How do we as humans receive knowledge? This question is one of the most thought out and discussed questions throughout the ages.  Almost all philosophers have tried to obtain their own answer to this question.  Philosophy is the study of one’s own ideas and answering universal questions.  Four philosophers that will be written about are Plato, Rene Descartes, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell.  The best and worst part about philosophy is there isn’t a right or wrong answer because it’s about the philosopher’s beliefs.

            The first philosopher is Plato.  Plato’s main belief of knowledge is that knowledge comes from recollection, and that our soul has learned everything before now.  He also believes in reincarnation so our soul is reborn multiple times until we become a true “Lover of Wisdom” (Phadeo).  After each life our soul learns new things and adds to its knowledge after each life time.  Referring to that idea Plato said, “As the soul is immortal, has been born often, and has seen all things here and in the underworld, there is nothing which it has not learned; so it is in no way surprising that it can recollect the things it knew before, both about virtue and other things” (Meno 81d).  Our soul already knows all knowledge and it is up to ourselves to bring it out of us; Plato also said, “And he will know it without having been taught but only questioned, and find the knowledge within himself” (Meno 85d).  Plato gives an example of “the square” where he asks this young man if he knows this certain mathematical problem, and the young man assured him that he doesn’t know anything about the problem.  So he starts with questioning him about the square and about adding size to the square.  As time goes on he asks series of questions that adds more knowledge to how to solve this problem.  In the end the young man solves and understands the square, Plato says, “I shall do nothing more than ask questions and not teach him” (Meno 84d).  Another example Plato gives to disprove senses is not the way to discover knowledge and that recollection is the way to knowledge, is the two equal sticks.  Two sticks may appear to be the same because they look the same width and length, but one stick really has knots and curves out.  You use your knowledge from within yourself to know the two sticks aren’t the same or equal.  Adding, Plato can’t believe in physical objects.  “The body confuses the soul and does not allow it to acquire truth and wisdom whenever it is associated with it,” believed Plato.

            Another great philosopher is Rene Descartes.  When it comes to knowledge Descartes believes that knowledge and ideas are forced into us by god or external bodies, and he can’t trust in physical objects.  He also believes in the Evil Demon Thought Experiment, which is assuming there is an evil spirit who tries to deceive us about everything.  So we can’t be positive about our sense perception, “senses are sometimes deceptive” (Descartes 14), because it might be a trick by the evil spirit.  That leads us to the question, are we alive?  We know we are alive because in order to be deceived by the evil spirit we must be alive.  Another idea Descartes believes in is the Wax Thought Experiment.  When wax melts and turns from a solid to a liquid and changes appearance we know it’s the same thing just in a different state, and we know this not because of perception or imaginary but because of pure reason.  Therefore knowledge comes to us by intellect, and our mind is better to us than our body.  “I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing; that is, a mind, or intellect, or understanding, or reason—words of whose meanings I was previously ignorant.  Yet I am a true thing and am truly existing; but what kind of thing? I have said it already: a thinking thing” (Descartes 19), reflected Descartes. 

            The third philosopher is David Hume.  He believes that all knowledge comes through our senses, and that our impressions turn into our ideas.  Hume wrote, “All our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones” (Hume 11).  He also believes “there to be only three principles of connexion among ideas, namely, resemblance, contiguity in time or place, and cause or effect” (Hume 14).  When it comes to matters of fact and relations of ideas we use reason.  David Hume also is a believer in cause and effect, “what is the nature of all our reasoning concerning matter of fact? . . . they are founded on the relation of cause and effect,” (Hume 21).  Through cause and effect we learn that A is followed by b, i.e. lightning is followed by thunder.  Although, Hume doesn’t know what makes cause and effect possible. 

            Lastly¸ Bertand Russell believes in external objects and we rely on sensory perception.  He gives an example of the table to help the argument between appearances vs. reality.  When we look at a table we can see the color, texture, shape, and size.  But as we get closer or the table moves, everything changes from what we previously saw, and also if many people look at the same table there will not be any two same appearances.  “Because experiences has taught us to construct the ‘real’ shape from the apparent shape, and the ‘real’ shape is what interests us as practical men.  But the ‘real’ shape is not what we see; it is something inferred from what we see.  And what we see is constantly changing in shape as we move about the room,” (Hume 11) said Hume.  From all our senses we gain sense data about an object for example the table earlier talked about.  All we experience are ideas, but we never experience physical objects.  Even though we can’t experience physical objects the ‘Cat Argument’ proves external objects are real.  A cat is in one part of the room and we can see it, but when we leave the room does the cat still exist or is it just sense data?  We leave the cat, and when we return the cat will be hungry, tired, and in a different location, which shows that the cat exists independently of our minds and really exists. 

            Among all the philosophers Plato and Descartes are similar to each other; also Hume and Russell are similar to each other.  Empiricism means the doctrine that all knowledge ultimately consists of what is acquired by sensory perception and Plato along with Descartes fall into that group.  In contrast Hume and Russell are rationalists where they believe the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the contents and operations of the mind alone from pure reason.  Another belief is Hume and Russell believes in physical objects and external objects; whereas Plato and Descartes cannot trust in physical objects.

