David Hume

In: Science

Submitted By mazen123al
Words 520
Pages 3
David Hume

“Hume is our Politics, Hume is our Trade, Hume is our Philosophy, Hume is our Religion.”

philosopher James Hutchison Stirling

Biographical Information * He was born in 1711 in Edinburgh, Scotland, and died in 1776 * Was born in upper middle class family, his father died when David still a child, his mother, Katherine Falconer, who was from a family of lawyers, David never married * Main interests: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Mind, Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics, Religion * Hume as the third and most radical of the British Empiricists, after the English John Locke and the Arish George Berkeley. * 1723 (age of 12) After an early education at home enters Edinburg University where he begins the study of law, three years later turns from the study of law to pursue an intense independent study of his own devising. * In 1752 was employment as librarian of the Advocate’s Library in Edinburgh * n 1763, Hume accepted as a private secretary for Lord Hertford, the Ambassador to France, * He thought this science should be based on “experience and observation”. (Spiegel 206) * Between (1744-1745), Hume was a candidate for the Chair of Moral Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, but was rejected mostly due to the protest concerning his anti-religious writings * He wrote profoundly influential works on epistemology, ethics, and the philosophy of religion, and was also published on politics, economics and history. * Hume also spent considerable time in his final years revising his works for new editions of his Essays and Treatises,

Works * A Treatise of Human Nature in (1739) * Being an Attempt to introduce the experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects. During his of private study he published before when he was thirty.

* "Of the Understanding" His treatment of everything from the origin…...

Similar Documents

David Hume and Determinism

...behind every event that occurs and while Determinism as a term wasn’t coined as a term until the 19th century, David Hume explored these major concepts in his Enquiry, delving into the roots of humanity and questioning the truth of human freedom.1 In particular his exploration into human understanding leads him to conclude that there is no effect without a cause and liberty when opposed to necessity cannot universally exist.2 Hume’s discovery, the Causal Maxim, and is generally accepted among philosophers, though it is not enough in and of itself to prove that he fits the mold of a determinist. However, by delving further into his various arguments, I will prove that Hume’s philosophy, mainly the denial of induction and support of causation, follows the discreet specifications of Determinism. Essential to the understanding of Hume’s philosophy is his idea of the universal necessity of connection between cause and effect, though he aptly admits that this connection is unobservable and denies that humans can ever have a true understanding of cause and effect.3 To explain such a broad claim Hume addresses a situation in which causality could prove troublesome by illustrating that God, through an immense causality chain, could be the true author of crime and immorality. This approach at explaining the connection between human criminality and God is deterministic, though Hume quickly halts this explication by admitting that it is outside of the bounds of human reason to......

Words: 1086 - Pages: 5

Kant vs Hume

...Scottish skeptic David Hume and German critic Immanuel Kant were both philosophers that attempted to address similar concepts of reason and human nature, albeit in very different ways. Both men, alive and practicing during the 1700s, had a lasting impact on the philosophical community. The two men not only differed personally, but philosophically, addressing issues at very different standpoints. Immanuel Kant, born in Prussia, was raised by a conservative family and quickly earned a PhD from his local university in Konigsberg. As a private, unmarried teacher, he mainly studied the sciences and is credited with devising the first working Big Bang Theory. Unlike other thinkers of his time, Kant was not skeptical or negative about humankind. Rather, he believed that all moral reasoning was based on rational thought. A rational man would make moral choices; an irrational man would not. This provides every man with an equal opportunity to use reason as moral guidance. Kant was also much more concerned with scientific reasoning and explanations. David Hume was far different from Kant in almost every way. Unlike Kant, Hume did not achieve a degree; he abandoned a course in law to pursue his philosophical calling. He was an overall skeptic, hesitant to approach huge, overarching ideals and more focused on the effect of memories and emotions. Unlike Kant, he did not believe in reason being rational; rather he believed that humans, though possessing free will, are at the mercy of...

