David Hume

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.

By analyzing Descartes’ reasoning behind his proof of God, I conclude that Hume would disagree with it as he believes humans can manufacture the idea of God using external sources. In his Third Meditation, Descartes attempts to verify that God exists through an ontological argument. Descartes believes his ideas are like “images which can easily fall short of the perfection of the things from which they are taken, but which cannot contain anything greater or more perfect” (Descartes 29). He then asserts that if the “reality” of any of his ideas is

John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers. They all have many different believes, but agree on the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience. Each of these philosophers developed some of the most fascinating conceptions of the relationships between our thoughts and the world around us. I will argue that Locke, Berkeley and Hume are three empiricists that have different beliefs.

     Hume analyzed the idea of causality by emphasizing the three demands that can be verified through observation. First he argued the aspect of constant conjunction. In this aspect, the cause and effect must be spatially and constantly existent. Secondly, he

     Hume on the other hand, took a different approach to the idea of self. He believed that there in fact was no such thing as selfhood. Instead he asserts that “it must be some one impression, that gives rise to every real idea. But self…is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference…” (597). By this he implies that in order to form concrete ideas, ones impressions of pain, pleasure, joy, etc. must be invariable throughout time. This, Hume states, we know without a doubt to be impossible. Passions succeed each other over time and give rise to new passions, therefore “…it cannot be from any of these impressions…that the idea of self is derived, and consequently there is no such idea” (597).

Hume also wanted to explain things through a non-theological base. I believe that this is a good way of thinking because how can one higher being, God, really be able to control everything that we as human beings do? I don't think that God can control every single person's actions or thoughts. If you believe in God and religion then that can be a foundation for your life but not necessarily be why we do or don't do things.

This pre-reflective consciousness receives and reflects on the event when it occurs, though there is an awareness and recognition of the self beforehand. In contrast, David Hume embraces a post-reflective self-consciousness definition. According to Hume, the constituents of the mind which are the ideas are created by particular impressions and reflected upon them by the mind. (T 1.1.1.8)

In sections 5-6 of Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,” he concludes that nature (i.e. the things that happen around us) will always win a battle with philosophy. He argues that we reason not because of cause and effect, but because of custom or habit. David Hume explains that if a person who has no prior knowledge of cause and effect is brought into this world, that he/she will be able to see that one event follows another. If a person is able to find this information without the knowledge of cause and effect, then cause and effect cannot be how we reason.

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

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.

Next, Hume explores the existence of “necessary connextion” when the will commands a new idea. Again there are three arguments. In the first argument the soul’s production of an idea is examined: it “is a real creation; a production of something out of nothing” (45).

Berkeley and Hume are both philosophers that thought rationally and relied of reason instead of sensory experience to explain the world around us. Berkeley gives both an epistemological argument and a metaphysical argument to why the idea of mind independent matter is not an object of knowledge. I think Hume is also on the same page as Berkeley and gives an epistemological claim to why matters of fact is not a strong tool, Hume in a way is a lot like Berkeley just less fantastical.

The dawn of the Enlightenment brought forth a slew of radical notions that challenged society’s dominant sentiments at the time. With the onslaught of conversations about the nature and purpose of humanity, Enlightenment thinkers conceived novel concepts of anti-authoritarian thinking, empiricism, and the role of reason in humanity. As the Enlightenment led to an upheaval in how intellectuals took the authority of traditional learning, new conversations about the human condition were born. Namely, an emphasis on reason and logic as the primary mechanisms of humanity was developed. Prolific Scottish philosopher David Hume, best known for his radical use of skepticism to examine every possible concept in the vast index of Enlightenment values, emerged as a revolutionary departure from the traditional French and English Enlightenment thinkers. Hume was known for applying a brand of skepticism in his consideration of concepts such as reason, human sympathy, and the authority of traditional ideas. While David Hume’s extreme skepticism challenges preconceived notions of Enlightenment values, his approach is ultimately quite reflective of the core beliefs that represent the pinnacle of Enlightenment thought; thereby reinforcing such values while simultaneously casting them in an increasingly realistic light.

That is to say one’s impressions are continuously fluctuating each moment of the day, from pleasure to pain, “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call my self, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure, color or sound.” (Hume, pg. 145) Therefore, according to Hume, if the concept of ‘self’ is dependent on a constant, everlasting impression, but there is not a single impression that does persevere over the course of one’s life, there can then be no true idea of self “...I never catch my self, distinct from some such perception.” (Hume, pg. 145)