Hume's Empiricism

In: Philosophy and Psychology

Submitted By alc1958
Words 333
Pages 2
Question #1: What does Hume’s empiricism consist of? Hume’s empiricism consists of the theory that all of our thoughts begin, in some form, with our memory of something our senses have directly experienced. He points out “…that there is a considerable distinction between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat…and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation or anticipates it by his imagination.” (p 388A) Hume breaks down “the perceptions of mind” into two parts: ideas or thoughts and impressions. Impressions are what have been left on our memory after having experienced something through our senses and thoughts are derived from these impressions. He claims that even when we imagine something completely wild and fantastical, that we are just blending our impressions.
. Question #2: How does it compare to Descartes’ rationalism? Both, Hume’s empiricism and Descartes’ rationalism, theories revolve around our ability to think or to have thoughts and ideas different from our reality. They both break the mind’s perceptions into two parts; descartes’ being – “he believes that mental categories are what shape knowledge” the knowledge that we possess in our minds that actually perceive any distinctions about anything through are senses are what Hume would call these Impressions. The wax showed Descartes that even though he can perceive in different ways the same object, the object still exists. And Hume similarly claims that we only know it exists because we have experienced the object in some way already.
Question #3: What’s he mean: ¶ 388B bottom through 389A? “…that all knowledge comes from sense experience and that, therefore, we can have no knowledge of anything beyond our experience.” (Basically, Hume thinks that we aren’t aware of anything in existence that isn’t somehow rooted in what we’ve experienced. We can…...

Similar Documents


...violation of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent”. However, Humey boy took issue with strong miracles, citing an a priori criticism, ie one that criticises using deductive reasoning alone. Hume, an empiricist, believed that “a wise man proportions his beliefs to he evidence”, meaning that unless one can physically verify evidence a statement cannot be true. As experience tells us that natural laws hold firm, ie they are universal constants otherwise they could not be natural laws, then it is reasonable to conclude that the reports of reports of miracles are not, nor cannot be true as they would go against the laws science has established and set down. From Hume’s perspective, we must therefore conclude that miracles prove themselves false. However, there are many problems with Hume’s criticisms. Primarily, universal natural laws are based on generalisations or assumptions, any credible scientist would accept this. They are corrigible, or our best understanding of the universe at the time and are therefore subject to change. For example, the atom was thought to resemble a plumb pudding (sphere of positive charge interspaced with negative charge) between 1904 and 1909, when it was proved false, and the basic model that exists today was established. Science therefore evolves, demonstrating the laws of nature (which we quantify and therefore impose, as we do not ascribe nature itself with a state of sentience, needed for self regulation) are not a......

Words: 2011 - Pages: 9

Empiricism & Pragmatism

...To what extent have Conservatives preferred pragmatism and empiricism to political principles? To fully understand and explore the question the meaning of empiricism and pragmatism must be identified. In relation to politics empiricism is the theory that all knowledge is based on experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Political pragmatism links to the belief that politics should be guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory or ideology. It is clear both words have a very similar meaning and illustrate that the conservatives don’t operate on a strict ideological doctrine. Pre 21st century, the UK electorate was largely defined and separated by three main ideologies: Conservatism, Socialism and Liberalism. This gave the Conservative Party the ability to promote principles over pragmatism. However, as social developments occurred and ideological affiliations declined, political parties are no longer able to promote these narrow principles, as they are forced to adopt a wider spectrum of principles that apply to the mainstream electorate. The presence of 'right wing' and 'left wing' electorate has demised rapidly since pre 21st century politics. It is clear that the main parties adopt a more central position, the Conservatives being known as Centre Right. This demise in ideology in general has been mirrored by the......

Words: 664 - Pages: 3


...This was said by empiricist Hume. It means that we can never an idea which is not somehow based on sense experience. It is logical to agree with Hume that our significant knowledge does derive from our sense experience. However there are counter arguments for the origin of all our ideas being derived from sense experience, which this essay will aim to evaluate. Empiricism is the theory that the origin of our ideas is experience. Our concepts are derived from our sensory experiences of sight, touch, smell, taste and sound - and our concepts are consequently copies of these sense experiences. So under empiricism we will point to sense experience to back up our beliefs and ideas. As a result we can never imagine a totally original idea, it will be a manipulation of the composition of and already existing thing. To illustrate when we have an idea of an angel this is not an original idea - in fact it is based on the sense experience of a birds wings and a body of a person. This leads on to the other significant feature of empiricism, this is the use of simple and complex ideas. We learn simple concepts by associating them with experience, then the word/concept becomes meaningful. For example the word "horse" will only become meaningful to a child when the word has been associated to an experience at a petting zoo for example. We then can generate complex ideas from manipulating simple ideas, to illustrate Hume used the example of manipulating the simple ideas of "gold" and......

