Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflection about david hume
David Hume Epistemology
David Hume Epistemology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reflection about david hume
We, as humans, are constantly learning, constantly acquiring knowledge. For every new experience, every new action, our brains capture, categorize, and file away as knowledge. But how do we know this knowledge is true? What can we know for absolute certain? I think that we can never be fully certain of anything, but that groups of humans agree on specific truths and that this agreement makes that knowledge practically true. It is true if everyone believes it to be. I follow David Hume’s logic in my thinking. Hume, and I, are skeptical empiricists, we believe in doubting everything. All we know are our perceptions, or as he called it our sense impressions. For example, when I see a red car I may see the color red, a metal door, and glass headlights among many other impressions. This makes up, in my mind, the idea of the car. I know the car is there because I can perceive it at that exact moment. However, the moment after the car passes, these sense impressions turn into memories in my mind.
Memories are ideas, mental constructs based on previous sense impressions. Hume argues that no ideas exist. Since we cannot point exactly back to the sense impressions which created the idea, we must doubt it and assume that it is false. I agree and add that since time is always moving at an infinite speed forward, every moment passes and is turned into a
…show more content…
No one has ever seen or felt a “four” or an “eight”. Maybe someone has picked up a single stick and called it “one”, but we can only remember that and our memories cannot be trusted as true. Besides the concept of “one” is still a name for a concept that does not actually exist. But if everyone I interact with, or the majority I care about, agree that “one” exists and that “one” quadrupled is “four” and that “four” twice is “eight” then I can believe with relative, practical certainty that
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.
The first issue that needs to be addressed however is what exactly is memory? “ Without memory we would be servants of the moment, with nothing but our innate reflexes to help us deal with the world. There would be no language, no art, no science, no culture. Civilization itself is the distillation of human memory” (Blakemore 1988). The simple interpretation of Blakemore’s theory on what memory is that a person’s memory is at least one of the most important things in their life and without it civilization itself could not exist.
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
Megan Darnley PHIL-283 May 5, 2014 Compatibilism and Hume. The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions is on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event is because of some prior cause.
Anti theodicy is the argument that it is wrong to seek theodicies, that is, it is wrong to seek answers to the problem of evil. Anti theodicy is prompted by the religious effects of theodicizing. Theodicizing has been accused of risking our faith in God by questioning Him, wasting time, reducing divine mystery in case we succeed in understanding the problem of evil, and increasing self-satisfaction when we realize that there are reasons behind the evil and we stop fighting against it. It says we should not try to seek the hidden ways of God but rather try to find the path that we shall walk on when evil attacks. What anti theodicies fail
In An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume demonstrates how there is no way to rationally make any claims about future occurrences. According to Hume knowledge of matters of fact come from previous experience. From building on this rationale, Hume goes on to prove how, as humans we can only make inferences on what will happen in the future, based on our experiences of the past. But he points out that we are incorrect to believe that we are justified in using our experience of the past as a means of evidence of what will happen in the future. Since we have only experience of the past, we can only offer propositions of the future. Hume classifies human into two categories; “Relations of Ideas,” and “Matters of Fact.” (240) “Relations of ideas” are either intuitively or demonstratively certain, such as in Mathematics (240). It can be affirmed that 2 + 2 equals 4, according to Hume’s “relations of ideas.” “Matters of fact” on the other hand are not ascertained in the same manner as “Relations of Ideas.” The ideas that are directly caused by impressions are called "matters of fact". With “matters of fact,” there is no certainty in establishing evidence of truth since every contradiction is possible. Hume uses the example of the sun rising in the future to demonstrate how as humans, we are unjustified in making predictions of the future based on past occurrences. As humans, we tend to use the principle of induction to predict what will occur in the future. Out of habit, we assume that sun will rise every day, like it has done in the past, but we have no basis of actual truth to make this justification. By claiming that the sun will rise tomorrow according to Hume is not false, nor is it true. Hume illustrates that “the contrary of every matter of fact is still possible, because it can never imply a contradiction and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness as if ever so conformable to reality” (240). Just because the sun has risen in the past does not serve as evidence for the future. Thus, according to Hume, we are only accurate in saying that there is a fifty- percent chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Hume felt that all reasoning concerning matter of fact seemed to be founded on the relation between cause and effect.
