Hume's Skeptical Empiricism Flashcards
Explain Hume’s distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact, analytic and synthetic propositions. Give examples. How does he make this distinction relate to his critique of rationalism?
Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact:
a. Relations of Ideas: According to Hume, relations of ideas are propositions that can be known through reason alone, without relying on sensory experience. They are necessary truths based on logical or mathematical relations. These propositions are often considered to be a priori knowledge, meaning they can be known independently of experience. Examples include mathematical equations, geometric theorems, or logical truths like “All bachelors are unmarried.”
b. Matters of Fact: Matters of fact, on the other hand, are contingent truths that can only be known through sensory experience. They are based on empirical evidence and are subject to revision or refutation. Matters of fact are a posteriori knowledge, meaning they require observation or experience to be known. Examples include statements about specific events, scientific claims, or historical facts like “The sun will rise tomorrow” or “Paris is the capital of France.”
Analytic and Synthetic Propositions:
a. Analytic Propositions: Analytic propositions are those in which the predicate concept is contained within the subject concept. They are true by definition and do not provide new information about the world. Analytic propositions are often considered to be true in all possible worlds. Examples include “All triangles have three sides” or “A bachelor is an unmarried man.” These propositions are often associated with a priori knowledge and are related to relations of ideas.
b. Synthetic Propositions: Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, are those in which the predicate concept adds new information to the subject concept. They go beyond mere definitions and require empirical evidence or sensory experience to be confirmed or refuted. Synthetic propositions are contingent and can be true or false depending on the state of the world. Examples include “The cat is on the mat” or “Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.” These propositions are associated with a posteriori knowledge and are related to matters of fact.
Relation to Hume’s Critique of Rationalism: Hume’s distinctions between relations of ideas and matters of fact, as well as between analytic and synthetic propositions, serve as a critique of rationalism and the limits of human knowledge. He argues that relations of ideas, which are often considered the domain of pure reason, only provide tautological or trivial truths that do not extend our understanding of the world. Matters of fact, on the other hand, require sensory experience and empirical investigation to establish knowledge about the world.
Hume challenges the rationalist belief that pure reason alone can provide substantial knowledge about the external world. He argues that knowledge of matters of fact can only be derived from sensory experience, and our beliefs about the world are contingent and subject to revision in light of new evidence. This critique undermines the rationalist claim of achieving certain and necessary knowledge through reason alone, highlighting the importance of empirical evidence and sensory experience in acquiring knowledge.
Why does Hume insist that synthetic propositions are never necessarily true/false?
Hume insists that synthetic propositions are never necessarily true or false because their truth or falsehood depends on contingent matters of fact that cannot be determined by reason alone. Synthetic propositions go beyond mere definitions and add new information to the subject concept, but their truth or falsehood is contingent upon empirical evidence or sensory experience.
Hume argues that we cannot establish the truth of synthetic propositions through reason alone because reason cannot provide knowledge of matters of fact. No amount of logical or conceptual analysis can determine the truth or falsehood of a synthetic proposition. Instead, establishing the truth or falsehood of synthetic propositions requires observation and empirical investigation.
For example, consider the proposition “Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.” This is a synthetic proposition because it goes beyond the mere definition of water and makes a claim about its behavior under specific conditions. Hume would argue that we can only establish the truth of this proposition by conducting experiments and observing how water behaves under various temperature conditions. We cannot determine its truth or falsehood through reason alone.
Hume’s position is rooted in his empiricist philosophy, which emphasizes the role of sensory experience in acquiring knowledge. He believes that our knowledge of the world is contingent and subject to revision in light of new evidence. Synthetic propositions are contingent because their truth or falsehood depends on the way the world actually is, and this can only be determined through empirical investigation.
Explain Hume’s empirical criterion of meaning, using his definitions of perceptions, impressions, and ideas. How does Hume intend to use this empirical criterion of meaning, or put differently, how does Hume transform empiricism into skepticism? Define skepticism. Note the application of this criterion of meaning to the idea of God.
Impressions: Impressions are the more vivid and direct mental experiences that arise from our senses or emotions. They are immediate and intense sensations or feelings that we directly experience. Examples of impressions include the taste of an apple, the feeling of pain, or the sight of a sunset.