Words: 426 - Pages: 2

Humes Ethics

...Hume’s Ethics Contents 1. Introduction 2. Hume’s ethics as an emotive theory of ethics 3. Conclusion 4. Bibliography David Hume is an outstanding Scottish philosopher of the 18th century whose views has a significant impact on the following generations of thinkers throughout the world. His sceptical arguments concerning induction, causation and especially religion, including his famous thesis that human knowledge arises only from sense experience and not from rational judgments, shaped the 19th and 20th century empiricist philosophy. His famous saying that ‘reason is the slave of the passions’ is a cornerstone of his ethical views largely explains the emotive character of his ethics. Hume’s ethics as an emotive theory of ethics In his works David Hume paid a lot of attention to ethical and moral problems he wanted to discuss these issues and presented his own particular views. At this respect it is worth to mention his moral theory basically depicted in Book 3 of the Treatise, titled “Of Morals”. The author basically discusses the principle issue of his ethics whether moral distinctions are derived from reason. To put it more precisely David Hume discusses the question concerning whether human moral approval is a rational judgment about conceptual relations and facts or an emotional response. On analysing such a dilemma, Hume arrives to the conclusion that it is rather an emotional response that has little, if has any at all, in common with reason. Moreover, it is......

Words: 1054 - Pages: 5

David Hume

...David Hume was an empiricist who thought that a sense of experience is essential to knowledge. In his interpretation of the mind, he affirms that it is unbounded in its potential, and that the contents of the mind are limited to what we experience. Hume held the belief that all the contents of the human mind were derived from experience only. He doubts that an individual can be so indifferent that he or she is unable to distinguish between right and wrong. He divided the mind’s perceptions into two groups, impressions and ideas. Impressions are those perceptions which are the most strong, vivid sensations, and are immediate data of experience. While ideas are only copies of impressions. Impressions are directly experienced and they include desires, emotions, and wills. Ideas, on the other hand, are coping mechanisms which produce memories that are less vivid and clear. He also states that complex ideas can be broken down into simple ideas and imagination can combine ideas. He proposes that the notion of the self has no empirical foundation. Hume postulates that all ideas are related to each other in three different ways, resemblance, contiguity, and causality. Hume then questions “What is the impression of the continuous self?” , which he answers “none” because the impression must in some way endure throughout a person’s whole life from birth to death. He states that a person can only find several impressions of present experience. Those several impressions create a......

Words: 318 - Pages: 2

Immanuel Kant and Hume, David

...Bibliography Kant and Hume on Morality First published Wed Mar 26, 2008; substantive revision Sun Aug 12, 2012 The ethics of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is often contrasted with that of David Hume (1711–1776). Hume's method of moral philosophy is experimental and empirical; Kant emphasizes the necessity of grounding morality in a priori principles. Hume says that reason is properly a “slave to the passions,” while Kant bases morality in his conception of a reason that is practical in itself. Hume identifies such feelings as benevolence and generosity as proper moral motivations; Kant sees the motive of duty—a motive that Hume usually views as a second best or fall back motive—as uniquely expressing an agent's commitment to morality and thus as conveying a special moral worth to actions. Although there are many points at which Kant's and Hume's ethics stand in opposition to each other, there are also important connections between the two. Kant shared some important assumptions about morality and motivation with Hume, and had, early in his career, been attracted to and influenced by the sentimentalism of Hume and other British moralists. The aim of this essay is not to compare Hume and Kant on all matters ethical. Instead, we examine several key areas of ethics in which we can reasonably see Kant as responding to or influenced by Hume, or in which comparisons between their theories are particularly interesting. There is more here about Kant than Hume but we include......

Words: 24372 - Pages: 98

Hume on Miracles

...Evaluate the claim that belief in miracles leads to a belief in a God who favours some but not all of his creation. 35m The definition of the word ‘miracle’ has not been unanimously agreed upon by scholars and thinkers. Hume famously defined miracles as ‘violations of the laws of nature by a particular volition of the deity.’ It can be argued that Hume would agree that belief in miracles would lead to a God who favoured some but not all of his creation as they are defined by him as exceptions to the norm based purely on the ‘volition’ (or will) of God. In this sense God would therefore decide when and where to intervene. The fundamental problem with this position is the anthropomorphic language which is used to describe God, many would argue that God does not act from volition because He does not have human attributes or limitations. Maurice Wiles argued that a God who intervenes selectively would not be worthy of worship due to his failure to act on a wider scale. Wiles argue that such a God would be guilty of being arbitrary (acting on random choices) and partisan (seeming to support a certain party or group). Wiles is concerned that a God who performs miracles, in the traditional sense, is picking and choosing who to perform miracles for, relieving suffering for some and allowing it to happen to others. He argues that the believer is subsequently left with two choices: to reject belief in miracles and petitionary prayer, or to accept that God is morally culpable for......

