Essay on Critique of Hume's Analysis of Causality

Hume begins his empiricist enquiry by the division of knowledge into two categories: relations of ideas and matters of fact. This differentiation became commonly known as ‘Hume’s Fork’ as he compares the critical differences between the two concepts. He distinguishes that relations of ideas are coherently logical truths, like mathematics for example. They are universal, analytic, a priori ideas which are known through thought alone and cannot be conceived as being false. Hume expresses that this type of knowledge does not tell us anything new or profound about the world because we are simply relating ideas, like the ideas of numbers. Numbers are abstract and so solely exist as thought. Hume points to Euclid, a Greek mathematician to express that even if there were no shapes within nature, his hypothesis would still be undeniable as it could still be comprehended through thought alone.

In the very last paragraph of An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume states, “When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” (1) In other words, what Hume is expressing to us is that unless we can provide empirical evidence to validate our arguments, we are not actually making a statement of substance, and thus should disregard that idea. It is a waste of time to explore outside the limits of reason – relations of ideas and matters of fact, because those questions

While Hume would disagree with Descartes’ proof for God’s existence as well as what influence God has on our thoughts, they would both agree that our knowledge and imagination do not come from within ourselves. Furthermore, both provide skeptical analyses of our experiences as humans that question reality, such as when Descartes’ recognizes the uncertainty of the existence of anything beyond his own mind, or when Hume questions whether we can conceive of anything we have yet to experience externally. Therefore, while the philosophers have marked differences, they share a fundamentally skeptical inquiry of the

The metaphysical topics claim the mind is distinct from the matter. Therefore, thought is a spiritual substance that exists beyond the human body and is immortal. However, Hume does not reinforce this idea in his essay, instead he objects to it. Hume argues that “nothing can be decided a priori concerning any cause or effect; and that experience being the only source of our judgments of this nature, we cannot know from any other principle, whether matter, by its structure or arrangement, may not be the cause of thought.” In other words it is impossible to state that thoughts belong to an immaterial or material substance for that matter.

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion entails a discussion between Cleanthes, Demea, and Philo on the existence and nature of God. Each individual possessed different beliefs on the topic of God’s nature; for most of the writing Demea and Philo argue against Cleanthes’ beliefs although their own beliefs do no match each other’s.

The silhouette of a subject was drawn by a council of moments and David Hume named it an illusion, humanity named it the self. In the modern ages of philosophy while Rene Descartes’ affect still remains eminent, David Hume comes with an argument which kills the I Descartes created and lets it fly as a ghost in human perception. Not only in the case of the subject, the contrast between Hume’s and Descartes’ ideas can be seen in their search for a priori as well.

In sections 5-6 of Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,” he concludes that nature (i.e. the things that happen around us) will always win a battle with philosophy. He argues that we reason not because of cause and effect, but because of custom or habit. David Hume explains that if a person who has no prior knowledge of cause and effect is brought into this world, that he/she will be able to see that one event follows another. If a person is able to find this information without the knowledge of cause and effect, then cause and effect cannot be how we reason.

In Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he claims that knowledge comes from sensory experiences. He calls these experiences impressions. He then describes ideas as the mind’s reflections on the

	What led Hume to deny the existence of a continuous self that in some way retains its identity through time was his thorough denial of the existence of any form of substance. While Locke retained the idea of substance as something, which has color or shape, and other qualities and Berkeley denied the existence of substance underlying qualities but retained the idea of spiritual substances. Hume denied that substance in any form exists or has any coherent meaning. If what is meant, by the self, is some form of substance then no suck substance can be derived from our impressions of sensation.

Hume differentiates between matters of fact and the relations of ideas. Relations of ideas are directly influenced by what we have named and what the names are associated with; it is entirely subject to the way in which our brains relay information, the patterns that we find acceptable, and what is meaningful in our communication methods. When we examine the relations of our ideas, they can be false relations (32, Ladyman) and are defined by the concept that a “negation of the proposition is not a contradiction”. (34, Ladyman)

David Hume argues that the concept of space can be explained only with relative to human sense of sight and touch. He says that these sensations are part of the impressions we draw from the overall perceptions we have in our minds. Since these impressions are formed from what we sense, space cannot be determined or defined independently of these sensations. He also states that space is really an interpretation of what we sense so it is not a primary quality that is unaided by any personal perceptions or precisely impressions. The notion of time is a secondary quality, which essentially means that time, can only be explained in terms of something else (primary quality) and cannot be expressed independent of all external cases and possibilities. This paper aims to analyze why David Hume explains time and space as a dependent notion and claims them to be secondary in being. Towards the second half of the paper, it aims to discuss how Kant would respond to Hume’s given definition of space

Hume’s claim that the only semblance of causation we’re able to discover is that one idea or thing follows from another, fails to recognize that we discover necessary causation through simple experiences almost daily. While it may be the case that we truly cannot see the connection between why we can move our limbs, but cannot alter the state of some organs or control their actions through experience alone, we can discover the causal relationship between other things. Hume argues that “while the impulse of one billiard ball is attended with motion in the second[,] this is the whole that appears to the outward senses” (Hume 558). His claim is that “the mind feels no sentiment or inward impression from this succession of objects” and that as a result, there is nothing derived from the experience that suggests “the idea of power or necessary connection” (Hume 558). However, that which we perceive with our outward senses does allow us to derive a necessary connection between ideas or things. We are able to observe that the necessary connection allowing the billiard ball to move is that another object interferes and causes its motion. We know this through experience because we consistently perceive another object interfering and causing the effect of the ball’s motion. In this sense, we can perceive many necessary connections, as the same is true with cutting

We find within many philosophy texts differing perspectives on Ideas. However, perhaps the most differing of positions lies within the writings of Descartes and Hume. We can make the hypothesis that one writer has the view of an origin of influence inward out and the other sees the origin as outward in. We know that both Descartes and Hume approach the origin of ideas with unique and individualistic perspectives.The writers complement as well as converse with each other within their respective texts and with the examples they give to support their reasonings.

Hume considered a career in law but found his real calling in philosophy and general learning and as a result, he never graduated.At the age of 18, Hume made a philosophical discovery that opened ‘a new scene of thought’ for him. Such was the thought over him that he gave up everything, to pursue it. Though no one actually knows what the new scene of thought was, many have interpreted their own variations.Inspired by the new thought, Hume spent more than 10 years reading and writing on the subject. He reached a stage wherein he was on the verge of mental breakdown. Just as when he decided to come out of his shell and have an active social, Hume was then afflicted with a ravenous appetite and palpitations of the heart. It took him some time to become sturdy and robust. Hume then decided to go to Bristol wherein he apprenticed as an assistant to a rich merchant his apprenticeship did not last long as he soon retired to La Fleche in Anjou, France. After about four years in France, Hume came up with his first work, ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, subtitled ‘Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects’ in

David Hume tries to explain that our awareness of causation is a product of experience. He focuses on the notion that knowledge comes from experience. He attempts to explain the original impressions involved in causation. He begins by distinguishing impressions and ideas. According to Hume, impressions are invoked in our senses, emotions and anything else that is of mental phenomena. Ideas are the memories or random thoughts that our minds connect to our impressions. There are three ways, according to Hume, that our minds come up with ideas. These include resemblance, contiguity and cause and effect.