            I believe in a mixture of all these philosophies.  First off I believe in recollection from the knowledge of our soul, but I also think our soul doesn’t know everything.  We have to learn things on our own through experiences.  Another idea I believe in is sensory perception.  Our senses give us ideas and knowledge, but we also use reason corresponded with our sense data.  These four philosophers’ beliefs are on the extreme of both scales, but I would put my trust in the middle of both.  Things from both sides working together help us reach the fullest of knowledge.  God gives us our mind and body to work together to achieve greatness in this life, but we will never fully understand or have all knowledge while being alive.  I do believe with Plato where we will have all knowledge when we die and how we shouldn’t be scared of death, but rather accept it when the time is right.  Although, I do not think our souls will go through the cycle of reincarnation.  We will only live one life and we better not ruin the chances we receive during this one lifetime.  If we give our all and try our hardest in this life, our father in heaven will help make up the rest for us once we pass away.

Every person capable of thinking and ignore the problems of life, sooner or later reflects on his “position” in this world. Why we came to this strange world? For what purpose is there even a purpose to our existence? What is consciousness and what is our life and inevitably coming in for her death? Many people try to avoid such issues.

They live, or rather, trying to survive in this world. Some of most of his life trying to make a career, sometimes at the same time depriving the less fortunate career, “careerists”, others make money, sometimes brutally disposing of its competitors, and still others simply want more or less normally, survive to this incomprehensible world, etc. . We are all different but we all understand that “nothing is eternal under the moon”.

All of life’s problems have faded, the knowledge of the finiteness of human existence. Human life-molneinosnoe moment, compared with the history of our civilization, the history of Earth life and especially with the history of our universe. Imagine that somewhere in the vast expanses of the universe, among a huge number of lifeless bodies of a cosmic planet Earth, which formed a life, thanks to an incredible coincidence …

The formation of life on Earth was preceded by a very interesting and strange story of our earth, our universe. And it begins the story with so-called “big bang”. Previously, according to theorists, the universe was in a state of super-dense and had a volume of about 10-98m3., Then about 20 billion years ago, this tiny “piece” of an unusual substance “decided” to explode and expand to huge proportions. Formed stars, galaxies, planets and so on. Our planet formed about 5 billion years ago, and the first signs of primitive life appeared on it about 3 billion years ago, and after some time there appeared a man-wise, knowing it has created the world.

Person-wise, the result of “multi-billion dollar” the history of the universe, is the crown of creation of nature. By this nature was many billions of years, through many trials and errors, through brutal rule of natural selection among living organisms. Man is the only creature on Earth (and perhaps in the entire universe), aware of itself, aware of the finiteness of life and learn this mysterious world. What is a reasonable man? Error inanimate and irrational nature, or simply the incredible happened combination of favorable circumstances that contributed to the emergence of life on Earth? Maybe intelligent life in the universe was formed at someone’s will? For more than one millennium to this question can not be a simple answer nor philosophers nor scientists.

Every intelligent person, capable of thinking and reasoning in their attempts to find answers to these questions. “The mind is also in nature, and he is author of peace and accomplishment of the entire world order.”-The Greek philosopher Anaxagoras maintained in the fifth century BC. In fact, Anaxagoras in the first place puts the “reasonable start” and the matter-”derivative” of that intelligence. “If you can not do without God, then it would be best to define it as a special kind of state of matter.” Zeno-argued, too, lived in ancient Greece. “The Nature-organic hierarchy of living beings.

The very materiality of nature is only an embodiment, the objectification of sentient beings, the spirits of different hierarchical levels. “So wrote-known writer and thinker, Berdyaev. According to Berdyaev, the energy substance of life (soul) exists by itself, but the body is only a “tool use”. “It is not God created man, and man of God” wrote “a hundred percent materialist” Marx. From the standpoint of Marx, the god invented by people, so as to calm the fears of imminent death.

Some philosophers even denied the existence of the material world in the form in which it seems to us, “People are not aware that external objects are nothing but a representation of the senses”, claimed the English philosopher David Hume, who lived in the XVIII century. There are those philosophers who believe that the entire material world around us-abstraction, that is, it really would not like it we just dreaming. Exist only you, everything else is a figment of your imagination, and the people around you-your fictional “characters”.

This unusual concept of the universe yet, oddly enough, has its supporters. The most important philosophical question, what is primary, matter or consciousness? In fact, the behavior of each person depends on what answer he chooses for himself. That is the answer to this question determines its position in life, his attitude towards the world and in the end, his actions. That question is a stumbling block between materialism and idealism. Materialists argue that the primary matter, and consciousness was formed through the development and evolution of this matter.

David Hume on Causation

One of David Hume’s, a Scottish philosopher in the 18th century, most famous and influential works was his work on causation. In Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume argues against the 18th century beliefs of causation and develops what he believes to be the correct way to formulate causation. In this essay I will recount Hume’s argument against causation, state Hume’s position on how we can attribute causation, and give a reason evaluation of Hume’s position on causation.

Hume opens section seven of his Enquiry by telling his readers that he believes in concept empiricism. In other words, Hume believes that our concepts or ideas are formulated from our impressions, which are vivid, sensible, and unambiguous, as seen in the quote “It seems a proposition, which will not admit of much dispute, that all our ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions…” (EHU, 90). Hume uses his concept empiricism and his ideas of the relationship between ideas and impressions to argue that one cannot imagine something without having a prior impression of that thing. This argument is seen in the quote “…it is impossible for us to think of any thing, which we have not antecedently felt, either by our external or internal senses” (EHU, 90). Thus, Hume comes to the conclusion regarding cause and effect that one cannot, and can never, imagine the effect of a cause without having ever experienced it. This assertion is seen in the quote “From the first appearance of an object, we never can conjecture what effect will result from it” (EHU, 91). Hume uses his concept empiricism and the ideals mentioned above to disprove the accepted ways of determining causation.