Words: 794 - Pages: 4

Assess Hume’s Reasons for Rejecting Miracles. (35 Marks)

...probably did not happen. Through using the principle of probability a miraculous event should be labelled as a miracle only where it would be unbelievable for it to be anything less. Upon following this principle it is less likely that the testimony is false than the miracle occurred should you have a prior belief, however if you do not believe in a deity and the probability of a miracle occurring then the miracles happening is less likely than the testimony being false. This argument used by Hume is not an effective argument as there are cases in which the laws of nature have been broken. WASP-18b is a planet that does not have the same laws of nature, if Hume’s definition of a miracle is to be used when looking at events on the planet it would seem that most natural occurrences could be classed as ‘miracles’. One of Hume’s practical arguments against miracles included the human tendency to exaggerate and lie. Hume noted that some of the miracle claims resulted in either fame or increased social popularity for the person involved, he observed that some of these wild and fantastical stories were low in probability and to the logical mind were not believable. Thus, he concluded that reports of miracles such as these could not be trusted due to a lack of empirical evidence to support such claims. Secondly, Hume also noted that miracles occur within the ‘barbarous’ periods of history as well in the ‘less civilised societies’; he believed that they occurred in these......

Words: 793 - Pages: 4


...Reason and Experience DAA March 09 I. Mind as Tabula Rasa The Specification: - The strengths and weaknesses of the view that all ideas are derived from sense experience - The strengths and weaknesses of the view that claims about what exists must ultimately be grounded in and justified by sense experience. This is an analysis of the "empiricist" view: both Hume and Locke are empiricists as they argue that all knowledge depends on experience. Note that the first item asks us to evaluate empiricism as an explanation of the origin of ideas, and the second asks us to evaluate the claim that knowledge must be justified with reference to experience. Locke on the origin of Ideas AO1 Position and its implications: The mind is a tabula rasa or "blank slate" at birth, empty of all ideas and knowledge; it is gradually filled through experience AO1 Detail, Illustration: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding II.1 Locke's definition of "idea" = "the object of thinking" He gives examples: "such as are those expressed by the words whiteness, hardness, sweetness, thinking, motion, man, elephant, army, drunkenness, and others" We might say concepts rather than ideas, the basic mental building blocks of propositions or declarative sentences Ideas are acquired through two processes, sensation or reflection; each is a type of perception, the first of external objects, the second an inward perception of mental......

Words: 8854 - Pages: 36

World War !1 Propaganda

...Introduction     The purpose of this paper is to discuss the contributions of David Hume (1711-76) to the period of history during the enlightenment age developing theories of the doctrine of Empiricism. There are two doctrines which follow this principle. The first doctrine is that most, if not all, concepts are ultimately derived from experience; the second is that most, if not all, knowledge derives from experience, in the sense that appeals to experience are necessarily involved in its justification. Neither doctrine implies the other. Hume belongs to the tradition of British empiricism that includes Francis Bacon (1561-1626), John Locke (1632-1704), and George Berkeley (1685-1753).  Common to this tradition is the view that knowledge is founded upon sense-perception, which the human mind passively receives.  But whereas Locke and Berkeley believe that human knowledge can go beyond sense-experience, Hume contends in the Introduction of his Treatise that our knowledge is limited to sense-experience, and so offers an empiricism that he argues is more consistent than those of his British predecessors. Hume’s Beliefs Hume mane contributions to many areas of society including religion, moral philosophy, history, human belief perception and motivation. Hume's major philosophical works (Morris, 2013) — A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), the Enquiries concerning Human Understanding (1748) and concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), as well as the......

Words: 1089 - Pages: 5

The 4 P's of the Marketing Mix

...Philosophers sometimes view the idea of human freedom of action as the real problem of free will, but this classification is one of the main misunderstandings in both subject matters. The misunderstanding between freedom and free will may have begun as early as the time when Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, argued their cases to support the theory of the modern concept of compatibilism. From both Hobbes’ and Hume’s perspective, to be free to act on one's will is basically to be free of external restrictions, limitations, constraints, and controls. From their perspective, the absence any external constraint gives makes the agent freedom to do as he or she wills, even if the person’s will itself is determined (or predetermined) by causal laws of nature. Factors That Affect Personal Development Take a moment to consider all of the genetic and environmental factors that have shaped who you are today, and you will quickly become overwhelmed. From gender, race, and socioeconomic background—to family dynamics, education, and genetics—there are millions of factors that have converged to make you who you are. Most people believe that humans are responsible for their own actions and that they all have the opportunity to make the right choices. But when you consider how large a role race, gender, wealth, and family upbringing all play in shaping an individual, can you truly believe that everyone has the same opportunities? Furthermore, are there some conditions under which people......

