Revised, 11/16/06

David Hume
(1711-1776)

An Inquiry Concerning Human

Understanding

(Text, pp. 327-340)

Anthem1

Anthem2
 An overall outline of the text

1 Sensation & the Origin of Ideas

2 The Nature & Limits of Human Knowledge
3 The Nature & Limits of Inductive Reasoning
4 The Idea that there is a Necessary Connection
between Cause & Effect
5 The Value & Limitations of Skepticism
1. Sensation & the Origin of Ideas
(327-8)

The contents of the mind: (1) ideas & (2) impressions

(sensations & feelings) -- Ideas (concepts, beliefs,
memories, mental images, etc.) are faint & unclear;
impressions are strong & vivid.
Ideas are derived from impressions: All [all?] ideas are
copies of impressions.
The meaning of ideas depends on impressions [see next
slide].
 The empirical criterion of
meaning & truth

"From what impression is that

alleged idea derived?"

No impression, no meaning?
No impression, no foundation in reality?

(Text, 328)
2. The Nature & Limits of
Human Knowledge (329-331)
 Two kinds of ideas
(or judgments)
"All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided
into two kinds: relations of ideas and matters of fact" (329).

"Hume's Fork"
 Judgments concerning relations of ideas

Ideas ("Hume's Fork")

Judgments concerning matters of fact

(Text, 329)
Judgments concerning relations of ideas

 Intuitively or demonstrably certain

 Discoverable by thought alone [a priori]
 Cannot be denied without contradiction

*Hume's examples: the Pythagorean Theorem

3 x 5 = 30  2
The Pythagorean Theorem
On a right triangle, the square of the
hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the
squares of the other two sides

5'
4'
(hypotenuse)
2 2 2
3 +4 =5 3'
(9 + 16 = 25)
 Judgments concerning matters of fact
 "Every judgment concerning matters of fact can
be denied without contradiction" (e.g., "the sun
will not rise tomorrow").
 Neither intuitively nor demonstrably certain
 Not discoverable by thought alone [a priori], but
rather on the basis of sense experience [a
posteriori]
More specifically,
 All judgments concerning
matters of fact are based on . . . .

the [more fundamental] belief that

there is "a tie or connection" between
cause & effect.
And why do we believe that there
is a "tie or connection" between
cause & effect?
Answer: The belief arises entirely from
experience [a posteriori, not a priori],
namely, the experience of finding that
two events (cause & effect) are
"constantly conjoined" with each other.

(Text, 330-331)
It is not logically necessary that a
particular effect follows a
particular cause;

it is just a fact of experience.

This view leads to Hume's discussion of . . . .

3. The Nature & Limits of
Inductive Reasoning

(the problem of induction)

(Text, 331-333)
 Hume on Induction
 Induction is the process of drawing inferences
from past experiences of cause & effect
sequences to present or future events.
 Hume's point is that an "effect" cannot be
validly deduced from its "cause;"
 the inference from "cause" to "effect" is based
on past experiences of "constant conjunction,"
and these past experiences . . . .
 accustom or habituate us

to believe that one event is the cause

of another, which we believe to be the
effect of the prior event.

This is what leads us to believe that . . . .

the future will resemble the past.

It is all a matter of CUSTOM or HABIT.

This is the foundation of . . . .

 (Text, 333-4)

4. The Idea that there is a

Necessary Connection between
Cause & Effect
If this is a meaningful (& true?) idea, then (according to
Hume) it must be derived from sense impressions.

What, then, is the sense impression from

which this idea is derived?
 There is no sense impression of
causal power or necessary
connection of cause & effect, but
we do experience . . . .
 (1) the spatial contiguity,
 (2) the temporal succession, and
 (3) the constant conjunction

of "cause" & "effect."

 It is from this experience,
 especially the experience of constant conjunction,
 that the idea of a necessary connection between "cause" &
"effect" arises (or is inferred);
 but the "inference" is simply a matter of "custom or habit."
 This seems to mean that the "inference" here is psycho-logical
rather than logical. Actually, there is no experience of the
necessary connection between cause and effect. Thus, all factual
judgments (which are based on the assumption that there is a
necessary connection between cause and effect) are subject to
doubt.
 No necessity, no certainty.
5. The Value & Limitations of
Skepticism

(Text, 334-340)
Hume discusses 5 kinds of skepticism:
 (1) "Antecedent" skepticism
 (2) "Consequent" skepticism
 (3) Skepticism concerning mathematical
reasoning
 (4) Extreme skepticism concerning matters
of fact
 (5) Moderate skepticism
The pro's & con's of "antecedent skepticism"
(Text, 334-5)

Criticism of "Cartesian skepticism" -- Is Hume's

characterization of Descartes' approach correct?
Fair?

The value of the Cartesian approach when used in

a "more moderate and reasonable way"
 "consequent skepticism"
(Text, 335-6)

 The nature of "consequent skepticism"

 Weaker & stronger arguments in support of
consequent skepticism
 A skeptical critique of epistemic realism
– Common sense ("direct") realism
– Representational realism (reason vs. common sense)
– God & the reliability of sense perceptions
– Skeptical conclusion with regard to epistemic realism
 Skepticism concerning mathematical
reasoning with regard to space & time
(Text, 336-7)

 The idea of the infinite

divisibility of space  The idea of the infinite
results in "absurdities divisibility of time
& contradictions" that does the same.
raise skeptical doubts
as to the reliability of
mathematics itself.
Extreme skepticism concerning
knowledge of matters of fact
(Text, 337-8)

 "Popular" skepticism with

regard to empirical  Hume's criticism of
knowledge these forms of
skepticism: their
impracticality & human
 "Philosophical" skepticism nature's resistance to
with regard to empirical them
knowledge (Hume's own
position)
 Moderate Skepticism
(Text, 338-340)

Intellectual humility (the majority vs. the learned)

The limitation of inquiry to accessible subjects
(i.e., the concerns of everyday life)
The limits of certainty: two types of human
knowledge -- formal (a priori & certain) & empirical
(a posteriori & uncertain)
Conclusion on factual reasoning, theology, ethics
& aesthetics, & speculative metaphysics
The End