Through Hume’s reasoning and observations, Hume argued that there is no simple impression that could possibly give meaning to causation. The first way Hume rejects causation is through the body-body relationship. Hume rejects the action of an external body acting upon another body as a legitimate way of determining causation because Hume believes that when the interaction between the two bodies occur there is no way to observe the act of causation.  This argument can seen the Hume’s example of the billiard balls. Hume argues that “…there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion” (EHU, 91) in the interaction between the impulse of one moving billiard ball with another, in which the second billiard balls acquires motion. The basis of Hume’s argument of the billiard balls is that one cannot see the act of causation when the billiard balls collide. In other words, when the two billiard balls collide, a number of different possibilities could arise regarding the motion of the two billiard balls. For example, when the billiard balls collide both billiard balls could come to a halt. Thus, the purpose of Hume’s billiard ball example can be seen as showing that it is impossible to see causation when two bodies interact.

The second way Hume rejects causation is through the mind-body relationship. Hume describes the mind-body relationship with regards to moving bodily organs. In the quote “An act of volition produces motion in our limbs…” (EHU, 91) Hume is stating that one has control over one’s bodily motion solely through willing or one’s volition. However, Hume sees that the motion of one’s limbs is actually not the direct effect of one’s volition. In the quote “We learn from anatomy, that the immediate object of power in voluntary motion, is not the member itself which is moved, but certain muscles, and nerves…through which the motion is successively propagated, ere it reach the member itself whose motion is the immediate object of volition” (EHU, 92) Hume argues that, in fact, one’s volition does not directly correlate to the final effect of the motion of limbs and that there is an intermediate step of the use of muscles and nerves that is not readily seen. Hume’s argument in the previous quote demonstrates the fact that when the mind wills an event, another event that is unintentional and different than the one wanted occurs. Thus, it can be seen that Hume dispels the mind-body relationship in the quote “How indeed can we be conscious of a power to move our limbs, when we have no such power…though they produce at last the motion of our limbs, yet operate in such a manner as is wholly beyond our comprehension?” (EHU, 92).  In this quote, Hume is saying that one cannot make the connection of volition to the motion of limbs due to the underlying intermediate step that is involved in the process. Since the mind does not readily move the body, Hume states that one cannot find causation in the mind-body relationship.

The third form of causation the Hume rejects is the mind-mind relationship. Hume demonstrates the mind-mind relationship in the quote “…we are conscious of a power or energy in our own minds, when, by an act or command of our will, we raise up a new idea…” (EHU, 93). The basic principle of the mind-mind relationship is that one’s mind formulates a thought or idea to think of and then the mind thinks of that idea. However, Hume finds this process to be flawed. In regards to the mind-mind relationship, Hume states “This is a real creation; a production of something out of nothing…” (EHU, 93). In Hume’s argument against the mind-mind relationship, Hume cannot see how one could form an idea out of nothing. This relates back to his concept empiricism beliefs, in that all ideas are essentially copies of impressions and in order to have impression, one must have had experienced that specific event. Hume goes on to show that through experience it is revealed that the mind shows varying degrees of control. Hume demonstrates this in the quote “A man in health possesses more of it, than one languishing with sickness. We are more master of our thoughts in the morning than in the evening…” (EHU, 93). Since these things are learned through experience, Hume says that the mind-mind relationship is only a constant conjunction and not a form of causation.

            From these arguments against the three possible sources of causation, body-body, mind-body and mind-mind, it can be seen that Hume shows that there is no evidence of causation within a cause. Hume comes to the conclusion that the only form of cause and effect that one can see in these possible sources of causation is in fact just constant conjunction, meaning that a specific effect is related to a specific cause. It can also be seen that Hume dispels the fact that the cause and effect are related to each other in each of the possible sources. Hume therefore states that events “…seem conjoined, but never connected” (EHU, 94).

            After Hume presented his negative phase regarding causation, Hume presented what he believed to be the way, and only way, in which one could determine causation. Hume states “And as we can have no idea of any thing, which never appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be, that we have no idea of connexion or power at all, and that these words are absolutely without any meaning, when employed either in philosophical reasonings, or common life” (EHU, 94) to hint towards a possibility of there being an actual way of determining the idea of connection and causation. Hume is hesitant is the above quote by using “seems” rather than “is” because he believes there is a way in which one can come to the conclusion of “connexion” and that it is when two events are always conjoined with each other. This can be seen in the quote “But when one particular species of event has always, in all instances, been conjoined with another…We then call the one object, Cause; the other, Effect” (EHU, 94). According to Hume, the only way to come to the conclusion of cause and effect, one event must always produce a certain effect. Hume sees two events to be connected only after multiple instances of observation and that this connection is only a feeling in one’s “…imagination, and can readily foretell the existence of one from the appearance of the other. When we say, therefore, that one object is connected with another, we mean only, that they have acquired a connexion in our thought…” (EHU, 94). Hume in this quote is saying that the connection we attribute to a cause and an effect is really only in the mind and can only be learned through experience and observation.

