months. In order for me to improve my negotiating skills, I believe I need to improve the following skills- my body language, communication, planning, and my interpersonal communications. By improving those skills, I can become an effective negotiator.
Hume is the creator of two different perceptions that reside in the human mind, ideas and impressions. Impressions are more simply put as the root of all ideas, according to Hume. “… all our more lively perceptions, when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will.”(Cahn) We create our own ideas off of impressions that Hume says are, “…less forcible and lively…” (Cahn) Ideas must come after an impression because “what never was seen or heard of may yet be conceived.” (Cahn) So, Hume’s claim is that not all of our ideas are like impressions, but, that every idea depends on an impression. We can have an idea if and only if we first had the impression that the idea is perceived from. Not all ideas and impressions come to our minds directly from the senses, but are composed of much smaller particles in the mind that are like copies of what has come through sensory experience.