Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
A good example as to why causation isn't always connected is found on page 420. Hume asserts that only when two objects are "constantly conjoined" can observers "infer the one from the other." But rarely are two effects and two causes connected, Hume continues. If a cause and effect have "resemblance" to another cause and effect, they can be conjoined, but that is rare indeed.
Put into simpler words, Hume doubts that even with a repetition of conjunctions it would be safe to believe a "connection" between the cause and effect would be established. Indeed, after a person experiences sees instances repeated repetitiously, the mind is convinced through the person's habits and reflections that upon the introduction of one event, another event is expected to happen, and humans believe this will happen. His own explanation is that a cause is an "…object followed by another, and whose appearance always conveys the thought to that other"; but, as earlier noted, this situation does not necessarily imply a connection.
Hume's metaphysics of perception (impressions, ideas, simple and complex ones).
Perceptions, Hume believes, are independent:
"Now as every perception is distinguishable from another, and may be considered as separately existent; It evidently follows, that there is no absurdity in separating
any particular perception from the mind…that is, in breaking off all its relations with that connected mass of perceptions which constitute a thinking being"
(Treatise, 207).
What he is getting at here regarding perception (on page 207 of his Treatise) is that the mind is "…nothing but a heap...
On page 202 of his Treatise, he distinguishes between perceptions that are dependent on the mind, and the objects that created the perception which are not dependent on the mind's ability to perceive:
"In order, therefore, to accommodate myself to their notions, I shall at first suppose; that there is only a single existence, which I shall call indifferently object or perception, according as it shall seem best to suit my purpose, understanding by both of them what any common man means by a hat, or shoe, or stone, or any other impression, covey'd to him by his senses.
I shall be sure to give warning when I return to a more philosophical way of speaking and thinking" (Hume, Treatise, 202).
What is germane to his argument here is that the hat, shoe, and stone always exist whether the person perceives them or not. So that in a way flies in the face of his theory that perceptions are free floating out there, tethered to nothing. Scholars argue that perceptions do in fact actually need substance -- otherwise there cannot be perceptions (i.e., perceiving something out of whole cloth is simply fantasizing, not perceiving; that is what scholars argue in rebutting Hume's viewpoint on perceptions).
But notwithstanding the contrarian viewpoints vis-a-vis Hume's approach to perceptions, he believes perceptions "…may exist separately, and have no need of anything else to support their existence" (Treatise, 233). Basically the philosopher's point is this: if humans' perceptions are different,
Hume and the Lack of a Causal Link Between Our Known Experiences and the Existence of a Supreme Being The "here and now": That is what concerns David Hume. There is simply no value in discussing such amorphous intangibles as one can infer from "the course of nature." More precisely, humans -- of them, philosophers -- cannot and should not be enticed to "regulate" their "conduct" by parameters such as the
Once the reader gets past the language and time issues that have passed since Hume's lifetime, the ideas he presents become clear and make a great deal of sense. Hume uses several main arguments and conclusions in his writing. The first two are the most important, as they seem to set the groundwork for the others. The first is that everyone has impression and ideas about things but that these
James believed that belief in God could be contemplated in terms of "live and dead hypotheses" (James 2010). He argues that when one is trying to find an argument for God existing or God not existing, we must consider three things: 1) Living or dead 2) Forced or unavoidable; and, 3) Momentous or trivial. He says, "and for our purposes we may call an option a genuine option when it
All the people know what the brain is, what it looks like and where it is located. This does not however constitute the basis for the idea of min, yet the concept exists and is powerful enough to give birth to endless debate. Kant on the other hand underlines the fact that the properties which the mind has and which allow it to create meaning depend exclusively on the physical
Epistemology Immanuel Kant's explanation on how we gain knowledge is preferable to that of David Hume. The mind can be compared with the computer in illustrating how the mind gathers and processes information or sense-data from generalizations, which in turn derive from a categorical imperative. A person need not experience something before he can apprehend or learn it. Exposition. David Hume believes that all ideas are derived and become knowable only from
Reality and Knowledge Epistemology (the study of knowledge) has occupied philosophers and laypeople alike for as long as human beings have had a conception of reality and knowledge. Many philosophers, beginning with Plato, have argued that reality and knowledge are essentially abstract concepts. Aristotle argued, in contrast that knowledge and reality must be based on the senses and inductive reasoning, while Hume argued that our understanding of reality and causation is