Hume's Causal Judgments - Essay Example

Introduction Hume is considered the most influential philosopher in English, his philosophical works, which include the study of human nature and understanding, remain extensively and intensively influential. His approach towards traditional theoretical beliefs shocked those who read his work influencing the high attention given to philosophers who came after him. Hume emphasizes that all that is defined and perceived are just but ideas and impressions and not the real thing he does cynical thinking about reality. In other words, Hume distinguishes between the relationship of ideas and facts. This paper is going to discuss Hume’s analysis of the process by which we make causal judgments. Definition of causality Causality can be defined as the relationship between an object and a fact; it is among the most recognized ideas that we have. Causality is involved in almost all undertakings or human way of thinking; it is assumed in every argument and sensible actions. It is considered a beneficial idea in all areas of philosophy including philosophy science from the time of ancient Greeks to present. Hume as a philosopher, he defines causality as something that clinches things together. Knowing what causes are assists us to know how minds might or might not relate to bodies, how bodies might approach to create changes in other bodies, how thoughts might or might not influence deeds and how free they might or might not work. Therefore, all human beings are naturally attributed to certain occurrences of causal actions upon others. This means that whenever there is change in something, there is a quality that disappears, and another one appears, and the source of these changes is cause. In other words, for every quality produced as a result of change, there is a cause for that. Many changes occur due to the relation between change and cause. Hence, this natural acknowledgement of the association between cause and effect to occurrences is at the forefront of all the philosophical declaration and analysis. There are characteristics that help to differentiate the causal relations in the universe, which include non- anthropomorphic, uniformity and determinism. Non – anthropomorphic, causal relation means a name given to change, and that in causal correlation wishes, purpose and desires are never mentioned. Uniformity describes causal relations as unchanging habits between facts, on the other hand, determinism characteristics emphasize that there is a connection between a cause and an effect. Meaning causality is prejudiced by the presence of other aspects. There are meanings of causation as brought up by Hume, and they can be divided into two. The first definition focuses on regularity of connection, and the second definition incorporates essential correlation. From the two definitions, a controversy arises on which is the true theory of definition of Hume about causation. According to Hume, human beings reason in an inductive manner whereby we associate constant conjoined changes and that it is through mental connection that we come up with these concepts of causation. There are three main ways of interpreting Hume’s interpretation, which include logical positivists, skeptical realists and Quasi- realists. According to the logical positivists, Hume maintains that the organization of the universe is as a result of similarity between its causes and effects. For example, if A caused B then they must appear wherever each event occurs like if A occurs, B should also occur. Hume’s study on causation and his emphasize on the causes has been argued by other realists mainly those who doubt his work. This means that according to Hume, when two changes occur, it means that the connection is similar to the effects. Hume maintains that we lack continuous access to the essential connection, but we are naturally believed in the existence of objects. Hume justified on the absence of essential relationships rather there existed only constant conjunctions. On the other hand, quasi realists argued that Hume never thought that causation could be reduced to pure regularity. Philosophers who came before Hume looked upon suggestions about causation as essential truths. Such philosophers argued that not everything that occurred had a cause, but in other circumstances, a cause could have been caused by another cause (Hetherington 461). Hume’s large area in his philosophical work is the analysis of causality whereby he majored in human anxiety and causality. As an empiricist, Hume is respected because he acknowledged the significance of studying human anxiety as a step in the growth of a complete philosophy and the association with the problem of causality. Throughout Hume’s era, causality moved from being mainly about things in the world to being the way of assuring the reality of opinions of it. This meant that, any approach on the principle of causality would unavoidably have deep consequences for knowledge about the world. In analyzing causality, Hume is interested in the imagination or the doubtful knowledge that human beings have due to the experimental data gathered from non- expressive results. His analysis of causal judgment is also based on knowledge of the future, the past and also on the unobserved parts of the present. It also includes everything else except what is directly observed, mathematics and logic. The study of these types of doubtful knowledge leads Hume to make doubtful conclusions. To start with, he separates the different philosophical relations into two separate parts; he also places the relations into two different classes; those that take place due to changes in ideas and those that take place without any change in ideas taking place. The relations in the first class give convinced knowledge while knowledge of other relations is due to ways of imaginations. According to Hume, the relations in the second class do not depend on any ideas. Therefore, Hume’s analysis of causality is based on two crucial aspects (1) the nature of causality as a steady combination of different ideas, (2) the skeptical conclusions about understanding of the world as a result of these ideas (Ozen 192). Hume’s judgment on belief When looking at Hume’s thoughts about belief, he does not relate belief with knowledge, approximation to or imitation, he perceives it as ideas that are trusted and also as a characteristic of the idea, that comprises of agreement to it. Hume agrees that we can imagine about something without asserting or denying it. He relates agreements of ideas to beliefs, and that whatever we agree or confirms is