            After reading Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, I find Hume’s argument against causation and what causation can be attributed to, to be a solid argument. I can understand how a cause and an effect can not be related to each other, because I find it possible to conceive of an effect without a cause being present or a cause without an effect being present. For example, I can think of a football traveling through the air without having to first think of the person throwing the football. I think this is Hume’s major argument against causation, in that since we cannot see the connection between a cause and an effect, we cannot attribute causation to the cause and effect but only a conjunction between the two. I believe, as does Hume, that causation can be attributed when the cause and effect are always correlated or conjoined with each other. This empirical approach to causation seems logical to me because I don’t see how innately someone could derive an effect out of a cause, due to the fact that there may be copious amounts of effects, as seen in Hume’s billiard ball example. Hume’s critique of causation led to a radical change in thinking in his era because the critique rejected his existing philosophy regarding causation. This rejection can be seen as a type of modernity, in which new and improved ways of thinking are developed which can help clarify difficult concepts.

                Hume’s argument against causation in the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is seen in his rebuttal of the traditional arguments for causation which are body-body, mind-body, and mind-mind relationships. Hume states there is no way to determine a specific effect from a specific cause in these three possible sources for causation because there “seems” to be no relationship between a cause and an effect but only a conjunction. Hume offers his explanation for causation in which he believes causation can be attributed to a scenario when a specific effect always follows a specific cause. This conjunction of an effect and a cause can then in this scenario be transformed into a connection in the mind. Hume’s work on causation was innovative and revolutionary. Hume’s work shed light on new ways of thinking about causation and his work’s influence can be seen in many of the philosophers that followed. 

(Reading a book, Chris is lying on his back in a rocking chair. Cindy gets near and sits next to him.)

CINDY: I envy you a lot.

CHRIS:  I know.

CINDY: (sighs) Seriously, I envy you a lot. Our parents just altercated and yelled divorce. How can you just sit there and read a book?

(Chris shrugs his shoulders and turns another page)

CINDY:  I don’t know. If I meddle with their fight and yell at both of them, I might come across as a disrespectful daughter. But if I just keep quiet, (glimpses at Chris) like what you’re doing right now; it’s a sign of nonchalance. And that’s not a good thing.

CHRIS: That’s funny because that’s exactly what my book is talking about right now. Wanna know what it is saying? (glimpses at Cindy)

CINDY: (sighs and noncommittally nods) Yeah.

CHRIS: In this section called Of the Origin of the Natural Virtues and Vices, David Hume explains to us when an action is virtuous and when it is vicious.

CINDY: Does it say whether your voracious reading is virtuous or vicious?

CHRIS: Very good question, Cindy. It’s the same with the cliché- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For you, as the spectator, my voracious reading is annoying. In this case, reading is vicious.

CINDY: I’m not annoyed by your reading. I’m annoyed that you just let our parents fight. You are the son and you are not doing anything.

CHRIS: You made a great point. You are not looking at the morality of my reading as a single action.  Rather, you are looking at my character that caused this reading vice.

CINDY: So, which one is vicious- Mom yelling at Dad or Dad yelling at Mom?

CHRIS: It seems like both actions evoke a feeling of hatred from you. As the spectator, you perceive Mom and Dad’s yelling at each other as vicious.

CINDY: Well, I think you yourself are vicious, you know… being the son, who prefers to read Hume in the veranda, rather than… being there, refereeing Mom and Dad’s pesky altercation.

CHRIS: That is your personal point of view as the spectator of the moment. But if you ask my friends, I’m quite sure they will agree that it is virtuous to not meddle with our parents’ healthy arguments.

CINDY: You call that healthy arguments? Chris, they are screaming divorce!

CHRIS: (takes his eyes off the book and imitates his mother’s voice) I will call my lawyer and file a divorce, Sweetheart. (shifts to his father’s voice) Tell your lawyer to call my lawyer, Honey. My lawyer can expedite our divorce case.

CINDY: Wow. Our parents must have been yelling the same thing for years. You memorized it though you always were not listening.

CHRIS: You are missing the point here, Cindy. Mom and Dad are still calling each other with their terms of endearment. You think they really mean that divorce?

CINDY: Wow. I must have been really pissed off I hardly noticed they still call each other Honey and Sweetheart.(sighs) So… does Hume also mention there whether divorce is a vice or a virtue?

CHRIS: Well, that’s another point of discussion. But as of now, the most virtuous thing you can do is to leave me and my book alone. We are having a private conversation.

(Cindy shakes her head and leaves.)

Hume’s doubts are about the trustworthiness of our understanding. He wants to know whether the decisions man makes are in touch with the truth or the actual reasons why they happen. This leads to a speculation that is there something other than the actual reason which can guide our decisions. Hume believes this other guiding principle is experience. The problem Hume confronted was if a man does not base his decisions on the real reasons why things happen, but rather on his experiences, then isn’t he going to face problems in his life if those reasons change?  But since man does not know the real reason, there is the possibility that without his knowledge, the reasons can change. Man will be in doldrums because his old experiences cannot account for the new changes. Hume wants to know if man can trust the guiding principle that leads to the judgments he makes each day. An example that demonstrates this doubt is the formation of water from two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen.

