Comparing Hume And Relation Ideas

     It is Cleanthes who gets the ball rolling in Part II of Hume by laying out his “argument from design.” Cleanthes believes that there is ample evidence in the nature that surrounds us to draw conclusions

Like Berkeley David Hume also believed that understanding is rooted to experience. Hume developed the three laws of association: resemblance, contiguity and cause/effect. Resemblance is an object reminds and individual of another object or thing through similarity. Contiguity means experiencing things together. Cause and effect is

Hume rejected lockes theory of experiencing cause. He argued that you do not feel the connection between your mind and arm, and thus don't sense the cause of the muscles contracting to raise your arm. Cause, in Hume's mind, is a synthetic experience used to explain the unobservable things in reality. To help explain he used the billiard ball experiement. Ball A is hit and put into motion towards ball B.When ball A collides with ball B the cause of ball B's movement is not experienced, there is no observable connection between the two. This would mean that there is no way to be certain that everytime Ball A collides with ball B that ball B will move, ball A could just as likely bounce off and begin rolling in a random direction. He believd that there is no way of knowing for certain the outcome of an event without being able to perceive the cause.

Hume argues that we cannot prove that there is a real world outside our experience, much less that our experience is an accurate representation of that world. He says we need to get outside our experience to see whether it does fairly represent the world, however, its near impossible to do that.

What Came First: The Chicken or the Egg? David Hume moves through a logical progression of the ideas behind cause and effect. He critically analyzes the reasons behind those generally accepted ideas. Though the relation of cause and effect seems to be completely logical and based on common sense, he discusses our impressions and ideas and why they are believed. Hume’s progression, starting with his initial definition of cause, to his final conclusion in his doctrine on causality. As a result, it proves how Hume’s argument on causality follows the same path as his epistemology, with the two ideas complimenting each other so that it is rationally impossible to accept the epistemology and not accept his argument on causality. Hume starts by

Hume’s notion of causation is his regularity theory. Hume explains his regularity theory in two ways: (1) “we may define a cause to be an object, followed by another, and where all the objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second” (2) “if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.”

     Now Hume proposed that all inferences come from custom, not reasoning. Through custom or habits, we have become accustomed to expect an effect to follow a cause. This is not a rational argument. This argument centers on the theory of constant conjunction, which does not fall under either fork of reason. “All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not reasoning.”(57)

David Hume wrote Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding in 1748, right in the middle of the Enlightenment and on the eve of the Industrial and Scientific Revolution. So it only makes sense that some of the ideas and comparisons used are slightly outdated, but science, if anything, helps his argument regarding causality. Hume is ultimately concerned with the origins of causality, how we are able to gain knowledge from causality, and if we can even call the knowledge derived from causality real knowledge. This is essentially the problem of induction, and is a central pillar of Hume's overall philosophy. There are some significant objections to Hume's ideas concerning causality, but they do not hold much clout and are no match for his

Hume’s sun argument consists of us assuming that the sun will rise because it always has. We as humans have a thought process in which we expect certain outcomes to take place purely based on what has happened through past experiences. Hume argues that just because the sun has always risen in the past, that does not justify the possibility that the sun will definitely rise again for the next morning. The sun not actually rise for the next morning is still a possibility. This argument is based on the fact that as humans we tend to believe that actions or events will take place in the future due to the same outcome occurring within past situations that were already experienced.

In other words he is saying that no matter how good or reliable a testimony may be, it can never as it were on the basis of experience be justified to accept that testimony over and against what stands as testimony against the miracle happening. The testimony happens to be the laws of nature themselves. In this sense it is clear that Hume is giving us a priori argument in Part 1 in that he is saying that miracles are contrary to reason. However I think it would be easier to accept this view if Hume had not previously discussed his Induction theory. In regard that he thought that for example that just because the sun has risen every day so far, it does not necessarily follow that the sun will rise tomorrow, we have no rational basis in believing it will. However in regard to miracles he tells us to base our decisions on past experiences, if it is unlikely it is less likely to be true. So in that sense we should also be able to say that based on our past experiences the sun will definitely rise tomorrow? Also if the sun was not to rise, surely that would be a miracle in the sense that it would be a violation of the laws of nature? And what is exactly a violation of natural laws? Dorothy Coleman points out “past experience shows that what are at one time considered violations of natural laws are frequently found

Hume also believed in cause and effect. I believe in this because in order for something to happen something needed to cause

Hume is a philosopher who believes in the Copy Principle. That all ideas derive from vivid

This kind of division also can be called as “Hume’s fork”. Relation of ideas are a priori which are “intuitively or demonstratively certain” and “discoverable by the mere operations of thoughts” (Hume, 1748, p.422). In this group, we can include mathematical ideas and math proofs, for example, statement like two plus two equals four. So, the denial of such statements is inconceivable and logically impossible. For example, we can think about the triangle and we all know that it has three sides. Later, we can imagine a triangle with four sides and immediately face a contradiction because four-sided figure is rectangle. This statement is a priori true for the reason that it has nothing to do with the external world and gives us no information back about the world. The second kind is “matters of facts” which is a posteriori. “Matters of facts” are statements that give us knowledge about the world and the sources providing knowledge for these statements are “the present testimony of our senses” and “the record of our memory” (Hume, 1748, p.423). Statements of this group and the denial of these statements are not self-contradictory and conceivable. For example, we can tell that the house of my neighbors is yellow, and we can easily conceive this statement as true, but we can at the same time conceive it as false, and imagine their house in blue

The ultimate question that Hume seems to be seeking an answer to is that of why is that we believe what we believe. For most of us the answer is grounded in our own personal experiences and can in no way be justified by a common or worldly assumption. Our pasts, according to Hume, are reliant on some truths which we have justified according to reason, but in being a skeptic reason is hardly a solution for anything concerning our past, present or future. Our reasoning according to causality is slightly inhibited in that Hume suggests that it is not that we are not able to know anything about future events based on past experiences, but rather that we are just not rationally justified in believing those things that

Therefore Hume claims that there is no necessary connection, it is just that we infer the idea of necessary connection but in actual fact we never actually observe it directly in nature. Hume goes on to convince us that we cannot observe the act of causation, for example he points out that we are aware of our ability to move our body i.e. fingers, hands etc. but this does not make us aware of the connection between the act volition and the movement of our body. He points out that we are capable of moving our fingers at will but we have no control over our internal organs. Why is this? Hume believes that we are incapable of rationalising a causal connection and things happen according to some sort of law, however these laws and necessities are beyond our understanding.