Words: 1945 - Pages: 8


...Ghadere Salah PHI-101-013 Rationalism VS Empiricism They say : Hume says knowledge comes from the way one’s mind perceived the physical world. 1.Hume claimed that people perceive the world in two ways – through impressions which are one’s senses and through ideas which are one’s thoughts. 2.Hume claimed that there was no such thing as an innate idea, which is an idea present in the human mind that was not created through some sort of experience. 3.Hume asserted that nothing remains the same, but that one’s mind perceives what is similar as being the same if change occurs gradually rather than abruptly. We say/I say: Descartes says knowledge lies in the mind not the senses. 1.Descartes claims that the way we perceive things comes from thinking. 2.Descartes claimed that we often sense things that don’t physically exist in the external world. 3.Descartes claimed if any component of something was in the very least questionable, then any conclusion drawn from it would be at the most questionable. 4.Descartes reasoned that our senses often misinterpret the physical world. 5.Descartes claimed while it’s possible to not sense things, it’s impossible not to think. Conclusion: Descartes wrote, “I find here that thought is an attribute that belongs to me; it alone cannot be separated from me”. While it’s possible to not sense things, it’s impossible not to think. Descartes claims that he is just “a thing which thinks”. His proof is that he can question his own......

Words: 776 - Pages: 4

Literature and Philosophy

...the dominant force in the cultural life of Germany. a. Science and technology had not developed sufficiently to have any social or philosophical importance. b. The new science of Newton seemed incapable of explaining anything more than material and mechanical matters. It could not be the sole means for arriving at knowledge. 6. Most German Philosophers of the 18th Century regarded David Hume (radical empiricism) as reducing all rational truths and scientific laws to animal faith (instinct). Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) 1. Out of this provincial German culture and intellectual background came Kant who provided for the first time a philosophical answer to Hume's's skepticism. 2. The Critique of Pure Reason published by Kant in 1781. a. Kant saw the logical outcome of Hume's radical empiricism. b. Radical empiricism claims that the basis of all knowledge lies in experience -- this, to Kant, leads to the conclusion that there is no knowledge. c. There is only association of ideas through habit, psychological expectancy, and compulsion. d. Hume's empirical view states that there is nothing but animal faith to rely on....

Words: 318 - Pages: 2

A Critical Assessment of Immanuel Kant's Epistemological Alternative to Hume's Fork

...A Critical Assessment of Immanuel Kant's Epistemological Alternative to Hume's Fork All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of the two sides, is a proposition which expresses a relation between these figures. That three times five is equal to the half of thirty, expresses a relation between these numbers. Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe. Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths demonstrated by Euclid would forever retain their certainty and evidence (Hume, Section II). Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore,......

Words: 2394 - Pages: 10

Assess Hume's Rejection of Miracles

... This view has been supported by modern scientists and philosophers such as Atkins, Dawkins and Wiles to a certain extent. However Aquinas, Tillich and Holland and Swinburne to a certain extent reject Hume’s reasons, instead arguing that miracles have a divine cause and that Hume’s arguments are weak. This essay will argue that Hume’s reasons for rejecting miracles are not valid and in doing so consider his two main arguments; lack of probability and Hume’s practical argument. Hume’s first reason for rejecting miracles was a lack of probability. He argued that evidence from people’s experience of observing the world showed the laws of nature to be fixed and unvarying. However to suggest a miracle occurred was to say that the laws of nature had been violated, hence his definition of miracles being a “violation of the laws of nature.” Miracles were reported has having occurred by eyewitnesses, as is stated in the Bible in the case of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. However for Hume it was far more likely that the eyewitnesses were mistaken in what they witnessed, than for Jesus to have actually raised Lazarus from the dead and in doing so violated fixed laws of nature. A violation of the laws of nature was therefore an improbable occurrence. Wiles’ agrees with Hume’s point that it is more likely the eyewitness was wrong than a miracle occurred, in doing so raising the problem of evil. It was illogical to suggest God was omnipotent and good if he showed clear......