Hume’s argument is that man does not know the most basic working principle that makes Hydrogen a compatible element with oxygen to make water. Chemists are able to manipulate the two elements to make water by using appropriate ratios, but they do so based on their experiments or experiences. But they do not know what makes protons and electrons in Hydrogen and Oxygen to form water instead of oil. Hume says, “Yet he has not, by all his experience, acquired any idea or knowledge of the secret power, by which the object produces the other…” (28). Hume’ qualm is if the properties of the two elements change, which might be possible because man is not in control, then will man be able to cope with that change and live? What certainty is there that Hydrogen and oxygen will combine to form water? Is there any evidence to prove this as a fact, beyond reasonable doubt? Hume is looking for proof that two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen will definitely form water. Hume wants to know if there is real evidence about the certainty of the supposed matter of facts around him.

Hume arrives at this doubt when he considers the difference between matter of facts and relations of ideas. Unlike the relation of ideas where an axiom is definite, such as in 3 + 5 = 8 which never equal anything else, according to Hume, matters of fact have contradicting possibilities of equal weight. It is a matter of fact the sun rises every day. Hume says that is one possibility, but there is also another equally pressing possibility; the sun will not rise every day. The idea that the sun will not rise every day could be true. Hume argues that man does not know the most basic principles to determine why things happen. When concerned with the sun’s rising, man does not know what universal principle prompts the earth to rotate on its axis at a fixed speed. Man has not experienced the sun not rising. But all knowledge cannot be contained in his finite experience, due to his short life span. Therefore, Hume reasons that no argument–whether the sun rises or it does not– is superior because man does not know the real reason why the sun rises. Hume considers that since man does not possess knowledge of the basic principles, they can change at any time leaving him without anything to go on. Man experiences the sun rise, Hume is looking for the evidence to prove that this matter of fact is more favored than the other possibility, which is the sun not rising. Hume wants to know what gives the one possibility of a fact– the sun rising each day– precedence over the possibility over the other equally opposite fact.

 David Hume believes the solution to his doubt about the evidence that leads to the certainty of one possibility of a fact over the other, is the pre established harmony. He believes there is a world-order, which drives everything like an automaton. It is this pre established harmony that makes the earth revolve on its axis and force Hydrogen and Oxygen to form water instead of oil. Hume points out that this evidence what he has been seeking. The harmony points to one matter of fact over the other, such as the sun will rise each day, instead of it not rising. The harmony is vital because it forces man to think a certain way and gives him certain experiences. The harmony forces man to experience the heat from a flame instead of cold. After experiencing pain, he will keep his hand away from all flames. Thus, it is his experience that fire causes burns and keep away from it. The pre established harmony forced man’s experience to keep away from fire, because the harmony itself decided that fires should burn rather than freeze.

Thus, using these experiences, man lives each day of his life on earth with assurance. But through experiences he knows enough to manipulate certain axioms in the world to his advantage. An example would be energy. No man had seen energy embodied in a physical state such as a solid or liquid. The most sophisticated machines can only detect the transfer of energy in chemical reactions. The products are seen after the reaction, but the actual component of energy, as in one gram of it, is not seen. But man can still manipulate energy to catalyze reactions that enable him to have the technological advances he has today. Though man does not understand the most basic workings of the universe, such as the comprehension of energy, he can gain sufficient knowledge to manipulate his surroundings based on his experiences. Man gains these experiences by interacting with the pre established harmony. The solution-man lives in a world that forces him to think and act certain ways with a few freedoms to live his life peacefully.

David Hume’s doubts concern the evidence regarding the possibility of one aspect of a fact over the other. To answer this doubt, the solution Hume proposes is the presence of a pre- established harmony prevalent in the world. Thus, the pre established harmony drives man to make certain decisions, by using the experiences he gains. The pre established harmony has the sun set to rise each day instead of not rising. Man, based on his experiences that the sun raises each day, gets up when the sun rises, and then when it sets, goes to sleep. In this process, he lives each day guiding his decisions while being guided by the world order.

Hume influenced the thought of many subsequent philosophers including Adam Smith, Rousseau, Fodor and many others (Image via Wikipedia)

Works Cited

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Eric Steinberg. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.

-Kant is influenced by David Hume’s writings.

1787 (Kant’s critique of pure reasoning.

-Hume woke Immanuel Kant up intellectually. Kant combines rationalism and empiricism. Kant agrees with empiricism.

Empiricism: We are born without any knowledge. Knowledge beings with sense experiences.

Things that Kant disagrees with from empiricism

1) Kant does not think empiricism is knowledge.

2) Kant disagrees with passively receiving. We don’t passively receive information from our senses. We actively receive information from our senses. Perception is not passive it is active. This rejects realism. For example, looking at a square.

-This world itself is the numeral world. Our mind receives and processes information from the world. Those two combined give us what Kant calls the phenomenal world. What we experience by the world is the joint product from the information of the world. What are the categories of the world?

World in itself

Numeral World – is the world of things in themselves. We cannot directly experience it, but we can understand it through mathematical equations.

Categories

Phenomenal World – this is a projection of the numeral world. We exist in the phenomenal world. The phenomenal world is about sensations.

-A statement like this a universal and necessary and they are probable. 7 + 5 = 12 is a necessary statement. It is universal and it does not change.

-Saying most cars use gas deals with probability.

Subject and Predicate

-Statements have a form of subject and predicate. Now there are basically two kinds of statements. S and P.

