w, but soon discovered that he
cared more about Philosophy. A devout follower of Cicero, he decided
that the philosophy of the day contained "little more than
endless disputes." Hume set out to find "some medium by
which truth might be established."(1711-1776)
Hume, from Scotland, is known as a philosopher, essayist, and
historian. He was the second son in a strict Presbyterian family
and eventually studied at the University of Edinburgh. He studied
law, but soon discovered that he
cared more about Philosophy. A devout follower of Cicero, he decided
that the philosophy of the day contained "little more than
endless disputes." Hume set out to find "some medium by
which truth might be established."
He traveled to La Fleche in 1734, following Descartes' footsteps a century later. While at La Fleche he wrote the first of many works, Treatise of Human Nature.
Hume's work was in direct opposition to the Empiricism of Locke and Newton. Hume is a strong critic of reason. He argues that reason has its limits. He tells the Empiricists and Deists that they have made reason far too broad giving it far more power than it really has. He also claimed that the Deist argument that God is found in nature is not based on reason, but it is based on the very syllogistic reasoning that Newton was fighting against. Hume's main concern was to expose the limitations of reason and to explain how we make the judgements we do, in the absence of the illusory support of reason.
Hume, famous for his skepticism about metaphysics as well, argued that human nature places limits on our capacity for skepticism. He argues that "It is not merely that skepticism is a natural attitude. Rather, the best expression of skepticism is one where we follow our nature without pretending we have an independent justification; in doing so we may even contribute to the advancement of knowledge."
Logic and Metaphysics
Hume divides the contents of the mind into Impressions
and Ideas. Impressions are things like
sensations, passions, and emotions. Ideas are "the faint
image of these in thought, reflection, and imagination."
Ideas can enter out mind in only one way: as copies of our
impressions. Therefore, for Hume, the impression is basest part
of experience, yet the purest. Ideas are representations of those
initial impressions.
Hume refused to take any idea for granted. He was convinced that all communication must be based on clarity. From this stance he challenged and criticized all claims for reason, with a particular attention paid to causality (which he called habitual association).
Hume attacked causation, asking, "How do we acquire beliefs about things we are not currently experiencing?" For instance, how do we know a flame is hot? Hume claims that this is not due to reason. Reason alone cannot tell us that flames are hot; it is conceivable that a fire may be cold, and therefore--through reason alone -- possible. The combination of reason and experience cannot create the belief either in that there is a logical gap between "All the flames I have observed are hot" and "All flames are hot." So where do these ideas come from?
Hume identifies two types of reasoning:
Thus, for Hume, reason does not provide our beliefs about the unobserved. He holds that "custom or habit" is the only possible linkage. He holds that repeated association of flames and heat creates an association of ideas -- so that if we see a flame we assume it is hot. Therefore, our beliefs are not a product of reason, but rather of our imagination filling in the association. Remember, for Hume, reason is "nothing but the comparing of ideas and the discovery of their relations."
The greatest flaw Hume sees in reasoning is in the role of Custom. He argues that Custom makes us think that the future will always echo the past. we observe contiguity (things occurring in a sequence) and we assume causality. It is customary to say that if event x precedes event y that x caused y; when, in fact there is only contiguity. Hume argues that repeated observation (with all variables controlled), not reason, is the only way to prove causality.