Nepangue, King V.

September 27 2016

AB- Philosophy Term paper 1

An Exposition on David Hume Concept of Causation

I. Introduction

In the battlefield of philosophy, causation has been one of the more difficult
philosophical problems to answer with certainty. 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.

Causation, as its name suggests, basically means the cause or the origin on why this/that
event happened. I wrote this paper because it is a requirement for me to pass this course. In
English terms (rule), the cause is it is a requirement and so (the effect) I wrote this paper. Yet,
it is never the case in philosophy. In the latters case, causation is vague and thus it cannot be
perceived simply in the sentences we are writing or speaking.

Many philosophers have attempted to explain what causation is. Hence, the researcher will be
discussing some of these attempts throughout the paper itself. However, the main focus is limited
only to one philosopher, in the person of David Hume. This is not for the reason that his notion is
the standard but because he was once considered as the most intriguing philosopher during the
time, especially to the idea of his with regards to causation. Another reason is that the researcher,
in his thorough examination of Humes causation, finds it a very interesting philosophy into the
attempt of explaining what causation is.

In this paper, therefore, the researcher will try to provide a thorough expository of
Humes causation. Yet, in order to make sense of the latter, the researcher will begin with
providing a glimpse of Humes epistemology considering that this [epistemology], which is
written in his bookEnquiries Concerning Human Understanding, serves as the first step to the
understanding of Humes notion of Causation.1Moreover, in his epistemology, the Treatise of
Human Nature will not be disregarded as it is also of importance to the subject matter.

However, it is inevitable that even how profound and convincing the idea of a philosopher is,
there will be other thinkers who would likely criticise the latters claim. Hume, of course, is not
excuse for these critiques. One of the critics is Kant, in which, his contention will also be
included. Lastly, the researcher will give his commentary at the latter part of the paper a kind of
evaluation whether or not Humes theory on causation is reliable.

II

Since Hume is an empiricist, it is expected that he would consider that the thoughts in our
mind is not but solely a product of experience. Hume is convinced to say that it is the human
mind which possesses the ability to seemingly think unlimitedly. Seemingly for the reason that
that though the mind seems to possess this wide freedom it is really confined within very
narrow limits.2 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.

What Hume is trying to say is that those uncommon creatures/things we think are just products
of our fertile imaginations; but which are grounded still by experience. When, for instance, I
think of a speaking ball pen, I have not, of course, seen and heard literally a speaking ball pen
which drove me to have in mind a ball pen that which speaks. Rather, this speaking ball pen is
considered to be, as what Hume calls it, a complex idea; Thus, a combination of two simple
experiences. What I have experienced in reality is just a normal ball pen and an attribute of man,

1
Humes most important contributions to the philosophy of causation are found in A Treatise of Human
Nature, and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, the latter generally viewed as a partial recasting of the
formerC. M. Lorkowski, David Hume: Causation <http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/<date accessed: April 30
2016
2
Ibid.
which is, the ability to speak. It is only my mind that adds and reduces the original attributes of a
ball pen and of mans ability to speak. Thus, in that sense, mind still is limited.

Furthermore, David Hume considers that what we have in mind is of two classifications,
these are, the impressions and the ideas.3 Both are said to be our perceptions Impression on the
one hand and Ideas on the other. However, Hume argues that the former, that is, impression, is
genuine; while, the latter is just the imitation of impressions, which are, the ideas. Hume thus is
somehow saying that ideas are not but the fake manifestations of impression. Thus he says:

Every one will readily allow that there is a considerable difference

between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels pain of excessive
heat, or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to
his memory this sensation, or anticipates it by his imagination. These
faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses; but they never
can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment. All
colors of poetry, however splendid, can never paint natural objects in such
a manner as to make the description be taken for a real landskip. The most
lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation.4

Basing from the argument above, Hume made clear that the actual sensations are more
realistic than mere reminiscence of experiences since the former is more vivid and lively sensed
than the latter. The abovementioned argument is what Hume calls the copy thesis5. Impressions
therefore are original. Without impressions, there can be no ideas since it is only through
impressions that ideas are born. This point of view grounds why Hume remains a dedicated
empiricis.

3
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: April
30, 2016
4
David Hume, Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals, 3rd
Edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1975), p. 20
5
James Fieser, David Hume, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/<date
accessed: April 30, 2016
 III

David Hume stated out two paths wherein the mind connects ideas. On the one hand, it is
done through natural relations, while through philosophical relations on the other.6Both 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, and
cause and effect wherein it is the latter, as Hume tells us, that is the most prevalent.7Indeed 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 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.

Now, the question is, what really then is causation?

Basically for Hume, causation is actually just the interconnectedness of events within the
world. It is neither about something that is an a priori nor something that is an abstraction. There
are three ingredients of the cause-effect notion of Hume, namely, priority in time, proximity in
space, and necessary connection.8In priority in time, it is much concerned with which event
happened first before the result took place. If for instance I punched a guy which resulted him to
have 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

6
C. M. Lorkowski, David Hume: Causation, http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/<date accessed:
September 9, 2015
7
Ibid.
8
James Fieser, David Hume,http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/<date accessed: April 30, 2016>
the result of the event A. In proximity in space, it is 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. Lastly, that is, the necessary connection is of much
importance to causality. In 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. As a summary,
the aforementioned three ingredients of causality must be met and satisfied.

