David Hume On Dishonesty

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the topics in Christianity whose factuality is most highly debated. A point for people who advocate for atheism is usually the preposterousness of a man dying and coming back to life. However, the resurrection, if proven true, is one of the most powerful points for the truth of Christianity as a whole. Whether or not the legend is true boils down to two things to prove: that Jesus actually died, and if he could have later been spotted after death. Just a few arguments against the truth behind the resurrection include the swoon theory, the faking death theory, the hallucination theory among others. We can debunk all these theories, as well as provide additional

John Locke and David Hume, both great empiricist philosophers who radically changed the way people view ideas and how they come about. Although similar in their beliefs, the two have some quite key differences in the way they view empiricism. Locke believed in causality, and used the example of the mental observation of thinking to raise your arm, and then your arm raising, whereas Hume believed that causality is not something that can be known, as a direct experience of cause, cannot be sensed. Locke believed that all knowledge is derived from our senses, which produce impressions on the mind which turn to ideas, whereas Hume's believed that all knowledge is derived from experiences,

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

Nathaniel Hawthorne, as an admirer of psychology, uses a distinctive theme of moral ambiguity amongst his characters in the novel The Scarlet Letter. The characters, in particular Hester Prynne, Arthur Dimmesdale, and Roger Chillingworth, are rather difficult to classify as either good or bad; they are simply human. Hawthorne’s moral ambiguity amongst these characters makes them more relatable to real human beings and serves as a clear portrayal of the complex human psyche. One can not be defined as simply bad or good; humans are much more complex than these two binary words which is why Hawthorne’s realization of moral ambiguity is quite profound.

The concept of self identifies the essence of one’s very being. It implies continuous existence having no other exact equal, i.e. the one and only. Whether or not the specific characteristic(s) used to define self are objectively real, i.e. physical attributes, or purely subjective, i.e. imaginary traits, the concept makes distinct one entity from another. Rationalism is the theory that truth can be derived through use of reason alone. Empiricism, a rival theory, asserts that truth must be established by sensual experience: touch, taste, smell, et al. Rene Descartes, a philosopher and rationalist concluded that one self was merely a continuous awareness of one’s own existence; one’s substance was one’s ability to think. On the other

god says: even so, is the revival, for, god brings to life the dead, and he shows you his signs, the proofs of his power, so that you might understand, [that you might] reflect and realise that the one capable of reviving a single soul is also capable of reviving a multitude of souls, and then believe}.

In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume attempts to uncover the ultimate truth about where our knowledge comes from.  This leads him to suggest that all our ideas and knowledge arise from outward experiences and sensations.  He attempts to prove this by solving the "problem of induction."  I disagree with Hume's ideas, and in this essay I will explain why.  I shall begin by explaining the problem of induction, and the sceptical doubts Hume raises concerning the inductive process.  I will then explain how Hume solves the problem.  Finally, I will conclude by offering a critique of Hume's doctrine, and explain why I find it to be inconsistent.

In Conclusion, I personally found the topic of reincarnation not true. I personally believed once one is dead, there is no possibility of life after. Once I heard Arna and Brian Weiss's stories of reincarnation, it had brought my phobias and anxiety’s to light as well as old repeating dreams. This did send chills down my back because the two do connect perfectly. This presentation as well as the guest speakers, have had an impact on not disproving so quick without investigating

There is arguments against the idea of reincarnation found in “negative evidence from out-of-body experiences that is not considered by New Age proponents, and the idea of reincarnation has been weighed and found wanting.”

I do agree that Hume's epistemology is a “wrecking ball” on the grounds that Hume's thoughts develop a radical skepticism, it decreases metaphysics to pretentious nonsense, breaking beliefs of god, mind, and the irrelevant self to smithereens. Furthermore, Hume questions the philosophical validity of the most respected of all scientific concepts, specifically that of causality itself, claiming that our utilization of it cannot be logically justified either in scientific or in commonsense pondering. Many other philosophers, including Hume's, upset conventional pondering and oblige us to reexamine our formerly accepted conceptions about ourselves and the nature of reality. Eventually, Hume concludes that we have no definite knowledge about the

David Hume makes a strong affirmation in section IV of an Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hume states, "I shall venture to affirm as a general proposition, which admits of no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not, in any instance attained by reasonings a priori; but entirely from experience." In this statement, when discussing "knowledge of this relation," Hume is referring to the relation between cause and effect. This argument can easily be dismissed as skeptical, for it puts all knowledge of this sort in doubt. However, Hume does not hastily doubt that this knowledge is not a priori, as a skeptic would. Instead Hume offers a sound argument as to why cause and effect knowledge can not be a

The article starts off by explaining empirical evidence of life after death. It is said that most convincing evidence comes from near death experiences, out of body experiences,

The study was preformed by Duncan MacDougall where he tested the weight of individuals before and after death in attempt to determine whether the notion of a soul could be studied scientifically. Duncan MacDougall examined the weight patients that died of tuberculosis and found that there was 3/4th of an ounce difference between the patients from when they were alive and dead. This weight difference was determined to be “the weight of the soul.” Duncan MacDougall also tested this within animals and found similar results which confirmed the notion that living beings contained souls which left after death. The key aspect that was wrong with the experiment and MacDougall’s conclusion is due to the notion physiological factors and not due to the soul leaving the body. Though these physiological factors could not necessarily be proven back in 1901, but now with modern medicine and science such as CT and MRI scans these physiological factor can prove these claims by Duncan MacDougall be incorrect due to the sole purpose of a counter argument provided by science.

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume states, “there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion” (Hume, 1993: 41). Hume establishes in section II that all ideas originate from impressions that employ the senses (11). Therefore, in order for there to be an idea of power or “necessary connexion,” there must be impressions of this connection present in single instances of cause and effect; if there are no such impressions, then there cannot be an idea of “necessary connexion” (52). To illustrate his statement, Hume examines four situations:

that if X can be without Y then X and Y are distinct. This view that a