Analytic statements: already have the meaning of the predicate (P). For example, all bachelors are married males. This is an analytic statement. All bodies are extended is Kant’s example. If you look at the meaning of body it already includes extension.

Synthetic statements: the meaning of the predicate is not in the subject term. It is something that you put together. For example, all cats are brown. It is not part of the meaning that all cats are brown. Kant’s example is that all bodies are heavy. All the parts of the bodies must have weight.

-Kant wants knowledge. He wants certainty on the really big questions. We can have metaphysical knowledge.

GOD

FREE WILL

IMMORTALITY

Problems

Louie. We can know nothing about the world in itself. Knowledge is confined to phenomenal world. You can’t say you don’t know anything about the world if you are Kantian thinking. You will assume that the world exists. I will leave through the door is knowledge claiming to be knowledge, but it is sceptics.

David Hume

-Modern philosophers in 1751 focus on deduction from abstract reasoning. This is the age of enlightenment.
-Reason as the foundation of morality is a chain of proof. An argument by analogy is not always a facie. Morality is based on reason has disputes and you solve it by reason.
Moral Sense: humans have a moral sense built into them. For example, the 6th sense.
Sentiment: (feeling). Sentiment as a foundation of morality you can’t determine what is human nature and what is a vice.
-What producers love? Look at the nature of human beings. The next step is what are our moral duties? How do we develop a good habits?

Two possibilities for the foundation of morals:

-We discover moral principles through reason. The second reason motivates us to follow these principles. Reason does not motivate us to action. Reason helps us find the means to an end. Reason helps curiosity. Reason helps fulfil our goals. Reason does not give us a reason to help someone in need. “Reason is the slave of the passions” Hume. In our heart, our reason tells us should we help someone. Heart is the foundation of morality. The heart makes us help others. If you take away passion morality won’t regulate our lives. (Psychopaths are empty and they lack reason. The only way to change the psychopaths is to tell them why they should act a certain way). Another possibility is reason and human nature as the foundation of morality.
Reason as the foundation of morality
-Ancient philosophers believed that reason is the foundation of morality, but Hume does not think reason is the foundation of morality. Reason can never determine the nature of values. For example, gratitude. Someone is hungry and you give him or her money and they don’t say thank you. Where is the morality? Reason can never determine the facts in a crime of morality. You find a trigger that is the sentiment of blame. In geometry the nature of a triangle when it comes to morality or immorality you can’t see it as wrong.
A moral judgment: is projected on a situation.
-The roman emperor analogy. The roman emperor killed his mother. From all the facts given that is immoral, but to Nero it is moral. We feel sentiment (feelings/emotion) where Nero was missing it. We look at the facts and project our view on the situation.
“Colour is not objective. We see colour to be what we see. We speak objectively” John Mackie. We project our morality onto things.
-A circle is beautiful. You see it as ugly. Beauty is a figure that is produced in the mind. Morality is an analogue to aesthetics that is the study of beauty.
-If the wrongfulness of Nero killing his mom is subjective a tree coming up and killing another tree is immoral. There are no moral facts. Reason is cool and it directs appetite to avoid problems and to promote happiness.
Is ought fallacy
-People will list the facts and then they will make a moral conclusion based on the facts. For example, a lot of people eat meat; therefore, you have to eat meat. You add a moral or value statement or it is a fallacy.
Overall (Tutorial notes)
-For Hume’s reason is not a foundation for morality. Reason is not morality. Reason can only discover truths it can’t motivate people to action by itself. We have to have motivation in morality because morality only makes sense with action. People are motivated to do something. Morality has its motivating source. Your feelings give you a level of motivation. Our passions motivate us. Reason is the slave of our passions. Our passion only can motivates where reason cannot. Without passion we have no love of virtue.
-Reason vs. morality. Reason should be slaved to passion when it comes to moral judgements. You are motivated to do something because of your passions. Reason will help your function when pursuing your actions.
-Reason is concerned with facts in the world. Morality is not a fact in the external world. The triangle the parts don’t add up to whether an act is moral or immoral.
-Morality is something that we project onto the world.
1) Reason can’t determine virtues and vices. If something is really good or bad.
2) Essence of human nature.
3) We can’t determine something by just looking at the external parts.

 To begin this discourse I will begin by giving a thumbnail definition of induction. Induction is the process of reasoning from observed cases to unobserved where the conclusion goes beyond what is included in the premises. An example of this would be inferring from ‘All observed ravens have been black’ to the conclusion that ‘All ravens are black.’

 Induction is just one process through which we initiate beliefs. Induction falls into the category of obtaining knowledge a posteriori since it requires some observation of the outside world. One cannot observe that ravens are black from the philosophical armchair alone.

 Despite induction being a unique process it can often be confused with another method of acquiring knowledge a posteriori, i.e. the deductive method. A deductively valid argument occurs when the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. In a deductive argument the conclusion is already contained in the premises. This is the fundamental difference between induction and deduction.

 An example of a valid deductive argument is as follows; all fish have gills, Jimmy is a fish, therefore Jimmy has gills. Beliefs via deduction are often considered to be more justifiable than those formed through induction; largely because a deductive conclusion does not contain anything that is not already contained within the premises. I will explore later a way in which induction and deduction are co-involved.

 Initially, induction appears to be a plausible process. It appears to be a very logical and grounded thing. To reason that ‘all observed As are B, therefore all As are B’ seems rather credible. Humans seem to like to take what has been observed and project this onto future events.

