Hume vs. Descartes PDF

Hume vs. Descartes Descartes has classified our essence as “thinking things” and our knowledge can be derived from pure reason alone. - Descartes shed his humanity to being purely a mind - → Hume is putting thinking into a broader part and believes if we want to understand thinking we must u...

Hume vs. Descartes Descartes has classified our essence as “thinking things” and our knowledge can be derived from pure reason alone. - Descartes shed his humanity to being purely a mind - → Hume is putting thinking into a broader part and believes if we want to understand thinking we must understand people → believes we as people don’t fully operate by reason but instead thinking is just a fraction of us - Does Not hold reason up to the same standard as descartes Hume thought descartes was trying to utilize his mind to think thoughts that go beyond our capabilities (metaphysics) - Somethings we simply cannot see and there's simply no way to test metaphysics Hume’s goal 1. Wanted to undermine the foundations of people doing metaphysics / wanted to get rid of “bad” metaphysics Hume disagreed with metaphysics → thought there wasn’t any feedback to receive with metaphysics and one cant distinguish whether our analysis is right or wrong → no point in answering the unanswerable 2. Wants an accurate scrutiny of human understanding and the faculties of human nature essentially getting to the idea of critical philosophy : looking for the limits of human reasoning → does this by understanding our mental geography: this will tell us the boundary line of human knowledge and the types of questions we can and can’t answer He basically attempts to find the limitations of human capacity by understanding the structure of the mind In order to exercise this ^ he classifies the perceptions of the mind Ideas vs. Impressions Two types of perceptions in the mind Impressions Ideas - Direct Experience - Mental Representation - Stronger force (feel it firsthand) - Weaker force (faded memory) Direct sensory presentation from experience Recreated experience in the mind (can be both external and internal senses) - When you imagine/think about an experience, your imagination is not restricted like impressions are → however, although it feels like there is no boundary, there is limitations - we gain components of things because of experience - The origin/source of all ideas are impressions (come from experience) - We are unable to create new things from nothing, we can only combine ideas This is the fundamentals of empiricism: everything derives from the senses (Hume Supported) {The source for all information is impressions = derive from the external world so everything we learn from the external world is through our empirical senses and a priori alone doesn't give us information} There are two ways the mind reasons Objects of Reason Relations of Ideas Matters of Fact (important) - Math (Geometry+Arithmetic) - says something about the world - A priori (just by thinking) - are contingent (could be otherwise- - Empty of content (don't learn about might not be true but can be coherent) the external world) - relates to external experience (split - are necessary, not contingent (only into immediate and nonimmediate) possible for it to be a certain way) - More useful Types of Matters of Fact Immediate Non Immediate (important) - Direct experience - No direct sensory confirmation - Sensory data as evidence Why and how do we reason non-immediate? - All reasonings (matters of fact) are built on the foundation of cause and effect  When we perceive something we then infer back to its cause Cause and effect How do we gain knowledge of cause and effect? → entirely from experience of constant conjunction (NOT by reason- what descartes supported) Hume’s claims about causality 1. Can't use reason to establish cause and effect - Even after seeing something over and over you have no reason to believe it’ll react the same { The future will resemble the past } - Not absolute that things that always happen will continue - Fundamentals can change Problem of Induction Key Assumption: Nature will remain consistent (coherent claim) Nature will remain consistent because of past experience (has to be non-immediate matters of fact) We cannot prove this ^^ this is assuming stability within nature Assuming the future based on casual connection from past experiences This idea that nature has never changed → therefore it’ll continue to do so In order for assumptions to work you have to assume in general that there wouldn't be a change within nature —-> once something changes the past experiences don't matter Question this brings: How do you know if the laws of physics will remain the same? → nonimmediate matters of fact Claim: always been the same, will remain the same ^ this is only if nature stays the same, therefore its contradicting and goes back to the original question (begging the question) - Assumptions are based on past experiences and everything we make predictions about is based on past experiences. : this statement would be invalid : - We rely on this causal chain between events, and this is only valid if the laws of nature hold but the only way we know they will hold is if they'll always resemble the past.  Central Argument 1. Unprovable casual chain does not matter (we don't use reason to begin with) 2. If we were purely rational, humanity would cease to exist We will rely on predictions of the future, even if we can't know this based on reason., as a human society we still rely on causality and predictions if not humanity would cease to exist. ( if we abandon believing in causality society would cease to exist ) 3. All knowledge is confirmed through empirical data 4. Does not support Metaphysics