Hume Vs Kant

Madison Whittington

Total word count without questions: 1,397

What is Hume’s view of the self? What is Kant’s view of the self? Are these views more similar or more different? Whose view of the self do you favor, and why?

Hume is skeptical of personal identity. He’s skeptical of rationalism, of the ability of causes and effects to be known through our experiences, and argues that we don’t get knowledge of matters of fact through experience. He says that we are bundles of impressions. These impressions change as we have new experiences and perceptions, and are constantly changing. Hume doesn’t think that we have an enduring self. He doesn’t actually think that we can find necessary connections between ideas through logic or rationality alone,

and argues that experience is necessary in order to make these connections. He argues that our existence isn’t necessary because our existence isn’t contradictory, but neither is our non-existence. He argues that our necessity is in the inference-making subject, and that we make inferences and decisions based on cause. Hume argues that our experiences are the basis of our personal identity (self) because it’s our a priori experiences that determine our desires, predict our human behavior, and allow us to learn what our desires are. Hume doesn’t view consciousness as unified and his view of the self lacks accountability in that he doesn’t think that we can be held morally responsible for the things that we do because they’re a result of our desires. Hume also holds that you can compound your ideas in ways you didn’t directly experience and that we are passive experiencers.
Kant thinks there’s something more to this bundle of impressions and thinks that experience is a little more consistent than Hume claims. While Hume says that we are a bundle of (unorganized) impressions, Kant’s views these impressions as forming a more united sense of self. Kant argues that we take all of our impressions and put them together in our field of consciousness, and views the unified nature of consciousness as necessary and a priori. He feels that the sense of self includes experience, understanding, and reason. Hume and Kant do agree that experience alone cannot give us the idea of a cause. Kant’s view of experience is more active rather than passive, compared to Hume’s. Neither philosopher uses God in their picture of the self or in the way through which we develop personal identity.
Contrary to Hume’s argument, Kant’s idea of the self does have more accountability and makes more room for the idea of morality.

He proposes the idea of a noumenal self which is made up of mental substances, and makes a distinction between things in themselves and things as they’re experienced. Because Kant has a lot of respect for Hume and builds off of a lot of his ideas, I think that their views of the self are more similar than they are different.

While Hume’s philosophy of the importance of experience over rationality resonates with me, I prefer Kant’s view of the self. Kant builds off of Hume’s ideas, but I appreciate that his view of consciousness is unified and that he’s less skeptical of the idea of a self or unitary “I.” Kant’s philosophy also has a place for moral accountability, which I think is important. I don’t think Hume’s philosophy allows for the same accountability as

Kant’s.

What is Kant’s view of scientific knowledge? How is this a Copernican revolution? What is Hume’s view of scientific knowledge? What do you think is the essential difference between these views? Whose view do you favor and why?

Kant’s view of scientific knowledge is much different than that of traditional philosophers. He argues that scientific knowledge is driven by the questions we’re compelled to ask and claimed we want to expand our knowledge in a way that allows us to make necessary conclusions, saying that math and physics do this, and claiming that metaphysics should also be able to do this. In his view, scientific knowledge doesn’t really tell us anything without experience. He recognized that up until this point, metaphysics had been pretty elusive, and wanted to turn reason over onto itself to find nature and its limits. His critique of pure reason was just that: a critique that pure reason, for the most part, tells us very little. It’s only with experience that scientific knowledge can be understood. He also recognizes that science is driven by the questions we ask, so we gain insight into the nature of things in themselves because we compel nature to conform to our principles. He viewed natural science as a form of judgment and argued that pure science is synthetic because it expands our knowledge. This was a Copernican revolution because Kant recognized that without experience, the laws and properties of nature were nothing. The laws of nature are not things in themselves, but are a result of the experiencer. As they are by themselves, they are nothing. He also held that there was the phenomenal world, or the world as we experience it, as well as a noumenal world, which is the world as it is. Human beings aren’t the center of the universe, so Kant felt that he completed the Copernican revolution.
Hume’s view on natural science is closely connected to his empiricism. He felt that even mathematical knowledge would do very little for you without experience and held that inferences were easier to make than proving facts. He was skeptical of scientific knowledge, just as he was skeptical of rationality, but claimed that we didn’t need to be as skeptical about modern science as we do about nature and the existence of a deity. Hume was focused on human nature, and was mostly interested in scientific knowledge as it pertained to human nature. He didn’t deny that there are necessary connections, but argued that there aren’t necessary connections between matters of fact. While deductive reasoning gives us certainty, our causal inferences do not give us certainty.
I think the essential difference between these views is that Hume is skeptical of things in themselves and has a more separated view of human experience and natural science, whereas Kant recognizes that the two are connected. Kant gives a little more credit to rationalism than Hume does. Hume is a skeptic, whereas Kant leaves much more room for rationalism in his philosophy and connects it back to a fuller experience. Because Kant’s philosophy is more comprehensive and inclusive, I prefer it over Hume’s ideas regarding scientific knowledge.

What is Kant’s analysis of the antimony (paradox) of freedom and “nature” (or causation)? Contrast or compare this with Hume’s view on the topic. Are these two views more similar or more different?

According to Kant, freedom is required for ethics and the idea of freedom and nature (or causation) are incompatible.

The paradox of freedom and causation, according to Kant, is a problem because there needs to be room for moral ideas. According to Kant, freedom that is compatible with the idea of causation isn’t a good kind of freedom at all, but is determinism in disguise. The idea that freedom is compatible with necessity, as Hume claims, implies that our desires are determined by “nature” or some sort of natural law of causation. Kant, unlike Hume, thinks there’s a freedom of spontaneity, where one can be the source or cause of something new and different. Unlike Hume, Kant makes a distinction between the phenomena and the noumena with regard to freedom. Kant hates the idea of determinism and fears that Hume’s definition of freedom (as being compatible with necessity) puts us at risk of being unable to blame human beings for their actions. Hume holds that you can only be held to the approximate cause of what you do, while Kant insists that human behavior and morality must be blame

worthy.
Hume’s philosophy on this is called Humean Compatibalism, and it holds that there is no contradiction between necessity and liberty (freedom). According to Hume, human behavior can be be determined and you can’t be held fully morally responsible for the things that you do because they’re a product of your desires, which are a product of your experience. Instead of you being the ultimate cause of your actions, you’re only the approximate cause according to Hume. I don’t think Hume’s philosophy leaves any room for the idea that human beings are truly blame worthy. Hume doesn’t think that his philosophy is a problem for ethics, but Kant greatly disagrees with this.
Kant’s philosophy places the goal of morality and ethics at the center, unlike Hume. Because of this difference, I think that the views the two philosophers have on freedom and its relationship with causation are much more different than they are similar. I don’t see Kant’s philosophy here being one that builds upon Hume’s, and instead see it as one that knocks Hume’s definition of freedom to the side and replaces it with an entirely new concept. The philosophers also place importance in different areas.