Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
David hume personal reflection
David humes essay
David humes essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Hume starts to have skeptical doubts about the operations of understanding. He says there are two types of human understanding (only one of them concerns his inquiry into what we know to be true or certain). Hume says that all of the faculties of human reasoning are divided into two kinds; relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of Ideas are knowledge that is found of the sciences or mathematics. They are required without experience and can be proved without experience, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem. Or that three times five equals to fifteen. Negations of relations of ideas imply a contradiction for example three times five equals twenty. However, Hume is not concerned with relations of ideas because relations of Ideas cannot be anything but true. Matters of Fact (Ironically we call them facts, when they are, in fact not) I contrast with relations of ideas, can always in our minds be refuted and contradicted. For example, the sun will not rise tomorrow is no more of a contradiction than saying the son will rise tomorrow. Matters of fact rely on experience. All reasoning dealing with matters of fact are made out of the relation of cause and effect on sense impression.
The knowledge of that cause and effect is not a priori, it comes from the senses. If we see some new object, we will be able to know any of it cause and effects. When we came into contact with this new object we are not able to know automatically what caused it or what it might cause. This is true for billiard balls. We think that we can predict simply from witnessing one billiard ball hitting another would happen after, but we cannot infer this a priori, without experience. The only reason we think could or would know what happens is because we ha...
... middle of paper ...
... we get when experiencing said constant conjunction. This “feeling” confirms our belief that this thing exist or is caused by what we believe it is caused by. For example God, people believe in god because of a feeling the get when presented with a benevolence. In Christianity this is called the “holy spirit”. This habit of making connections between events and their assumed causes have helped us survive. When we see someone get punched in the face and then the same action is presented before us, we don’t just stay there and get punched in the face, we make the assumption that we’re about to get punched and try to duck out of the way. There is no impression subjectively or objectively (sensory) that links with necessary causation. Though there is nothing to our idea of causation other than constant conjunction and by no means will we be able to predict the future.
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...
Hume argues that perception can be divided into two types: impressions and ideas. He states that impressions are our first-hand perception, using all of our senses and emotions to experience them (Hume 2012, 8). For example, an impression of a sensation would be experiencing pain and an impression of reflection would be experiencing anger. Hume states that an idea is thinking about an impression. You cannot use your senses to experience the sensation or emotion, you are just simply reflecting on your experience (Hume 2007, 13). For example, thinking about the pain you felt when you stubbed your toe or thinking about how angry you felt when your football team lost. Hume argues that our thought is limited. He argues that when we imagine things such as an orange sea, we are simply joining two consistent ideas together. Hume argues that ‘all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones’ (Hume 2007, 13). This is called the Copy Principle.
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
... and faith are not based solely on empirical evidence and absolute proof. It is the will to believe, the desire to see miracles that allows the faithful, to believe in the existence of miracles, not on any kind of sufficient evidence but on the belief that miracles can happen. Rather than Hume’s premise that a wise man proportions his belief in response to the eviddence, maybe a wise man would be better off, tempering his need for empirical evidence against his faith and his will to belief.
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.
Hume’s discussion of the “Operations of the Understanding” (Hume 15) ably frames a first comparison with Descartes. Hume divides the objects of human inquiry and reasoning into two categories: relations of ideas and matters of fact. Matters of fact occur in nature and their opposites are conceivable. Relations of ideas are “intuitively or demonstratively certain” (15) and pertain to the disciplines of geometry and algebra. Reason can discover relations of ideas in the realm of thought “without dependence on what is any where existent in the universe” (15) and the opposite of these propositions are inconceivable cont...
Unfortunately, our experience of constant conjunction only tells us about the past. Rationally, that is all it tells us. We can expect the effect to follow the cause, but it is not a sufficient basis to assume the effect will come from the cause in the future. These things are contingent- they could be different. “The connect...
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)....
Hume gives five considerations to the roles of reason and sentiment within the confines of moral motivation. These considerations are his premises for the final supposition which links sentiment and morality immaculately together, and rejects reason as a plausible explanation form oral motivation. His first consideration allows for reason to be presumed true, as the causation of moral motivation. It follows however that reason “judges either matter of fact or of relations. (Hume 84) When considering the moral crime of ingratitude as Hume does, it seems foolhardy to relate ingratitude with a matter of fact, and when I speak of matter of fact I imply the likes of the geometry, chemistry, algebra etc. A matter of fact that can be proven true or false and will always be true and false and can be learned by a leaner and taught by a teacher (though ingratitude might be taught and learned I suppose. Ingratitude is certainly not a matter of fact then, and so it must be discounted because it “arises from complication of circumstances w...
In the selection, ‘Skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding’, David Hume poses a problem for knowledge about the world. This question is related to the problem of induction. David Hume was one of the first who decided to analyze this problem. He starts the selection by providing his form of dividing the human knowledge, and later discusses reasoning and its dependence on experience. Hume states that people believe that the future will resemble the past, but we have no evidence to support this belief. In this paper, I will clarify the forms of knowledge and reasoning and examine Hume’s problem of induction, which is a challenge to Justified True Belief account because we lack a justification for our beliefs.
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,
“Relations of ideas are indestructible bonds created between ideas and all logically true statements and matters of fact are concerned with experience and we are certain of matters of fact through cause and effect“(Hume Section IV). This proves that the both the mind and body are one because of the cause and effect. He believes that there are connections between all ideas in the mind, and that there are three different kinds. The first is resemblance that describes looking at a picture then thinking of what it represents in the picture. Then there is contiguity looking at something then thinking of about something different. Then there is the cause and effect of something happening to you and then to imagine the pain of the wound. Once again beginning able to look at something and then create an idea from it only proves that without senses we couldn’t just come up with an idea out of the blue.
To understand Kant’s account on causality, it is important to first understand that this account came into being as a response to Hume’s skepticism, and therefore important to also understand Hume’s account. While Hume thinks that causation comes from repeated experiences of events happening together or following one another, Kant believes that causation is just a function of our minds’ organization of experiences rather than from the actual experiences themselves.
Agreeing to most substance dualists, intellect and body are able of causally influencing each other. This shape of substance dualism is known as interactionism. Two other shapes of substance dualism are occasionalism and parallelism. These speculations are to a great extent relics of history. The occasionalist holds that intellect and body do not connected., They may appear to when, for illustration, we hit our thumb with a pound and a excruciating and upsetting sensation happens. Occassionalists, like Malebranche, attest that the sensation is not caused by the pound and nerves, but instep by God. God employments the event of natural happenings to make suitable encounters. Concurring to the parallelist, our mental and physical histories are facilitated so that mental occasions show up to cause physical occasions (and bad habit versa) by ethicalness of their worldly conjunction, but intellect and body no more connected than two clocks that are synchronized so that the one chimes when hands of the other point out the modern hour. Since this phenomenal arrangement of harmonies could not conceivably be due to simple coincidence, a devout clarification is
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.