Furthermore, causality for Hume can also be likened to an event that repeatedly occurs.
One good example of which is that, the moon is seen at night and not at noon. If so far this
premise does not fail, it becomes a habit. And when it becomes a habit, we are of course
expecting for this event to happen all over and over again. We then tend to become accustomed
to this series of event. In effect, if the other way around, by any chance, happens, it becomes
strange to us.

Humes copy thesis has a very important role in causality since it allows us to think that it
is because of impressions, which is grounded by 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?9 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. Here, it can be said that this notion has a closer connection to the
Barbara Logic, which was improvised by Aristotle. In this logic, one of the main rules is that any
particular subjects in any of the two premises should not be universalized in the conclusion.
Otherwise, it will be invalid due to committing fallacy of illicit minor/major:What is true to some

9
Ibid.
may not be true to all. 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
thingsin 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. Immanuel Kant, for
instance, considers causality as part of our understanding. Absolute Causality is never seen in the
succession of events we experience throughout our lives because if thats the case, then causality
will be regarded as subjective rather than objective; thus, a kind of threat to knowledge. If I kick
a ball and hits the other balls, causality is never in the first ball I kicked. Rather, it is in our
intellect. It is not something material but something immaterial that is applied to the world; thus,
causation for Kant can be regarded as a priori rather than a posteriori. That is, before experience.

Hume, however, did not buy any of the idea of the traditional metaphysicians. He is a
philosopher with deep suspicions about the idea that the world has genuinely modal
features10.This strong opposition is clearly seen in his epistemology. As what he believes,
sensation is more 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. The most striking part of Humes strong opposition to rationalism is seen in the last part of
the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Thus, he says:

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc

must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school of
metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning
concerning quantity or number? No. does it contain any experimental reasoning

10
Michael J. Loux, Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, 3rd Edition (New York: Routledge, ____ ), p.
188
 concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it
can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.11

The aforementioned phrase actually led to the alarm of many thinkers, especially the rationalists.
The content has very persuasive words. The rationalists are of course very sensitive to the
empiricists since they consider the latter as a threat to knowledge and thus to society as a whole.
On the other hand, this notion of Hume led to boost empiricism. Yet, however the case, its up to
the thinkers/researchers which idea to buy: whether causality is perceived via impression, via
reason, or through the combination of both.

Chapter IV

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 definitive12.
Reductionism accepted Humes basic theory of causation as being successions of events. They
hold that causation, power, necessity, and so forth, as something that exist between external
objects rather than in the observer, is constituted entirely by regular succession 13. 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 14.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
unsolved15. 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 claims
11
Ibid., 165
12
C. M. Lorkowski, David Hume: Causation, http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/<date accessed: April 30
2016
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
epistemically rather than ontologically rather than interpreting Humes insights about
tenuousness of our idea of causation as representing an ontological reduction of what causation
is, Human causal scepticism can instead be viewed as his clearly demarcating the limits of our
knowledge in this area and then tracing out the ramifications of this limiting 16. Further, they
believe that Humes causation remains hanging; thus unsolved. The third group of thinkers is the
Causal Realism. The latter is 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 causation17.

Conclusion

In the long run of the exposition of Humes Causation, the researcher finds it very
substantial and thus very practical. Though many would say that Humes philosophy is a threat
to knowledge, still the researcher is convinced for the following reasons: Firstly, Humes theory
of knowledge is very much evident in reality, that is, in the world. Indeed, the contents of our
thoughts are reducible to simple idea and are thus grounded with experience. Secondly,
causation, the researcher believes, is not basically in our understanding, following the notion of
Hume. For the researcher, it is the events we are experiencing that pave the way for us to have in
mind the understanding of what causation is. Understanding therefore is just secondary quality of
man. Again, that is the bias of the researcher. And lastly, but most importantly, the researcher is
very much convinced to the idea that our mind is limited, thus we can never know what really
are the essences of things. What we can know are just the product of our observations towards
the objects we experience, following of course the philosophy of Hume and of Kant. Yet, of the
two, the researcher is more convinced with the former, when it comes to causation and theory of
knowledge.

16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
VI. Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Hume, David.A Treatise of Human Nature (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1896),http://people.rit.edu/wlrgsh/HumeTreatise.pdf<date accessed: April 30, 2016
Hume, David. Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the
Principles of Morals, 3rd Edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1975)
Secondary Sources:

Copleston, Frederick, S.J..A History of Philosophy.Book II (New York: Doubleday, 1985)

Lorkowski, C. M..David Hume: Causation <http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/<date accessed:

April 30, 2016 Fieser, James.David Hume, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/<date accessed: April 30, 2016>

Loux, Michael J..Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, 3rd Edition (New York: Routledge,
_______)