This reminds me of the beginning of empiricism and David Hume. He wondered what is the relationship between effect and cause, whether the causal relationship is a necessary one, and how it relates to our belief in the facts. He was concerned about how a person knows the cause and effects. He posed the question, on what basis can we determine the necessity of a relationship? We can know in two...

view entire post

This reminds me of the beginning of empiricism and David Hume. He wondered what is the relationship between effect and cause, whether the causal relationship is a necessary one, and how it relates to our belief in the facts. He was concerned about how a person knows the cause and effects. He posed the question, on what basis can we determine the necessity of a relationship? We can know in two ways: a'priori and a'posteriori, that is, empirically. The first type of research is an analysis before experience, from the notion of the sun alone it is impossible to deduce that it will rise. We judge reality on the basis of experience, i.e. each time after it has taken place and not before. The necessity of a causal relationship cannot be known a'priori. We cannot know the necessity empirically, because all that experience informs us about is a constant consequence of facts after each other, not the result of one fact from another. So on what basis do we recognize the existence of causal relationships? The answer is: through associations. We claim that there are causal relationships in the world. According to the philosopher, knowledge of this kind is knowledge by habit. If something has constantly set in the past, e.g. a sunrise, then we tend to treat it as always setting. In Hume's opinion, it is faith, not knowledge.

Given his experience, Hume took an immanent position, i.e. we cannot know the causal link a'priori or through experience. The philosopher applied inductive reasoning, followed by A followed by B only if it was found many times. This way, it brings nothing new but a certain cycle is repeated. We say that A is cause B, cause equals habit plus expectation. We do not find a connection between the facts e.g. the day is followed by night. Hume wanted to tell us that the impulses coming into our mind, impressions give rise to some speculation not always right.

In conclusion, he believed that everything except formal knowledge and knowledge of facts is metaphysics and should be rejected. Empirical knowledge can only be factual and never necessary. More consistently than his empirical predecessors, Hume retreated to an immanent position and renounced all claims about what is not directly available to the mind. He did not ask whether things exist, but whether we are right to assume that they exist. He did not deny the existence of relationships necessary in the real world but denied the possibility of knowing them.

Nick from web development Geelong

view post as summary