as a result of knowledge. His perceptions and explanation about belief are different from other philosophers’ explanation, hence based on these factors he beliefs his explanations are original and new. He considers verdicts to be limited to belief configuration and not to the extent of proposing the configuration in general. Hume accepts other philosophers like Locke’s explanations about belief. Locke believes that belief is a light imagination of knowledge and the process through which these explanations are known or trusted is by accepting or denying one idea or the other. Hume unconditionally agrees with Locke’s explanations to the point getting interested with it all, but he discards any predicative explanations of how belief is formed, he only agrees with those explanations that only involve existence (Spencer and Eric 51). Hume’s ideas are summed up with the two meanings of cause. In the first definition, cause is defined as an object that is followed by another object and that these objects are similar to each other whereby all the first objects are similar to those second objects following them. Furthermore, there are involvements of external feelings. On the other hand, in the second definition of cause, an object followed by the other objects, appearance is the main determinant that expresses the ideas to the other objects. In the second definition, focus is on the internal sense and the feeling of determination is also involved. Even though, there is controversy drawn from both definitions, conjunction is all that Hume claims to express, but when joined the definitions capture all the relevant impressions involved (Beebee 129). Therefore, from Hume’s analysis, there are negative conclusions drawn from his study. To start with, the argument that suggestions about causation are essential truths, but Hume declines as going past what we can find out from knowledge and we cannot recognize suggestions about causes earlier to experience. Meaning whenever we come across a combination of a cause and effect at the first sight, it is initial knowledge on such a thing. According to this claim, we cannot look at the cause earlier and then decide what its effects will be later because we only know the conjunction and not the essential relationship between effect and cause. Hence, causality is purely based on experience and not the logical association (Christian 252). Hume’s explanations on causation show how he perceives philosophy and that is how it should be emphasized. He also argues that prior reasoning about cause and the effect will get us nowhere; he maintains that experience is the only way of connecting cause and effect, and we are able to the differentiate objects from each other. These are the basis of moral reasoning, which creates the bigger part of human knowledge and basis of all human behaviors and actions. From the partial experiences that we have, conclusions ought to be cautious, uncertain, reserved and meek. Additionally, we should learn to cope with the constraints of human knowledge as we follow the lawful meanings of science and mathematics, meaning Hume distinguishes between the relationship of ideas and facts. Hume’s critique on causality The first critique is based on the analysis of Hume’s theory of causality; the analysis is not based on his arguments. First, Hume’s conclusion about causal interpretation as a routine is not logical or mathematical knowledge is based on relations of ideas but a belief of facts. According to Hume, such beliefs of matter of facts are always dependent thus; his conclusion is also dependent and cannot be defended by reason. Therefore, to be precise, he concludes that no belief is dependent and cannot be defended also by reason. This is a controversy itself; meaning Hume conquers himself using his own words and it is likened to logical positivism, which implies that, nothing is true unless empirically verified (Turner 96). The second critique is on Hume’s arguments, which are combined, by both induction and deduction. Even if, Hume’s theory is fundamentally a structure of deduction, the assumptions in his theory are not realistic; his assumptions are as a result of experience. On the other hand, according to Hume induction theory is as a result of his conclusion. Lastly, his hypothesis is as a result of a cognitive replica of the brain. Many modifications and studies have been made on Hume’s theory in today’s world, and there is a possibility that many errors have been identified in his theory and model. We can courageously say that Hume’s philosophical theory and model fails to some extent. Third critique is on Hume’s arguments about his theory of causality. According to Hume, his theory has to parts; that is objective and subjective. According to his objective part, he says that A causes B this been A and B are conjoined which means B occurs immediately after A, but there are no evidences that this process takes place. However, causality is defined in a continuous manner and that it is not an independent idea. The subjective part, on the other hand, emphasizes that the often-observed connection between A and B result to the impression that A influences B. Conclusion Hume is mostly known due to his incisive analysis of causality. He emphasizes that cause cannot sensibly require effect, and his study is restricted to empiricism. Consequently, his uncertainty about the law of causality also makes us suspect his study and analysis about causality. Hume’s philosophy focuses on particularity and skeptical leading to uncertainty. This is because of his indeterminism on causality, which makes us feel that his study if well revised might be found with several errors. However, unlike other philosophers, Hume’s criticism on doubt and knowledge are based on how to tackle uncertainty and this drove him towards the principles of acceptance and tolerance. Work cited Beebee, Helen. Hume on Causation. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print Christian, James L. Philosophy: An Introduction to the Art of Wondering. USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print. Hetherington, Stephen. "Not Actually Humes Problem: On Induction and Knowing-how." Philosophy 83.4 (2008): 459-81. Turner, Jonathan H. Handbook of Sociological Theory. USA: Springer, 2006. Print. Spencer, J. Pack, and Eric Schliesser. "Smiths Humean Criticism of Humes Account of the Origin of Justice." Journal of the History of Philosophy 44.1 (2006): 47-63. Ozen, Ufuk. “Causality in Philosophy of Science: From Hume to Today.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 1.11 (2011): 191 – 197. Read More