Words: 862 - Pages: 4

David Hume

...Renaissance to Revolution Term Paper Abbas Ali David Hume and the Fallacy (Philosophy) of Religion David Hume is considered the greatest philosopher Britain has produced and an intellectual hero to many atheists. His arguments against religion are clear, incisive and devastating. However, some people have misconstrued his agnosticism to represent faith and claim that while Hume challenged conventional religion, he himself believed in God. In this paper I will attempt to refute some of these claims by briefly highlighting some of Hume’s most compelling arguments against religion and showing how they leave little room for belief. I will also delve into some of the context surrounding Hume’s work to show how speaking against religion was a dangerous game in those times and restricted Hume’s ability to speak freely. Some of the primary sources used for this paper include Hume’s most famous works on religion, including The Natural History of Religion and Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. Secondary and tertiary sources include scholarly critiques of Hume’s texts as well as reviews and journals interpreting his work one way or another. To start with, lets have a look at an excerpt from, The Natural History of Religion, published in 1757. In the following passage, Hume summarizes his views on religion as “sick men’s dreams”: What a noble privilege is it of human reason to attain the knowledge of the supreme Being; and, from the visible works of nature, be enabled to......

Words: 1858 - Pages: 8

David Hume

...intelligent being to bring this action about. This being is God. The 18th-century philosopher David Hume wrote a book named Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in which he criticised Aquinas’s teleological argument, and several other teleological arguments. Firstly, Hume says that the apparent intelligent functioning of many unintelligent bodies – e.g., the complex systems by which plants take up minerals from the soil to cause water uptake into their roots – can be explained by the ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest, by which the organisms that happen by chance mutations to be most well-adapted to their environments are the ones which survive to reproduce, making their functions appear to be ordered specifically for their environments and therefore seeming designed. Therefore, apparent design may well not be in fact design. Hume uses this idea to criticise the major premise of Aquinas’s teleological argument. Hume also asserts that the world does not necessarily point to an intelligent designer. He uses the apparent cruelty often observed in nature – said to be “red in tooth and claw” – to argue that even if the universe had been designed, it was designed with flaws. For example, cats play with their prey for some time before they kill and eat it. The prey is caused to suffer unnecessarily by this – i.e., the suffering does not contribute to the cat’s survival. This, Hume posits, is one of many instances of flaws in the world. If the world was......

Words: 774 - Pages: 4

David Hume

...David Hume Empirist, skeptiker og nominalist. Hva er det vi kan vite sikkert og hvor kommer denne viten fra? Målet er å undersøke våre forestillinger og tanker i den hensikt å bekrefte/avkrefte deres sannhets- eller gyldighetsgrad. Analytisk kunnskap: kunnskap om forhold mellom begreper: logikk og matte. Sier ikke noe nytt om verden rundt oss. Syntetisk kunnskap: Gir oss ny informasjon om subjektet. Baserer seg på sanseinntrykkene. Den er ikke sikker kunnskap, da sanseinntrykkene kan lure oss, men det er det nærmeste vi kan komme kunnskap om verden. Det finnes ikke noe kunnskap om verden som ikke har sitt opphav i sanseerfaringen → det ligger til grunn for empirismen. Inntrykk: en form for erfaring, umiddelbar, blir skapt i oss ved hjelp av sanseinntrykkene, en direkte opplevelse av noe. Forestilling; en form for erfaring; inntrykk man tenker tilbake på og minnes, mattere og mindre klare enn inntrykkene, noe vi i siste instans fører tilbake til sanseinntrykk. Sammensatte forestillinger: inntrykk og forestillinger settes sammen, noen ganger til rare kombinasjoner som for eksempel forestillingen om Gud. Gud er dermed ikke basert på noen sansning av Gud selv. Assosiasjonsprinsippene ”liket”: gruppering av enkeltting → hume som nominalist. Assosiasjonsprinsippet ”sammenheng”: vi slutter fra en ting til det som er i nærheten → fra en stjerne til alle de andre stjernene. Assosiasjonsprinsippet ”Årsak/virkning”: kritiserer årsaksbegrepet!! Biljardkulene →......