Ideas: Ideas, on the other hand, are the faint copies or reflections of impressions. They are less vivid and less forceful than impressions. Ideas are derived from impressions through memory, imagination, or reflection. For example, when we think about an apple without actually experiencing its taste or appearance, we are dealing with the idea of an apple.
Hume’s empirical criterion of meaning states that meaningful statements or concepts can only be derived from and correspond to our impressions or immediate sensory experiences. In other words, for a statement or concept to have meaning, it must be able to be traced back to a corresponding impression.
Hume intends to use this criterion to transform empiricism into skepticism by highlighting the limitations of human knowledge. He argues that since all meaningful ideas or concepts are ultimately derived from impressions, our knowledge is limited to what we can directly observe or experience through our senses. Anything beyond that, which cannot be traced back to an impression, lacks meaning and cannot be known with certainty.
This leads to skepticism, which is an epistemological position that questions the possibility of obtaining certain or absolute knowledge. Hume’s skepticism emerges from his recognition that our knowledge is constrained to our impressions and their copies (ideas), and that we cannot justify claims that go beyond this empirical basis.
Applying the criterion of meaning to the idea of God, Hume would argue that since we do not have any impression or immediate sensory experience of God, we cannot derive a meaningful concept of God. Ideas of God, according to Hume, are the result of human imagination or reflection, rather than being grounded in direct sensory experience. Therefore, the concept of God, lacking a corresponding impression, would be considered meaningless or not within the realm of knowledge according to Hume’s empirical criterion. Hume’s skepticism challenges the possibility of providing empirical evidence or justification for claims about the existence or nature of God.
Explain Hume’s analysis of the idea of causality and the philosophical idea of a necessary connection between cause and effect: Note the difference between necessary connection and constant conjunction, as well as the principle of the uniformity of nature.
Hume begins by observing that when we perceive a cause and an effect, such as striking a match and it lighting up, we do not directly observe any necessary connection between the two events. Rather, what we observe is a constant conjunction, meaning that we consistently see the cause preceding the effect. For example, every time we strike a match, it lights up. This observation of regularity leads us to form an expectation or habit of associating the cause with the effect.
However, Hume argues that we cannot go beyond this constant conjunction and claim that there is a necessary connection between cause and effect. A necessary connection implies that there is a metaphysical bond or inherent power in the cause that produces the effect. Hume contends that we have no direct experience or perception of such a necessary connection. All we observe is the repeated conjunction of events, not the connection itself.
Hume’s skepticism about necessary connection challenges the traditional notion of causality as a necessary and inherent relationship between cause and effect. Instead, he proposes that our idea of causality is based on a psychological habit or custom of associating certain events with others due to their constant conjunction.
Hume also introduces the principle of the uniformity of nature to support his analysis of causality. This principle suggests that the future will resemble the past in terms of the regularities we have observed. In other words, based on our experience of consistent conjunctions, we form the expectation that similar causes will produce similar effects in the future. This principle allows us to make predictions and operate in the world, even though we lack certainty about the necessary connection between cause and effect.
Explain the role played by habit and custom in Hume’s account of causality.
According to Hume, when we repeatedly observe a constant conjunction between two events, such as striking a match and it lighting up, we form a habit of associating the cause with the effect. This habit is a result of our psychological tendency to expect certain events to follow others based on our past experiences. We develop a custom of thinking that when we encounter the cause, the effect will follow.
Hume emphasizes that this habit or custom is not a product of reason or logic but rather of our natural psychological dispositions. It operates at a subconscious level, and we are not actively aware of the mental processes underlying our formation of the idea of causality. This habit becomes so ingrained that we come to expect the effect to follow the cause automatically and without questioning.
However, Hume points out that our habit-based idea of causality is not a necessary or intrinsic connection between cause and effect. It is merely a product of our past experiences and the regularities we have observed. We do not have direct perception or knowledge of any inherent power or necessary connection in the cause that produces the effect.
Hume’s emphasis on habit and custom challenges the traditional rationalist and metaphysical accounts of causality that posit a necessary connection between cause and effect. Instead, he suggests that our idea of causality is grounded in our psychological tendencies and the regularities we have observed in the world.
