Hume argues that "knowledge of [the relation of cause and effect] is not, in any instance, attained by reasonings a priori, but arises entirely from experience, when we find that any particular objects are constantly conjoined with each other" (Bailey, p. 297lc). This sentence announces the conclusion for which Hume will argue over the next pages.
In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume argues that there are no absolute premises to make claims about future occurrences. Even though our experiences and our reasoning make us think that objects would act in a particular way, we still cannot be certain about how objects will behave in the future based upon our previous experiences. Knowledge based on past experiences does not always give us the true answers and may misguide us from the truth, according to Hume.
- What is Hume’s argument?
According to Hume all objects of human reason or inquiry can naturally be divided into “Relations of ideas” and “Matters of fact” (Hume 499). Relations of ideas are parts of knowledge that are a priori, or not learned by experience (Hume 500). These ideas are intuitively or demonstratively derived. For example, in mathematics, the sum of three and four is seven. On the other hand, “matters of fact” are not ascertained in the same manner. Matters of fact are parts of knowledge that are a posteriori, or learned through experience. The ideas that are caused by impressions are called “matters of fact.” Hume illustrates this with an example of the sun rising in the future. We assume that like every day the sun will rise, like it has done previously. But Hume says that we have no basis of actual truth to make this assumption. As humans we tend to use the principle of induction to predict what will occur in the future. According to him, we are unjustified in assuming judgments on future events based on past incidents. He puts us in a dilemma by saying that if we assume that the sun will rise tomorrow, we may be wrong or even right. The idea behind this argument of Hume is to highlight the presence of contradiction in every matter of fact. The idea that matter of fact can imply a contradiction seems unsettling, because it is conformable to reality (Landau and Feinberg 240). Hence, according to Hume, just because the sun has risen in the past does not serve as evidence for the future. Hence, in Hume’s opinion, matters of fact or knowledge learned through experience, cannot prove how objects function.
According to me, people believe in matters of fact because they have a reason to do so. If I see the sun rising today, I feel comfortable in thinking that the sun will rise tomorrow. I find that this is a matter of fact and can also simultaneously believe that because of the earth’s rotation in 24 hours, the sun will face the earth, making it rise and giving it a scientific basis.
- Causation and Matters of Fact
Hume assumes that “All reasoning concerning matter of fact seems to be founded on the relation of cause and effect.” (Landau and Feinberg). According to him, even though the cause precedes the effect, there is no proof that the cause is responsible for the effect's occurrence, and could be purely coincidental (Hume 502).Hume explains this concept by giving the example of a person finding a watch on a deserted island, which makes the person conclude that the effect of a watch present on the island is a cause of a human once inhabiting it. Hume feels that this person’s reasoning may be wrong as he uses prior experience to arrive at that conclusion.
Hume’s rejection of causation implies a rejection of scientific reasonings and occurrences, which are based on the concepts of contiguity and succession, i.e. one event will necessarily cause another and predictably always will. This according to Hume’s philosophy makes learning of truth and knowledge impossible. Although in real life, people think in terms of cause and effect and assume that there perceptions are valid.
If I boil water on a stove, the cause of the water to boil would be me increasing the heat to reach boiling point. The effect of me increasing the heat would make the water boil. Such claims maybe understood as causal claims and they explain the relationship between cause and effect. But in Hume’s understanding, I should not necessarily think that if I heat the water at 100 degrees, it will necessarily boil.
Hume also bring up the point that “The knowledge of cause and effect is not, in any instance, attained by reasoning a priori, but arises entirely from experience when we find that any particular objects are constantly conjoined with each other.”(500). Hume claims that all our beliefs, which form the basis of our knowledge, are derived from our impressions of the outside world and the inside world of our mind. Hume groups perceptions and experiences into impressions and ideas, where an impression is a temporary feeling, while ideas are a permanent impact of impressions (Landau and Feinberg 238). According to Hume, ideas are memories of sensations but impressions are the cause of the sensation.
The concept of the impressions of the mind is one of the key pieces that associates Hume’s argument on causation. Cause and effect are complex and unique ideas of the mind that are created from impressions. His theory is on relation between impression and ideas ties directly with his idea of cause and effect. Hume goes on to state that that knowledge based on reasoning alone cannot be the basis of true knowledge. So, according to Hume, a priori reasoning does not offer any understanding of the real world, because they cannot be traced to the impressions that first created them. The human mind takes simple ideas, and turns them into complex ideas (Landau and Feinberg 243). As humans we care capable of converting simple ideas into complex ones. An example of this concept Hume is trying to explain is the idea of a mermaid. Mermaids are considered to be females with a fish tail. Hume in this case claims, that in such a concept, the idea of mermaid if formed of two simple ideas, the body of a woman and a fish combined.
- Conclusion
Hume concludes in his argument that our beliefs can never be justified and can only be dependent on acquired habits. Hume further states that we cannot justify our natural beliefs in the reality of the self or the existence of an external world. For Hume there is always a fifty/ fifty chance of things occurring. He suggests that skepticism is the way to approach this dilemma. He understands that skepticism is not very practical approach to follow and does not expect us to live like this in our daily lives. I believe that though we are not always sure about the future events, we must assume that in the natural world things will continue the way they do. For example, if the sun rises and in our past experiences have seen the sun rising, we can assume that it will rise as it has done in the past. In order to continue with our lives we have to assume that things will carry on the way they do. Hume’s skeptical conclusion is that it cannot be by any process of reasoning whatsoever, that we can gain knowledge of any causal relations. Hume later argues that it is instead our habits of custom which lead us to organize our observations in a way which relates them as causes and effects.
Works Cited
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform, July 18 2011. Print.
Reason & Responsibility. Ed. Joel, Feinberg and Russ Shafer- Landau. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999. Print.
