Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Term Paper 1
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction:
In the battlefield of philosophy, causation has been one of the most
difficult philosophical problems to answer with certainty. It was one of the
essential concepts in philosophy generally and in the philosophy of science
since the time of ancient Greeks. 1 This concept of causation has emerged in
Pre-Socratic philosophy; it was probably Plato who first stated the principle of
causality: everything that becomes or changes must do so owing to some
cause; for nothing can come to be without a cause. 2 There are, however,
many theories of it but neither of them has attained the title Standard/Valid
Theory of Causation. Otherwise, it would distract the essence of philosophy,
that is, to remain open and thus not limited in one way or another.
3 C.J. Ducasse
6 F.M. Anayet Hossain, A Critical Analysis of Empiricism, Open Journal of Philosophy, no. 4,
225-230, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oipp,2014,43030
8 F.M. Anayet Hossain, A Critical Analysis of Empiricism, Open Journal of Philosophy, no. 4,
225-230, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oipp,2014,43030
experience. The awareness of our existence is also a knowledge this does not
mean from sense experience. The examples are our consciousness, our
thought, and our very being. In the Empiricist point of view knowledge is
from our experienced. Empiricism is a philosophical theory which that
human knowledge is derived entirely from sensory experience. 9
Empiricism disregards the concept of instinctive ideas and focuses entirely
on experience and evidence as it relates to sensory perception. 10 To
simplify, all our ideas are grounded in experience and depend on it.
Empiricism upholds the view that experience is the only source of
knowledge, or that senses alone can provide us with knowledge. 11 For
example, before you can totally say that ice cream is delicious you must first
experience it using the sense of taste, otherwise you cannot determine that
the ice cream whether it is delicious or not. Another example, in a certain
place wherein you are have a rest the surrounding were totally closed, the
windows, the lights, the curtain, the door, everything is completely covered
by darkness, can u directly say in some point that outside is raining? No, you
cannot. If we base on the empiricist perspective you cannot directly assert
that everything what you think is correct. Before you can directly believe that
it is raining, first it may undergo the process of observation using senses,
which I think is that is what empiricist trying to say. In the short discussion
above, we can see the big differences of each groups concerning about the
word knowledge. So, the researcher will try to discuss Humes epistemology.
Hume is part of a group of empiricist; it is understandable in the definition
above that the empiricism claim is consider that the thoughts in our mind are
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
not based on reason but solely a product of experience.Hume developed
epistemology more fully by applying the scientific methods of observation to
12
a study of human nature itself. His main goal was to establish to a
science of human nature that will put philosophy on a solid foundation of
experience and observation.13 Hume is convinced to say that it is the
human mind which possesses the ability to seemingly think unlimitedly.
Seemingly for the reason that the though tin our mind seems to possess
this wide freedom it is really confined within very narrow limits. 14 This would
mean that however vague the thoughts in our minds are, it does not mean
that it is completely free. Human mind then is not totally free, Hume argues,
as it does not have the capacity to think of something which does not have
an empirical basis. Every thought we have are solely the product of our
sensations. One cannot think of a chair without experiencing what a chair is.
Even those mythical beings, they are just merely a product experience, in a
way, because they are not but a product of sensations; though not literally,
for they are sensed in a different manner.
13 Ibid.
15 All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct
kinds, which I shall call Impressions and Ideas. The difference betwixt these consists
in the degrees of force and liveliness with which they strike upon the mind, and
make their way into our thought or consciousness. David Hume, A Treatise of
Human Nature(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896), p.
7http://people.rit.edu/wlrgsh/HumeTreatise.pdf<date accessed: September 25, 2015
On Humes Causation
David Hume stated that there are two paths wherein the mind
connects ideas. On the one hand; it is done through natural relations, while
through philosophical relations on the other.19Both are somehow
interconnected yet Hume made a distinction between them. In the natural
relations, we are led to imagining the connection of ideas. In a much
concrete way of explaining this kind of relation, it is the same as to thinking
the idea of a table and of a chair with their corresponding principles.
Moreover, natural relations are of three kinds, namely, resemblance,
contiguity of time and space, and cause and effect wherein it is the latter, as
Hume tells us, that is the most prevalent.20Indeed it is, because it gives
something which tells us about the world. In that sense, it can be said that
the cause and effect is not solely a natural relation but also a philosophical
relation. Other philosophical relations are resemblance and contrariety
wherein both can provide with certainty, though not always the case. Hume
17David Hume, Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the
Principles of Morals, 3rd Edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1975), p. 20
20Ibid.
emphasizes that cause and effect has already existed and thus present from
the very beginning of time and of the worlds origination. Nevertheless,
Hume tells us that we would never know what really causation is for the
reason that our experiences are just particulars. Our experience of causation
does not bring us to causation that is something universal. This belief of
Hume made him very sceptic to causality. Cause and effect therefore cannot
bring us certainty or knowledge in so far as David Hume is concerned.