Explain why Hume insists that the claim that “A necessarily causes B” is not necessarily true.
Hume argues that we cannot establish the necessary connection between cause and effect through reason alone. No amount of logical analysis or conceptual reasoning can reveal the necessary link between them. Instead, our belief in the necessary connection is derived from our psychological habit or custom of associating certain events with others due to their consistent conjunction.
For example, suppose we observe that every time we drop an object, it falls to the ground. We may develop a habit of associating the act of dropping with the object’s falling. However, Hume argues that we do not have any direct perception or knowledge of a necessary connection between the act of dropping and the object’s falling. All we observe is a constant conjunction between these events, but we have no grounds to claim that the act of dropping is necessarily connected to the object’s falling.
Hume’s skepticism regarding necessary connections in causality stems from his empiricist position. He believes that our knowledge is limited to what we can directly observe or experience through our senses. Since we do not have any direct perception of necessary connections, Hume argues that claims about necessary causes are not necessarily true.
How would a rationalist like Descartes reply to Hume’s analysis of causality?
ond to Hume’s analysis of causality by presenting a contrasting viewpoint grounded in reason and innate ideas.
Descartes, as a rationalist, believed that knowledge is derived from innate ideas and the power of reason, rather than solely relying on sensory experience like Hume. Descartes would argue that our understanding of causality is not limited to constant conjunctions observed through experience but is instead a product of rational insight.
Descartes’ philosophical framework is built upon the principle of clear and distinct ideas, which he considered to be reliable foundations for knowledge. He would argue that causality is a necessary and innate concept that is grasped by the intellect through clear and distinct ideas. According to Descartes, the mind possesses innate knowledge of necessary truths, including the concept of causality, and this knowledge is not dependent on empirical observations.
In response to Hume’s skepticism regarding necessary connections, Descartes might assert that necessary connections exist independently of our observations and experiences. He would argue that through rational reflection and introspection, we can arrive at certain knowledge of necessary connections between cause and effect.
Descartes’ rationalist perspective would lead him to reject Hume’s emphasis on habit and custom as the foundation of our idea of causality. He would argue that our understanding of causality arises from the innate structure of the mind and its capacity for rational thought, rather than being derived from sensory experience aloneI apologize for the confusion in my previous response. As an AI language model, I incorrectly attributed a rationalist perspective to Descartes. In fact, Descartes is considered both a rationalist and an empiricist, as he incorporated elements of both philosophical traditions in his work. However, Descartes’ response to Hume’s analysis of causality would likely lean towards an empiricist perspective.
Descartes might respond to Hume’s analysis of causality by emphasizing the role of reason and innate ideas in understanding causality. Descartes believed in the existence of innate ideas that are present in the mind from birth. He would argue that these innate ideas provide the basis for our understanding of causality, allowing us to go beyond mere sensory experience.
Descartes might contend that while Hume’s emphasis on constant conjunctions is important, it does not provide a complete account of causality. According to Descartes, through the use of reason, we can reflect on our sensory experiences and discern necessary connections between cause and effect.
Explain and critically discuss how Descartes and Hume solve the problem of personal identity: Explain how Descartes arrives at the cogito as a thinking substance (or soul) as the source of personal identity, and then explain fully Hume’s rejection of the Cartesian Enduring Self as a thinking being and his own Bundle Theory of the self. How does this relate to the ship of Theseus scenario?
Descartes arrives at the concept of a thinking substance, often referred to as the “cogito,” through his famous dictum, “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). Descartes argues that the very act of doubting and thinking implies the existence of a thinking entity. He concludes that he must exist as a thinking substance or soul, distinct from his body, which provides the foundation for personal identity. According to Descartes, the enduring self is tied to this thinking substance, which persists even as the body and other attributes change.
On the other hand, Hume rejects the notion of the Cartesian enduring self as a thinking being. He argues against the existence of a substantial and enduring self that persists over time. Hume’s Bundle Theory of the self posits that personal identity is not grounded in a substance or underlying entity but rather in a bundle of perceptions and experiences. According to Hume, the self is a collection of constantly changing and interconnected mental states, such as sensations, thoughts, and emotions. He argues that there is no fixed and unchanging self beneath these experiences.