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 began his first examination if the mind by classifying its contents as Perceptions. “Here therefore [he divided] all the perceptions of the mind into two classes or species.” (27) First, Impressions represented an image of something that portrayed an immediate relationship. Secondly, there were thoughts and ideas, which constituted the less vivid impressions. For example, the recalling of a memory. From this distinction, Hume decreed that all ideas had origin within impressions.
In Appendix I., Concerning Moral Sentiment, David Hume looks to find a place in morality for reason, and sentiment. Through, five principles he ultimately concludes that reason has no place within the concept of morality, but rather is something that can only assist sentiment in matters concerning morality. And while reason can be true or false, those truths or falsities apply to facts, not to morality. He then argues morals are the direct result of sentiment, or the inner feeling within a human being. These sentiments are what intrinsically drive and thus create morality within a being. Sentiments such as beauty, revenge, pleasure, pain, create moral motivation, and action, and are immune to falsity and truth. They are the foundation for which morals are built, and exist themselves apart from any reasoning. Thesis: In moral motivation, the role of sentiment is to drive an intrinsically instilled presence within us to examine what we would deem a moral act or an immoral act, and act accordingly, and accurately upon the sentiments that apply. These sentiments may be assisted by reasons, but the reason alone does not drive us to do what we would feel necessary. They can only guide us towards the final result of moral motivation which (by now it’s painfully clear) is sentiment.
In this paper I will defend David Hume’s Moral Sense Theory, which states that like sight and hearing, morals are a perceptive sense derived from our emotional responses. Since morals are derived from our emotional responses rather than reason, morals are not objective. Moreover, the emotional basis of morality is empirically proven in recent studies in psychology, areas in the brain associated with emotion are the most active while making a moral judgment. My argument will be in two parts, first that morals are response-dependent, meaning that while reason is still a contributing factor to our moral judgments, they are produced primarily by our emotional responses, and finally that each individual has a moral sense.
The big idea about Hume is the fact that there are two main things that make up the entirety of the human experience: ideas and impressions. Note that all ideas are made up of impressions. Hume also talked about what things we can truly know. The only thing that we can know according to Hume is the fact that we are something that has the ability to think. All we can know about ourselves is that we have the ability to think. We also can’t say that we automatically know that we have a body. We only have a perception of our body that makes it feel like it should be basic knowledge.
John Locke (1632-1704) was the first of the classical British empiricists. (Empiricists believed that all knowledge derives from experience. These philosophers were hostile to rationalistic metaphysics, particularly to its unbridled use of speculation, its grandiose claims, and its epistemology grounded in innate ideas) If Locke could account of all human knowledge without making reference to innate ideas, then his theory would be simpler, hence better, than that of Descartes. He wrote, “Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas: How comes it to be furnished? To his I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE.” (Donald Palmer, p.165)
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher known for his ideas of skepticism and empiricism. Hume strived to better develop John Locke’s idea of empiricism by using a scientific study of our own human nature. We cannot lean on common sense to exemplify human conduct without offering any clarification to the subject. In other words, Hume says that since human beings do, as a matter of fact, live and function in this world, observation of how humans do so is imminent. The primary goal of philosophy is simply to explain and justify the reasoning of why we believe what we do.
Empiricism (en- peiran; to try something for yourself): The doctrine that all knowledge must come through the senses; there are no innate ideas born within us that only require to be remembered (ie, Plato). All knowledge is reducible to sensation, that is, our concepts are only sense images. In short, there is no knowledge other than that obtained by sense observation.
According to Hume, though we continuously perceive, the perception always changes slightly, so the slightly changing perception is different from the past one. Therefore, it is meaningless to try to find constant self-identity from the changing perception, or impression. For Hume, there is no connection between present impression and past impression, so unchangeable “self-identity” is a fiction. Instead, he said that we “feel” that the impressions seem to constitute self-identity. Moreover, while some say a spatiotemporal continuity and resemblance are a criterion of identity, Hume says those concepts don’t guarantee identity. In “On “There Is No Self”” by Hume, he states “We have a distinct idea of an object, that remains invariable and uninterrupted thro’ a supposed variation of time; and this idea we call that of identity or sameness….But supposing some very small or inconsiderable part to be added to the mass[he took “a mass” for an example], tho’ this absolutely destroys the identity of the whole[the mass],” In other words, if an idea of identity is a distinct idea of an object which remains the same, then the object has no longer the same identity if a tiny thing is added to the object. In human-identity case, he states “I never can catch myself at any time without a perception,” which implies that a perception or an impression is a