23 Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Philosophy History and Problems (New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, Inc 1994), p. 284
grounded upon the space wherein the event happened. The occurrence of,
for instance, two events must happen within the parameter; that is the
nearness of the two events to happen. Secondly, there is priority in time, for
A the cause, always precedes B, the effect.24 For example, For instance, I
punched a guy which caused him a black eye; it tells us that it can never be
the case that he first had a black eye before I punched him. It should be the
other way around. Event A should be prior to event B since B was the result
of the event A. Lastly, that is, constant conjunction of much importance to
causality. Constant conjunction, for we always see A followed B. There is
still another relation that idea of causality suggests to common sense,
namely, between A and B there is necessary connexions. 25In every event
there must be a necessary causal relation. Otherwise, causality will end up
being futile and thus, invalid. Further, this necessary causal relation is also
known to be the driving force which connects two or more events. Upon
punching the guy, there must be a kind of force which made him move
backward and get a black eye. In other sciences, necessary causal
connection is somehow a counterpart for their law of motion.
24 Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Philosophy History and Problems (New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, Inc 1994), p. 284
25 Ibid.
experience, that we are able to see priority in time, proximity in space, and
necessary connection. Without impressions, we cannot have any idea of
what those things are. Accordingly, the all are not that really hard to
comprehend except necessary connection. Priority traces back to our
various experiences of time Proximity traces back to our various
experiences of space But what is the experience which gives us the idea of
necessary connection?26 Here comes then the problem of inductive method
arises. David Hume has this bias especially when it comes to knowledge on
causality. According to him, we cannot actually grasp necessary connection
since our experiences are always particular. Thus, it cannot arrive to any
universalization. Hume criticizes much those thinkers who tend to generalize
things since it can never give us true knowledge. Even how consistent the
data are, still, possibilities of its opposites tend to happen. This belief
grounds Humes scepticism. There is no room for man to attain absolute
truth or certainty since everything is just a series of events and hence,
possibly be altered in the least of your expectation. Everything is just a
product of experience. Knowledge is just a product of experience. Experience
is particular, given that we cannot experience all things in the world. Ergo,
we cannot arrive at certainty.
Now, here come then the rationalists, trying to refute Hume. They
argue that to consider causality as part of mans experience is a nave
definition of causality. This person is Immanuel Kant. Kant does not uphold
the empiricist theory of knowledge. But his conception of metaphysics is
similar to Hume. The Kantianism maintains that we san never know reality
in itself, noumena or thing-in-themselves, but only things as they affect us,
28 F.M. Anayet Hossain, A Critical Analysis of Empiricism, Open Journal of Philosophy, no.
4, 225-230, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oipp,2014,43030
29 Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Philosophy History and Problems (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc
1994), p. 302
vivid. When for example I was hit by a car, what is very clear is at the
moment of the accident rather than remembering the pain Ive got upon that
accident happened long time ago. Humes most striking philosophical
argument was that since:
Accordingly, if not led astray, there are three groups of thinkers who
have interpreted Humes causation differently. Each of which has their own
belief of what really Hume is trying to talk about. These three are the
following: the causal reductionist, the causal skeptic, and the causal realist.
The causal reductionist takes Humes definitions of causation as
definitive32. Reductionism accepted Humes basic theory of causation as
being successions of events. They hold that causation, power, necessity,
31 Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Philosophy History and Problems (New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, Inc 1994), p. 301
and so forth, as something that exist between external objects rather than in
the observer, is constituted entirely by regular succession 33. However, there
is somehow an internal conflict within the group of reductionism and so it has
been divided further into two. On the one hand is the group who believes
that Humes causation is not but solely a conjunction of events; thus a habit;
while on the other hand is the group of reductionism, that are considered by
Robinsons as that which is concerned more on a mere explanatory in
nature, and is merely part of an empiricist psychological theory 34.Whats
wrong with this composition of thinkers is that they tend not to have a
complete Humean account on causation. Second is the Causal Skeptic. This
group of thinkers takes Humes problem of induction as unsolved 35. If the
causal reductionists are more concerned with the objects or the external
entities, rather than the perceiver, as the centre of their inquiry on causality,
the Causal Skeptics are somehow considering the other way around. They
are more into interpretation of:
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36Ibid.
somehow in favour with Hume. They added some interpretations to avoid the
negative claims of the causal reductionist and the causal skeptic; this group
believes that Hume has some robust notion of causation37.
Conclusion:
37Ibid.
two, the researcher is more convinced with the former, when it comes to
causation and theory of knowledge.
Bibliography
Hume, David.A Treatise of Human Nature (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1896),http://people.rit.edu/wlrgsh/HumeTreatise.pdf<date accessed: September 25, 2015
38 Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Philosophy History and Problems (New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, Inc 1994), p. 303
Loux, Michael J..Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, 3rd Edition (New York:
Routledge, 2006)
Hulswit Menno. A short History of Causation //see.library.utoronto.ca/SEED/Vol4-
3/Hulswit.htm
Stumpf,Samuel Enoch: Philosophy History and Problems (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,
Inc 1994)