To Hume, personal identity is not based on a single enduring substance but rather on the continuity of these ever-changing mental states. He suggests that what we consider as personal identity is a result of the association and succession of our perceptions. Each perception is connected to others through memory, causation, and resemblance, creating a sense of unity and coherence.
The Ship of Theseus scenario is often used to illustrate the differences between Descartes and Hume’s views on personal identity. In the scenario, Theseus’ ship undergoes gradual replacement of its parts over time. Descartes would argue that the identity of the ship remains intact as long as the thinking substance or soul that constitutes Theseus remains the same. For Descartes, personal identity is tied to the unchanging thinking substance.
On the other hand, Hume’s Bundle Theory would challenge the notion of an enduring identity in the Ship of Theseus scenario. According to Hume, personal identity would not be derived from the persistence of the ship’s parts or the thinking substance but from the continued association of perceptions and experiences. If the ship’s parts were gradually replaced, Hume would argue that the ship’s identity is not preserved because the bundle of interconnected perceptions and experiences has changed significantly.
Explain how the debate over personal identity maps on to the debate between free-will and universal determinism: How does Descartes defend the doctrine of free-will and how does Hume’s account undermine that doctrine?
Descartes defends the doctrine of free will by positing a thinking substance or soul as the source of personal identity. According to Descartes, the mind or soul is a non-material, thinking entity that possesses free will. He argues that the mind is distinct from the body and not subject to the deterministic laws that govern physical matter. Descartes maintains that the mind has the ability to make choices and decisions independent of external influences. This freedom of the will is grounded in the mind’s essential nature as a thinking substance.
Descartes’ defense of free will is closely tied to his dualistic framework, which separates the mind and body into distinct substances. By positing a non-material mind, Descartes can argue for the existence of an autonomous will that is not determined by physical causes. This perspective grants individuals the capacity to act freely and make choices that are not predetermined by external factors.
Hume’s account, however, undermines the doctrine of free will. Hume’s philosophy is rooted in a more empirical and skeptical approach, which challenges the existence of a substantial self or enduring identity. According to Hume’s Bundle Theory of the self, personal identity is a collection of changing perceptions and experiences. There is no fixed and unchanging self that possesses free will.
Hume’s skepticism extends to the notion of free will itself. He argues that our sense of freedom is merely a feeling or sentiment rather than a reflection of true agency. Hume suggests that our actions are determined by a combination of external influences, such as our desires, motives, and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. He contends that free will is an illusion, as our choices are ultimately determined by these factors and are predictable based on our character traits and the given situation.
Hume’s skepticism towards free will aligns with his broader empiricist perspective, which emphasizes the influence of experience and causation. He rejects the idea of a separate and autonomous will that is detached from the causal chain of events. Instead, Hume argues that our actions are determined by a complex interplay of various causal factors, undermining the notion of free will as traditionally understood.
Note the relationship between reason and passion, in Hume’s account. Why does Hume say that reason is the slave of passion?
In Hume’s account, reason and passion play distinct roles in human decision-making, with reason being subordinate to passion. Hume argues that reason alone cannot motivate or guide action but instead acts as a servant or “slave” to our passions and desires.
According to Hume, passions are the primary driving force behind human action. Passions refer to our emotions, desires, and inclinations, which arise from our sentiments and feelings. These passions provide the impetus for action, as they generate the motivation and desire to pursue certain goals or outcomes.
Reason, on the other hand, is a faculty that evaluates and assesses the means to achieve our desires. It provides us with the ability to make judgments, weigh different options, and calculate the most effective means to attain our passions. However, reason alone cannot generate motivation or determine our goals.
Hume asserts that reason is inherently passive and lacks the power to produce action on its own. Reason can only operate within the framework set by our passions and desires. It can inform us about the factual aspects of a situation, offer logical coherence, and provide instrumental means to achieve our ends. But reason itself does not have the capacity to create desires or motivate action independently of our passions.
Hume’s claim that reason is the “slave of passion” reflects his understanding that reason is subservient to our passions in guiding our actions. Reason may help us determine the most effective means to satisfy our desires, but it is ultimately the passions that provide the underlying motivation and drive. Our passions dictate our ends, and reason follows suit by serving those ends.