  Induction seems so credible that human nature has adopted it and we use it everyday to almost no end. Primarily, we constantly make plans for tomorrow and secondly, we continue to eat the same food for example. We do these things simply because; every other day that we have experienced has been succeeded by a new day and the rising of the sun and we have been nourished by certain things in the past which we believe have kept us alive. Thus, our judgements of things which we have encounterd (observed) tempt us to make judgements and form beliefs for future (unobserved) cases.

 Despite the apparent rationality of induction, there has been some opposition and challenges offered purporting that induction is unjustifiable. This opposition probably takes its major inspiration from David Hume, a knowledge by induction skeptic. One of the most important points of any challenge to induction points out that induction is not logical, as Schlick states, “Induction is therefore nothing else but a methodically guided guessing, a psychological, biological process whose execution has certainly nothing to do with ‘logic’.”(1)

Image via Wikipedia

 At first, the claim that induction has nothing to with logic is, to some extent, unintuitive; at least for me personally. As a mathematician I find the idea of induction a very believable and dependable concept. However, with further analysis of induction itself it appears that mathematical and philosophical induction are not the same.[1]

  In order to establish the major arguments against the authority of  philosophical induction I will look at Hume’s points and ascertain whether these are valid and/or sound.

 Hume’s argument is one which analyses and questions, not the validity of inductive premises, but the fundamental nature of what it means to form a belief via induction. Hume begins by acknowledging that all our beliefs and knowledge stem from either experience or are obtainable by reason. However, Hume continues to state that “all arguments [i.e. by induction] concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect.”(2) Thus, our faith in induction is due to our assumption of the idea of ‘cause and effect’. This ‘cause and effect’ is only an assumption according to Hume because our conclusions from this notion “proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past.”(3) In other words, we are assuming that because effect A had cause B at a point in the past, similar causes to B in the future will have similar effects to A. Because this belief in cause and effect is founded in experience it follows that any knowledge we can gain about the future can only be gained via experience.

 Herein lies the problem for Hume. Knowledge of the future, or of any unobserved cases, is known on the basis of inference i.e. if we were to have any knowledge of the future it would take the form of an inductive inference. (4)

 This is perhaps the most damaging point for induction. The notion that the future resembles the past (i.e. cause and effect and uniformity) is groundless. In order for us to know that nature is uniform we have to use induction and this forms a circular argument. Induction implies uniformity of nature, which in turn implies induction. Hume therefore concludes that any beliefs formed via induction are groundless and unjustified.

 Hume, however, does not say that induction should be abandoned. He accepts that induction is practical for humans to use and that our convention to reason from experience is “Custom or Habit, the great guide of human life.”(5) Hume realises that although induction may not be rational, our insistence that nature is uniform is due to habit. Hume furthers this with, “We need not fear that this philosophy should ever undermine our reasonings of common life, for, whatever we may conclude, nature will always maintain her rights and prevail in the end over any abstract reasoning.”(6)

Hume accepts that our human nature will always prevail despite our findings that inductive reasoning is illogical. If a method has proven useful before, for practical reasons, we will continue to adopt this method. Human nature revolves around practicality.

 Despite Hume’s very convincing argument against the justifiability of inductive reasoning, people still try to find some reasonable arguments for it. It has generally been agreed among philosophers that any kind of justification for induction would have to take the form of one of the two arguments- deductive or inductive.

 In order for an inductive argument to be deductively valid it would have to contain a premise about the future which we know to be true. However, this implies that a deductively valid argument contains at least one premise which can only be known by induction. This is because any argument which tries to establish the reliability of future inductive arguments by their performance in the past is deductively invalid. Hence, a deductively valid justification of induction only works if we know at least one of the premises to be true, but we need induction to underpin the truth of this premise. This is clearly an erroneous argument. (7)

 Furthermore, to use induction as an argument to justify induction is clearly a fallacy as it begs the question. Justifying A using A as justification is clearly not desirable.(8)

 Thus, it seems that the justfications of induction are unsatisfactory when compared with Hume’s ideas on the matter. From a personal point of view I still find it hard to accept that inductive beliefs are unjustified. Despite completely accepting Hume’s position and arguments and agreeing with him, I suppose my human nature refuses to dispense with habit and practical reasoning. Regardless of my human nature and what I feel about induction, I suppose I agree that beliefs formed by induction are unjustified. I agree that we cannot know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, we have no reason to believe it will do so tomorrow simply because it has done it in the past.

  To conclude then, I have adressed the issue of induction in a few ways. Upon defining it I was able to present examples whereby induction is used and establish that it is a very common method used by people everyday. I assessed the justification of induction from both sides and it appeared that the any arguments justifying induction were either fallacious or circular. Hume’s critique of induction proved much more successful to the point where it is apparent that inductive arguments are unjustified. Despite his criticisms though, Hume accepted that induction is a way of habit and proves to be of practical relevance to human nature.

References:

(1)- Moritz Schlick, ‘On the Foundation of Knowledge’ taken from “Epistemology; The Classis Readings” edited by David E. Cooper.  Published 1999 by Blackwell Publishers.

(2), (3)- David Hume, Enquiry, Section IV, Part Two

(4)- http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/induction.html

       Accessed- 12/03/09, at 21.47.

