Hume asked, "what reason do we have in thinking the future will resemble the past?" It is reasonable to think that it will because there is no contradiction in supposing the future won't resemble the past. But it is also true that is possible for the world to change dramatically and our previous experience would be completely useless in judging future experience. We want to say that past experiences have been a good predictor. We are compelled to do so and it is almost as if we can't help ourselves. But we are merely stating that in the past, it has been a good predictor. Hume says we are begging the question. We are still in the past if we say that past pasts were reliable predictors of past futures.
So we see that the past really only tells us about the past. Our real problem is does anything about the past tell us anything about the future? Hume believes that in nature, it does. He says that nature itself is uniform and constant in causing a particular effect and “no instance has ever yet been found of any failure or irregularity in the operation.” But when it does fail, it is some secret cause in the particular parts. Since we are accustomed to transferring the past into the future, we feel compelled to make these secrets understandable in order to reconcile nature and mind.
Hume told us we have no reason to expect the past to resemble he future because of these secret causes. We are preprogrammed psychologically to use induction to function in the world. But we are really not much different than a blind man who has learned to successfully work his way around his home. It is not likely for us to stop using induction because it works in general. But we really have no real rational reason for relying on induction, even though it is psychologically natural. The blind man set out in the world is no longer able to function. He has no a priori connection in mind from two objects.
Hume asks us then to think about instead of looking at just any pair of objects (cause and effect) that we look at pairs in which one member is a mental event such as willing our feet to move in order to get ‘over there’. We are simply considering outward events and expecting them to yield the same results as we have for induction to explain a “secr...
... middle of paper ...
...ressions.
Hume asks us to then take this formula and try to contradict it. We cannot successfully come up with an idea that is not derived from either a corresponding impression or an idea that is not composed of simpler ideas which themselves are derived from corresponding impressions. Hume will himself take on this challenge. In his scenario of the “missing shade of blue” Hume believes that one could in fact have an impression of a particular shade he has never seen by seeing other shades and having understanding of the color spectrum and gain an idea of the missing shade without the corresponding idea. Hume states that the person’s imagination is enough to provide the idea of the missing shade. He almost seems to have challenged the truth of his principle, yet this in and of itself is not an accurate counter example. It is defensible that the idea of the color spectrum is enough to generate mathematical ideas and other such collective ideas that do in fact correspond to an impression that yields the shade. It is almost as if Hume’s principle leaves open for infinite regression making it virtually impossible to not find a derivative for the idea.
Later Hume asserts that we cannot perceive causation because all we perceive is the “contiguity” and “succession” of events, but not of causation itself. For example, of two events, event A (person A pushing person B) and event B (person B’s falling back), Hume argues that all we are perceiving here are causes and effects; in other words, we here are perceiving the “contiguity” and “succession” of events, but not of causation itself. This is due to Hume’s idea that events are conjoined with one another. Hume argues that when event A occurs, event B happens simultaneously along with event A. For example, the event in which person A pushes person B, and the event where person B fal...
In this essay, I will argue that Hume’s response to the “missing shade of blue” example is satisfactory. Firstly, I shall explain Hume’s account of the relationship between impressions and ideas and the copy principle. I shall then examine the “missing shade of blue” and its relation to this account. I shall then explore Hume’s response to his own counter-example and evaluate his position by considering possible objections and responses to his view. I shall then show why Hume’s response to the “missing shade of blue” example is satisfactory.
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
I will also be defending his work from select arguments against his theory. Because causation and both conditions for human freedom exist, Hume is able to argue that everything is determined and Free Will is possible. Hume presents his argument in three phases; the first proves the Principle of Determinism, he then goes on to prove Human Freedom also exists, coming to the conclusion the two are compatible. The foundation of his argument begins by defining causation, which is essential in proving the Principle of Determinism. While he does not officially define causation until Section Seven, “The Idea of Necessary Connection,” Hume explains the importance of causation by analyzing it in Section Four, “Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding.”
David Hume is was a strong advocator and practitioner of a scientific and empirical way of thinking which is reflected in his philosophy. His skeptical philosophy was a 180 degree shift from the popular rational philosophy of the time period. Hume attempted to understand “human nature” through our psychological behaviors and patterns which, when analyzing Hume’s work, one can clearly see its relation to modern day psychology. Hume was a believer in that human behavior was influenced not by reason but by desire. He believed that “Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit—these passions, mixed in various proportions and distributed throughout society, are now (and from the beginning of the world always have been) the source of all the actions and projects that have ever...
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.
Overall, memories does not provide certainty because what we see or remember may not be reality. Also, the way we remember something can be changed throughout time and that memory will eventually fade away. Although certainty is blessing because it provides us warmth, comfort and secure, it is more of a great danger because it gives out false information and tricks our mind into believing something that is not real or true. Therefore, I am fully convinced by Gould’s essay because I completely doubt what people observe or remember since memories does not provide certainty.
Before Hume can begin to explain what morality is, he lays down a foundation of logic to build on by clarifying what he thinks the mind is. Hume states that the facts the mind sees are just the perceptions we have of things around us, such as color, sound, and heat (Hume, 215). These perceptions can be divided into the two categories of ideas and impressions (215). Both of these categories rely on reason to identify and explain what is observed and inferred. However, neither one of these sufficiently explains morality, for to Hume, morals “. . .excite passions, and produce or prevent actions” (216)....
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.
The closest we get to cause and effect are two distinct phenomena arising together often and the mind thinking one produces the other. Hume regards this as a constant conjunction, not cause and effect. Although this is a leap in reasoning, and we have no reason to believe this to be true, Hume regards this as custom, which is the great guide of life (28). Life would be chaos if we believed in things completely contrary to the regularity of our experience, but the formation of habit is where we can lead ourselves to erroneous judgments. Although Hume's skepticism appears to clear up the mind, it leads him to believe that there is no such thing as causation, which Spinoza disagrees with. Rather, Spinoza argues that nature is all a long chain of causation which gives all causes effects and all effects causes. This system recognizes nature as a mechanism. All causes are a result of nature and the conditions imposed by it. Judging cause and effect individually is missing the point. To say that a billiard ball causes the other one to move only focuses two select phenomena. Rather, God, or nature, is that which connects all phenomena. Thus, the chain of causation cannot be understood of by two simple "links, it must be assessed as a whole. Spinoza argues that there are no free causes, only necessary ones. Thus, all causes are free causes and are a result of nature. This great chain of
“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).
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.
In conclusion, I believe that Hume thinks that reason, while not completely useless, is not the driving force of moral motivation. Reasons are a means to sentiments, which in turn are a means to morality, but without reasons there can be still sentiments. There can still be beauty. Reasons can not lie as the foundation of morality because they can only be true or false. It can not be because of truth or falsity that I find a particular song to be joyful. I find that song to be joyful because of the sentiments it stirs inside my mind. Reasons can not be a foundation because they do not explain human emotions or sentiments, only statements. And truth statements, no matter what their intentions or interpretations, can not exist in morality because of the aforementioned considerations.
Hume uses senses, like Descartes, to find the truth in life. By using the senses he states that all contents of the mind come from experience. This leads to the mind having an unbound potential since all the contents are lead by experiences. The mind is made up two parts impressions and ideas. Impressions are the immediate data of the experience. For example, when someone drops a book on the desk and you hear a loud sound. The sight of the book dropping and hitting the desk is registered by an individual’s senses- sight, sound, feeling. Hume believes there are two types of impressions, original and secondary impressions. Original impressions are based on the senses,
David Hume, following this line of thinking, begins by distinguishing the contents of human experience (which is ultimately reducible to perceptions) into: a) impressions and b) ideas.