Words: 890 - Pages: 4

Kant Versus Hume

...Kant VS Hume David Hume works from world to mind, Immanuel Kant from mind to world. Hume, how we experience the world is conditioned by the world. Kant, how we experience the world is conditioned by the mind. Most contemporary philosophers believe that Hume refuted the views of the rationalists before him (Descartes, Hobbes Spinoza, and Leibniz), who all held that there is an element of genuine a priori reasoning in causal inference. According to Hume, however, causal relations are not logically necessary, and hence they cannot be known a priori. To say that even if A caused B, it is not logically impossible to suppose that, given A, B might not have occurred. (De Pierris) So far as reason and logic are concerned, given a particular event, anything may happen next. This is precisely the reason why causal relations cannot be known a priori; in order to determine whether or not a causal relation holds between A and B we must rely on our experience of similar relations. "There are no objects," wrote Hume, "which by the mere survey, without consulting experience; we can determine to be the causes of any other; and no objects, which we can certainly determine in the same manner not to be the causes" (Lorkowski) Hume analyzed the idea of causality by emphasizing the three demands that can be verified through observation. First he argued the aspect of constant conjunction. In this aspect, the cause and effect must be spatially and constantly existent. Secondly, he asserted......

Words: 971 - Pages: 4

David Hume Non-Human Reasoning

...Nick Hittner Phil 3120 4/16/2015 Reaction Paper Cycle 3 Topic B Thesis The topic of this paper is David Hume’s belief whether or not nonhuman animals are rational. David Hume has a belief that is in contrast to that of the Cartesian view of humans possessing a unique ability to reason. He believes that nonhuman animals do have this ability to reason but not one in the same as humans. In this paper I am going to defend Hume’s beliefs but also point out some of the downfalls to his arguments. Exposition Hume believes that nonhumans do have the ability to reason because to suggest that they couldn’t would be implying that humans are radically different from animals. This is not good reasoning because humans and animals behave and have a great amount of similarities to each other. This is not to suggest that humans and nonhumans are completely alike because humans do possess differences on their ability to reason. Humans reason using analogy, linking similar causes and similar effects. Animals do not possess certain cognitive abilities and cannot engage in demonstrative reasoning, or the process of becoming aware that one idea stands in relation to another and is connected by a chain of ideas. The major distinction between humans and animals Hume suggests is that animals cannot improve their reasoning. Hume is not suggesting that there is not difference only that it would be incorrect to say that animals do possess the ability to reason. His first reason to......

Words: 543 - Pages: 3

David Hume (Indonesian)

...Pengantar | * Dipelopori oleh David Hume (1711-1776) di Inggris dan John Locke (1632-1704) * Empirisme menekankan senses atau pengetahuan didapat dari pengalaman panca indera sendiri * Empirisme tidak menyetujui ajaran rasionalisme * Hume dikenal sebagai filsuf yang skeptis dan radikal * Hume ingin membersihkan filsafat dari simbol-simbol religious dan metafisis | Metafisika | * Tabula Rasa yang berarti manusia lahir seperti taplak kosong, tidak memiliki pengetahuan apapun karena pengetahuan datang dari pengalaman * Hume tidak menyetujui adanya ide-ide bawaan dan anggapannya bahwa jagat terdiri dari sebuah keseluruhan yang bertautan * Hume juga menentang pemikiran religious bahwa Allah membiarkan alam semesta bekerja mekanis tanpa campur tangan-Nya, yang dipercayai oleh ajaran deisme * Empeira (pengalaman indrawi), merupakan prinsip empirisme * Realitas harus dapat dialami secara fisik | Epistemologi | * David Hume membedakan ideas dan impressions. Impressions atau kesan-kesan diterima terlebih dahulu dan ideas atau ide diperoleh setelah kesan-kesan tersebut diterima. Kumpulan dari kesan-kesan membentuk ide * Ajaran David Hume ini mirip dengan ajaran Aristoteles * Substansi tidak diterima sebab yang dialami adalah kesan tentang berbagai ciri yang selalu terdapat bersama-sama saja. * “Aku” dianggap a bundle or collection of preceptions, karena manusia mempercayai dan kebiasaan hidup yang berulang-ulang dengan berpikir sebagai aku, muncullah......

