Analysis Of David Hume's Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

In the world, there are two categories of what people think about. One of them is relations of ideas. This is the type exemplified by geometry and algebra since facts within these subjects are found through reason of thought. However, the other type, matters of fact, could be discoverable through evidence and empirical thinking. One of David Hume’s greatest contributions to philosophy is his skepticism in challenging what people think by proposing that even “fundamental truths” could be subjective and caused by our limitations as humans. In his Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he claims that all matters of fact are developed through people’s experience in life (Hume, David. Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding in Readings in Modern Philosophy, edited by Roger Ariew and Eric Watkins, 336-349. Indianapolis: 11-1, 2000.) In this paper, I will argue that David Hume’s argument for the reduction of matters of fact into experience is faulty since his framework contradicts with itself. In the first section, I will construct Hume’s reasoning for empiricism. To do this, I summarize his argument that what people believe in all come from their

For instance, even though spiders are harmless unless provoked, people do fear them, even if they rarely interact with the bugs. Another thing to consider is that other animals also behave similarly. For instance, snakes also have the potential to produce poisonous bites, but the fear of snakes does not parallel arachnophobia. In other words, the intense fear of spiders is irrational. Because it is irrational, there is no reasoning that one may trace to basic experiences. However, one may argue that society conditions people to fear certain animals, but the shaping of societal norms has to start somewhere. It is not through experience since other, similarly dangerous animals do not face the same treatment that spiders do. Thus, the fear of spiders is