(5), (6)- http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com/Article/Hume-s-Problem-of-Induction/47

       Accessed- 12/03/09, at 22.21

(7), (8)- http://spot.colorado.edu/~oddie/induct.html

      Accessed- 12/03/09, at 22.56

[1] The differences between mathematical and philosophical induction is a separate discourse but it can play a part in any individual’s interpretation of what induction is.

Reassessment of the teleological perspective was brought about by the dramatic events that transpired in history. This reassessment of defining the structure and content of the legal order gave birth to modern teleological analysis / point – of – view.

As a whole, modern teleological analysis says that the law is not based on a rigid formula but on changing factors / conditions brought about by free – willing individuals in a changing society.

In Modern Teleological Perspective, there are three approaches. First is the JURISTIC APPROACH, the second one is the ETHICAL RELATIVITY and the last one is the INTEREST OF THE STATE APPROACH. 

JURISTIC APPROACH

In Greco view, Roman view and the Aquinian View, the postulation and development of the concept of law started from the moral nature and good faith of man. However, this view was changed by Josef Kohler and Sidney Hook.

In Juristic Approach, the changing conditions of time, place and people should be considered in the knowledge of right and wrong (or good or evil).

ETHICAL RELATIVITY

Ethical relativity was primarily based on Josef Kohler’s “Ideal Tendencies” theory and Sidney Hook’s “Primary Desires” theory.

Josef Kohler stated that “There is no ideal absolute or absolute ideal”. He argued that the national oblutiacs (opinions, beliefs, longings, usages, traditions, idiosyncrasies, arts, customs and superstitions) cannot be ignored.  However, they cannot be solely relied upon either. He postulated that there is no absolute formula to determine the different aspects of legal ordering of society.

On the other hand, Sidney Hook stated that “what is right really depends on the primary desires of the people, which is, constantly in flux”. He further argued that the problem of “what is right and what is wrong” is to be conceived as the equilibration of interests and their adjustments to environment.

These two ideals, when taken altogether, gave us the notion that all (laws, right, good) are relative to the other transitory values and conditions. 

The present concern or emphasis of modern teleological jurisprudence is  Rudolf Stammler’s Theory of Justice, which is an applicable formula for both national and international legal ordering. Rudolf Stammler believed that the idea of justice is induced by varying factors and changing times. This was true especially in cases involving the “clear – and – present danger” rule.

INTEREST OF THE STATE

 This approach refers to the idea that when an act or conduct and its consequence are in conformity with the interest of the state, then they are considered as good and just.  An advocate of this idea is David Hume. An act or idea is either approved or disapproved on the basis of public benefit from it. And it can only be agreeable to the members of the community as a whole when it is not destructive of the state since the latter is the recognized protector of the liberties and of the people. Justice is related to the phenomenon of the interest of the state and makes it no more than a social virtue. David Hume also posited that justice may or may not be endowed with fair equality. An act may be just but not fair in one occasion, and in the other, it may be unjust but fair.

David Hume also stated that reason is and ought only to be the slave of passions. Reason recognized the utility but passion provides the compelling force of all action. If this is so, then the solution of the problem of what is right and just cannot be derived from the reason because man’s reason can dwell on and discover only what “is”, that is to say by deduction from premises and observation of acts and events happening before him. 

Image via Wikipedia

Hume insists that no impression can possibly endure forever, “Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time” (Velasquez 98).  Hume argues that since these impressions cannot exist at the same time in the same person, the person cannot be the same when experiencing one impression and the other.  The concept of the enduring self maintains that throughout our lives, from infancy to death, we remain the same person. 

Hume contends that from each and every moment to the next, we are constantly changing.  According to Hume, we are never the same person year to year, month to month, week to week, day to day, or minute to minute.  This state of constant and unhalted flux makes it impossible for anyone to be the same self for any given period of time. 

Hume believes that the self cannot exist because it cannot be experienced alone, without any perceptions invading the self.  Hume states his own experience with trying to ponder his own self,

“For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure.  I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception…”  (Velasquez 98). 

Hume reasons that since the self is always pervaded by perceptions, perceptions are the self.  Hume explains that since the self cannot be isolated from the perceptions of an individual, the self must not exist.  All that exists is what can be perceived by the person, and since the self cannot be perceived, it cannot possibly exist.

            In my own experience, I feel that I have not remained the same self throughout my life.  The book gives a good analogy about how different parts changing slowly at different times are hard to recognize in a small frame of time,

“Our body is like a ship sailing on the ocean, a ship made up of hundreds of wooden boards.  If each day we remove one or two of the boards and replace them with new ones, eventually we will change all of the boards that make up the ship.  Still, because most of the boards remain the same from one day to the next, we say it is the same ship from the beginning to the end of its voyage” (Velasquez 92).

The ship changes drastically from the beginning of its voyage to the end, but it changes at such a slow rate that the changes are not regarded as such.  I believe it is the same in most people’s lives; different parts of the person constantly change, but huge amounts of change happen over long periods of time and are not noticeable as they happen. 

            I agree with Hume that there is not a constant, enduring self, but I do still believe there is a self.  Just because the self changes over time does not mean it does not exist.  I believe the self is a combination of perceptions, memories, and soul. The self cannot be defined by one aspect alone, as it is an all-encompassing entity.  In my opinion, trying to describe the self does it a disservice because it is impossible to define with words.  A combination of many philosopher’s ideas on the self is our best attempt at defining the self.