David Hume’s Two Definitions of Cause

David Hume’s Two Definitions of Cause

David Hume’s two definitions of cause found in both A Treatise of Human Nature, and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding have been the center of much controversy in regards to his actual view of causation. Much of the debate centers on the lack of consistency between the two definitions and also with the definitions as a part of the greater text. As for the latter objection, much of the inconsistency can be remedied by sticking to the account presented in the Enquiry, as Hume makes explicit in the Author’s Advertisement that the Treatise was a “work which the Author [Hume] had projected before he left College, and which he wrote and published not long after. But not finding it successful, he was sensible of his error in going to the press to early, and he cast the whole anew in the following pieces, where some negligence in his former reasoning and more in the expression, are, he hopes, corrected.” (Hume 1772, xxxi) Generally the inconsistencies are cited from the Treatise, which fails to recognize the purpose of the Enquiry. This brings us to the possible tension between the two definitions. J.A. Robinson, for example, believes the two definitions cannot refer to the same thing. Don Garrett feels that the two definitions are possible, but only with further interpretation. I will argue that the tension arises from a possible forgetfulness on the part of the reader about Hume’s aims as a philosopher, and that Hume’s Enquiry stands on its own without any need for a critic’s extrapolations. To understand Hume’s interpretation of causation and the arguments against it, we must first follow the steps Hume took to come to his conclusion. This requires brief consideration of Hume’s copy princi...

... middle of paper ...

...place. If both definitions of ‘cause’ are necessary for a full understanding of the word, and an absolute reading becomes problematic and unnecessary, then neither Robinson’s nor Garrett’s interpretations are correct. If my account of Hume’s mitigated skepticism is correct, then I see no need to go any further than the Enquiry to understand Hume’s theory of causation. As a philosopher, Hume recognized the constraints of our reasoning, and as a man, he was able to give an explanation for our actions.

Works Cited

Hume, David, 1772 (reprinted in 2004) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (New
York, Barnes and Noble)

Garrett, Don, 1997. Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy (New York, Oxford)

Robinson, J.A., 1962. “Hume’s Two Definitions of “Cause.” The Philosophical Quarterly,
Vol. 12, No. 47, 162-171.

1 Modern Philosophy lecture. 3/30/05. Dr. Ott