Words: 370 - Pages: 2

Hume

...Q. Explain Humes’ criticisms of the cosmological argument (25 marks) The cosmological argument is based on the principle of causation. In particular, it is put forward that any existent thing must have a cause or reason for its existence and that there cannot be more in the effect than there is in the cause. Hume challenges these assumptions in his Dialogues. There are three main critiques that Hume makes of the argument. Firstly, he has general concerns about the way it is structured, and believes that this structure is fallacious. Secondly, he has more specific concerns related to causation and finally he raises challenges to do with the concepts of contingency and necessity. Hume’s challenges to the structure of the cosmological argument directly question the validity of the assumption that existent things need causes or reasons for their existence. Hume says that just because each of the elements of the ‘chain’ has a cause, it doesn’t follow that the chain itself needs a cause. He gives the example of a collection of twenty particles – if an explanation is found for each particle individually he says it would be wrong to then seek an explanation for the whole collection, because you have already explained it by explaining each particle. This is called the fallacy of composition, and was later simply put by Russell that just because every man has a mother, it doesn’t mean that there is a mother of the human race. Hume also has some challenges to the notion of......

Words: 733 - Pages: 3

Hume

...Bertrand Russell famously summarized Hume's contribution to philosophy, saying that he "developed to its logical conclusion the empiricist philosophy of Locke and Berkeley, and by making it self-consistent made it incredible." Hume is remarkable in that he does not shy away from conclusions that might seem unlikely or unreasonable. Ultimately, he concludes that we have no good reason to believe almost everything we believe about the world, but that this is not such a bad thing. Nature helps us to get by where reason lets us down. Hume is unquestionably an empiricist philosopher, and he strives to bring the rigor of scientific methodology to bear on philosophical reasoning. His distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact is absolutely crucial in this respect. Anything we can say about the world is a matter of fact, and thus can be justified only through experience and can be denied without contradiction. Relations of ideas can teach us about mathematical truths, but cannot, as some rationalist philosophers would have, teach us about the existence of our selves, an external world, or God. If we are left with only matters of fact to get us by in the world, however, we find ourselves greatly limited. How can past experience teach me anything about the future? Even to infer without circularity that future experience will resemble past experience requires some principle that cannot be grounded in past experience. Without that principle, our ability to reason......

Words: 641 - Pages: 3

Hume and Descarates

...Exploring the Epistemology’s of Rene Descartes and David Hume Beginning in the 17th century, traditional ideas were being questioned by the new beginnings of science. Although many of the accomplishments during this “scientific revolution” were in astronomy and mechanics, very important advances along the whole borders of knowledge were also taking place. The revival of skepticism, brought about by these new concepts, had many philosophers seeking answers to questions such as: Do we know anything at all, and do the sciences give us knowledge of reality? Rene Descartes, whom many consider to be the father of modern philosophy, sought to kill skepticism for good. He gave his Cartesian quest for certainty the center stage in his epistemology, or theory of knowledge. Following Descartes, later in the 18th century, David Hume also broke away from the religious dogma of the day to explain knowledge on a non theological basis. However, His epistemology dismisses Cartesian methods as both unworkable and barren. Instead, he adopts his own theories which counters the ideas of his of predecessor, and casts a different view on the levels of certainty humans can The Content and Objects of Knowledge--Rene Descartes According to Descartes, we each contain within ourselves the criterion for truth and knowledge. Although he does not reject the idea of God as a creator, he believed that the responsibility of obtaining knowledge rests on the individual and no longer on...

Words: 1648 - Pages: 7