An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, By David Hume

Have you ever wondered about the world beyond its original state? How we know that electricity produces a light bulb to light up or causes the sort of energy necessary to produce heat? But in the first place, what is electricity? Nor have we seen it and not we encountered it; however, we know what it can do, hence its effects. To help us better understand the notion of cause and effect, David Hume, an empiricist and skepticist philosopher, proposed the that there is no such thing as causation. In his theory, he explained the deliberate relationship between the cause and effect, and how the two factors are not interrelated. Think of it this way: sometimes we end up failing to light a match even though it was struck. The previous day, it lit up, but today it did not. Why? Hume’s theory regarding causation helps us comprehend matters of cause and effect, and how we encounter the effects in our daily lives, without the cause being necessary. According to Hume, since we never experience the cause of something, we cannot use inductive reasoning to conclude that one event causes another. In other words, causal necessity (the cause and effect being related in some way or another) seems to be subjective, as if it solely exists in our minds and not in the object itself.

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

     Knowledge is gained only through experience, and experiences only exist in the mind as individual units of thought. This theory of knowledge belonged to David Hume, a Scottish philosopher. Hume was born on April 26, 1711, as his family’s second son. His father died when he was an infant and left his mother to care for him, his older brother, and his sister. David Hume passed through ordinary classes with great success, and found an early love for literature. He lived on his family’s estate, Ninewells, near Edinburgh. Throughout his life, literature consumed his thoughts, and his life is little more than his works. By the age of 40, David Hume had been employed twice and had failed at the family careers,

David Hume, the Scottish empiricism philosopher who endorses on all knowledge is obtained from sense-experience and he practices moderate skepticism for his entire academic life. Hume’s moderate skepticism refers to abduction today in which it means inference to the best explanation. To it another way, he means credible belief is possible and genuine knowledge could be inaccurate. In the “section IV- Sceptical Doubts concerning the Operation of the Understanding” part two of the book “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”, David Hume intends to clarify about how induction (moral reasoning) works in the knowledge of cause and effect. Accordingly, he shares “[i]n reality, all arguments from experience are founded on the similarity, which we discover among natural objects, and by which we are induced to expect effects similar to those, which we have found to follow from such objects” (p.23). Based upon his writing, Hume explains most people tend to reason a particular instance and expect the future outcome depending on their past experiences; they make conclusions with inductive reasoning. However, the induction has limitation because it doesn 't guarantee future instances will resemble previously observed ones.

Hume’s ultimate goal in his philosophic endeavors was to undermine abstruse Philosophy. By focusing on the aspect of reason, Hume shows there are limitations to philosophy. Since he did not know the limits, he proposed to use reason to the best of his ability, but when he came to a boundary, that was the limit. He conjectured that we must study reason to find out what is beyond the capability of reason.

René Descartes was a skeptic, and thus he believed that in order for something to be considered a true piece of knowledge, that “knowledge must have a certain stability,” (Cottingham 21). In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes concludes that in order to achieve this stability, he must start at the foundations for all of his opinions and find the basis of doubt in each of them. David Hume, however, holds a different position on skepticism in his work An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, for he criticizes Descartes’ claim because “‘it is impossible,’” (qtd. in Cottingham 35). Both philosophers show distinct reasoning in what skepticism is and how it is useful in finding stability.

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

According to Hume, this style of reasoning is logically valid. Logically valid inferences state that if the premises are true then the conclusions must be true. Or better yet, if you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusions. There is no way for the premises to be true and the conclusions to be false. However, this is not really the case because using a priori reasoning does not prove inductive inferences is logically valid. It is not the case that the premises can be true and the conclusions false, while maintaining the premises truth validity. This is one style of reasoning used in Hume’s fork with the other being experimental reasoning. The problem with experimental reasoning is that it is not logically valid. It is not logically valid because we have no reason to believe that the conclusions we attempt to make based on the empirical data bring us any closer to bridging the gap between the observed and the unobserved.

David Hume was a British empiricist, meaning he believed all knowledge comes through the senses. He argued against the existence of innate ideas, stating that humans have knowledge only of things which they directly experience. These claims have a major impact on his argument against the existence of miracles, and in this essay I will explain and critically evaluate this argument.

David Hume was a Scottish empiricist who became renowned as a philosopher for his metaphysical skepticism and his account of the mind. Born in the 18th century, Hume follows Locke, a fellow empiricist and Descartes, an idealist, in the philosophic cannon. As a result he responds to each. From Locke Hume builds upon his concept of perceptions. Hume’s defining skepticism pertains to idealistic claims of substance, god, and the self.

Hume uses something called ‘The Copy Principle’ to explain this which states that our ideas are simply copies of our impressions. This principle, Hume explains, only applies to the relation between simple ideas and impressions. “When we analyze our thoughts or ideas—however complex or elevated they are—we always find them to be made up of simple ideas that were copied from earlier feelings or sensations” (Hume). If we have no previous impression of an object then, though not impossible, is very hard for us to imagine without that impression first. One of the examples that Hume uses to make this case is of a person born blind. Since they have never seen colors they would have no ideas of colors because there are no impressions of colors contained within their minds. Again this is something that I would have to agree with and I believe that everyone has experienced this occurrence to some extent especially as a child. Like when I was little my mother would put broccoli on my plate every Wednesday and for the longest time I wouldn’t touch it, I assumed that because I didn’t like the look of it that I wouldn’t like the taste of it as well. Then one day I finally tried it and I loved it but I never would have known that if I hadn’t

Philosophers David Hume and Renee Descartes have opposing views about the origination of ideas. Hume claims that all ideas are copies of impressions, which come from sensation. Descartes disagrees with this, arguing that in order to obtain knowledge, there must be a rational method for obtaining it, and that the senses are not a reliable source. This essay will present both philosopher’s arguments and compare and contrast each perspective regarding matters of knowledge and ideas. I will then argue how Hume’s philosophy is the more viable theory, and give you my reason’s as to why it is a stronger argument, in comparison to Descartes’ more rational take on the origin of ideas and knowledge.

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

     Let us take a moment to talk about Hume’s origin of ideas. Hume believes in the classic theory of the blank slate – that when we are born, we come into the world with no ideas. Impression is an imprint, meaning that it is something outside the mind. Impressions are not a priori. Consider the mind to be like a ball of wax, knowledge refers to the imprints on the ball of wax. He’s looking for the intrinsic basis. His problem is that scientist and philosophers base knowledge off a priori. If you can trace the idea to the impression then you have the best idea. If you can’t then the origin is subjective. Primary qualities are not subjective; they are inseparable from the thing itself. The world that is out there, that makes an impression on your mind. Trace the idea to the impression. It is important to note that Hume believes we do not have impressions of the future.

Hume held the belief that all the contents of the human mind were derived through experience only. He divided the