This semester we have been studying various philosophers, and from those philosophers only one has

Our emotions affect us in so many ways. Emotions affect the way we behave, our views and opinions, our relationships and our decision-making; therefore, they are very relevant to our day-to-day lives. It is important that people have an understanding of these emotions and that they are able to interpret them. Emotions can both help and hinder our ability to best live our lives. It is also important to realize that even our emotions are shaped and biased by our environment and those close to us.

     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

This has to do with faith. Faith means believing in the existence of something without having any physical proof. Therefore, it could very well be a test of faith put into place by an all powerful and all knowing being to have people toy with the notion of its’ existence. As a result, Hume’s idea that we would be able to understand God’s plan is flawed. While we all can suggest that God would like for us to behave in a way conducive to showing we have love for all other human beings simply because this would allow for a peaceful universe, one can’t assume that this is God’s plan. Moreover, one definitely can’t assume that this enables us to understand God’s purpose for the world. Additionally, one can’t automatically assume that because our world is filled with various evils, an all powerful God does not exist. In fact, one could argue the exact opposite. Simply because our world is filled with evil acts and people committing these acts, there must be an all powerful God that exists in order to reward all those that manage to resist engaging in evil acts. Hume argues that we can’t infer that an all powerful being exists because of the tremendous amounts of evil that go on in our world. However, this could be an all powerful God’s way to get rid of all those he feels is not worthy of achieving eternal life in his heavenly kingdom. Therefore, this world could merely be a testing stage for humans to prove they

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

The dilemma theists are presented with is that if the world has imperfections due to the evil that exists, which serves no clear purpose, then God, the designer of the world, therefore must be imperfect. But this is not the image that is to be perceived of God if he were to exist. Instead, God, in the human mind, would only exist if he was a perfect being. Without the characteristic of a perfect being, one is able to claim that God does not exist as the designer of the world. However, the main criticism that Hume proposes is to not claim that it is impossible for God not to exist as a perfect being but rather our lack of experience in the creation of the world cannot allow us to claim that God is perfect. Because the design argument is an empirical argument for the existence of God, our experiences with the world, including those that involve evil, cannot allow us to possibly ignore the fact that God may not be a perfect being. If this this case, then God’s image

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.”

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume is a philosophical piece concerning the existence of God. Arguments for and against the existence of God are portrayed in dialogue through three characters; Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo. All three agree that God exists, but they drastically differ in their opinions of God’s attributes or characteristics, and if man can understand God. The characters debate such topics as the design and whether there is more suffering or good in the world. It is a very common view among philosophers that Philo most represents Hume’s own views. Philo doesn’t go as far as denying the existence of God but

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.

Hume's view poses the question, which is better social peace or economic prosperity? Hume states that human beings are an animal whose life consists of worldly pleasures, and this is what leads them to a happy life. Again we see a clear contradiction to what "traditional" philosophers believe to be a happy life. As you can see Hume leaves out the spiritual, reasoning, and thinking part of human nature. Leaving all these factors out he comes up with his contributions to the well being of society. He believes that chastity, confidentiality, avoiding gossip, avoiding spying, being well mannered, and loyal are what can lead you to becoming prosperous. Hume looks at this from being prosperous only from a business-orientated point of view. People do like to become prosperous and have economic growth, but is that all that matters to us as humans? For Hume these feelings are justified because he says that we naturally care about other people and if we do not suffer from something we have a natural inclination to help others out. Hume finally comes a conclusion to his ethical theory in which he states that there are only four reasons in which to do morally good: useful to society, useful to oneself, agreeable to oneself, agreeable to others. Actions

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.

David Hume was a great thinker and philosopher of his era who influenced other well respected thinkers. According to Hume this era was called the Age of Reason because the writers of that time used reason in religion, political, social and moral issues. In 1779 Hume wrote a book called Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in where four characters discussed the nature of God by using reason. The following dialogue is a continuation of Hume’s book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion which consists of two of the same characters in Hume’s dialogue who are Philo and Pamphilus. Also, three new characters named Hunter, Scott and Kate. Which represents Hume (my understanding of who Hume’s character), Schleiermacher,

Firstly, Hume effectively tackles the commonly held assertion that humans are purely rational creatures that successfully implement reason in every situation. Hume concedes

David Hume's most famous quote is “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” To understand the implications of this quote as a basis for an ethical theory you need to understand that every other ethical theory attempts to derive how things ought to be from how things are. The jumps from matters of fact and relations of ideas perceived by reason, to value judgments perceived by emotions, are made in Hume’s opinion with no logical reason. There is nothing contradictory in the statement the sun will not rise in the morning, it is not unreasonable. We only feel that it “ought to” continue rising in the morning. The scientific method uses inductive reasoning to construct a hypothesis and Hume does not contend that it should not be used. It has been useful thus far in making predictions and it is the only tool that we have for understanding the world around us.

     In being a naturalist, Hume relates humans as being one in the same with animals, at least when it comes to causal reasoning. We are no more reasonable than animals because the faculty of the human mind that allows us to see into the truth has arisen in us naturally. The sharp difference between humans and animals is the ability to draw on the inference of necessary connections in nature and being able to think about them. Hume does not doubt that there may exist some God with a form of discerning between right and wrong, but he denies that our ability to do so came from such a God. We know a God has to exist only as a cause of the effects we ascribe to him. Hume describes God as an “empty hypothesis” because he is used only to explain certain phenomena that we may not otherwise be able to explain. We have no direct knowledge or first hand experience of God and so we cannot give Him any qualities besides those that we

Fire is burning paper. 2. Fire must burn paper. 3. Fire will burn paper. These are all a priori judgments. In other words, there are no connections between any of them. Hume does not believe a priori judgments are viable. In fact, he does not even believe all a posteriori judgments are viable, as was noted above.