Words: 1313 - Pages: 6

Rationalism and Empiricism

...two parties argue a lot on the questions like: What is the ultimate source of knowledge? Or: How do we gain knowledge? They are rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism states that we depend on our reason capacities to gain real knowledge, which is inborn, independent and could not be determined by human beings. The most famous rationalist, Plato, contributes to metaphysics and epistemology. He explains his theory by using the example prisoners in a cave. The conclusion is that cognition comes from the appearance of the world not the reality. According to Plato, there exist two worlds: the real world and a supernatural realm which contains the eternal and perfect Forms. Everything we get from the real world is a reflection of the supernatural hence the essence is invisible. Reason is the only way in which we get the essence of appearance. Based on Plato’s metaphysics, Parmenides and Heraclites assert diverse opinions. Parmenides assumes that being is real and change is the characteristic of being while Heraclites considers change is real while being is not. Plato also holds the view that human beings are born with knowledge, and the immortal soul belongs to the supernatural. That we use our reasoning capacities to recover from the knowledge known before is called learning-by-recollection. On the other hand, there exists empiricism, represented by Aristotle who states that the source of knowledge is not reason but sensory experience. He disagrees with Plato’s two-worlds......

Words: 665 - Pages: 3


...EMPIRICISM Empiricism is an important part of a scientific process because theories and hypothesis must be observed and tested to be considered accurate. Empiricists tend to be skeptical that anything can be known for certain. They tend not to believe in dogmas. Rationalists tend to believe that the universe has absolute laws that can be determined and that the human mind is not really predisposed understanding certain truths. Empiricism is a philosophical belief that states that your knowledge of the world is based on your experiences, particularly your sensory experiences. According to empiricists, our learning is based on our observations and perception. Knowledge is not possible without experience. Our knowledge of the world is based on our experiences. Skeptical empiricism This is where an empiricist refuses to accept certain kinds of claims without subjecting them to a systematic investigation. This does not mean that they are necessarily scientists who conduct live experiments (though this may be the case). Empiricists always seek likely proof before accepting that knowledge. As an example, in the past everyone (including the experts), agreed that "all swans are white". A skeptical empiricist would have said "all observed swans thus far have been white, but my mind is open to there being other colors too". Plain empiricism As a psychological disposition, it means a tendency to emphasize the value of experience and to distrust abstract reason. But it is as a......

Words: 285 - Pages: 2

Assess Hume’s Reasons for Rejecting Miracles

...,ASSESS HUME’S REASONS FOR REJECTING MIRACLES Hume’s rejection of miracles comes from his theory that there are laws of nature which are based on past experience, a posteriori, and appear to be unvarying and universal. During this essay I will put forward Hume’s approach before assessing his reasons for the rejections of miracles and what other philosophers have said about his rejection. According to the dictionary definition, a miracle is defined as: ‘a highly improbable or extraordinary event that is not explicable by natural laws and is considered to be divine’. Hume’s definition of a miracle is not that different from the dictionary definition, defining them as: ‘a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.’ He puts forward two separate arguments against miracles; one being a priori and the other being a posteriori. The first of his arguments is based on the lack of probability and is a priori. Hume argues that miracles are violations of the laws of nature and a ‘firm and unalterable experience’ has established these laws of nature. He did not deny that these events, miracles, would not happen; but instead said that they are the least likely event possible, and improbable events need witnesses of higher credibility than witnesses required for more probable events. Hume argued that even the most impressive testimony will at most counterbalance the unlikeliness of the event. Clearly, a serious...

Words: 1207 - Pages: 5

Hume and Descarates

...this clearly formed a dependence of ideas on the initial impression that made them. Unlike Descartes belief that reason is the same for every person, Hume believed that every individual’s perceptions were his alone, and distinct from other people’s. Hume believed that three principals of association bound perceptions together: Resemblance, Contiguity (in time or place,) and Cause and Effect. By resemblance, Hume uses the example of a picture of something evokes the thought of the original. For Contiguity, Hume refers to the mention of an apartment building would invoke the thought of other apartment buildings. And if one thinks of a wound, they would think of the pain that is associated with it (cause and effect.) These are also Hume’s objects of knowledge, and are used in the method to determine whether certainty exists. Descartes decides to base his method on fours rules or laws.. The first rule was to never accept anything for true which was not clearly known to be such; that is to say, avoid precipitance and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in judgment than what was presented to the mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all The second rule was to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many manageable parts as possible for its adequate solution. The third was to conduct thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, they ascend by little and little to the idea of the......

Words: 1648 - Pages: 7