741907
Description
The analysis of causation in terms of constant
conjunction - the role of custom and repetition. P1
- NEGATIVE ACCOUNT: Context & Significance: Hume turns attention to matters of fact; particularly those that we believe, but which go beyond what we have yet experienced: those that go 'beyond the present testimony of our senses,
or records of our memory. As a strict empiricist, Hume must give an account of why we believe, and think that we can know, things that go beyond our experience. Many beliefs concern past/future; if not, we'd be trapped in the 'here
and now'. Hume's aim is to question our justification of our beliefs. In this, the negative account of cause and effect (IV), Hume undermines the idea that there is any rational basis for beliefs about cause and effect.
- Matters of Fact dependent on Cause and Effect:
We form beliefs about the future/past by means
of cause/effect. eg. Certain matters of fact
cause us to believe certain things about the
past/future. We infer from these present matters
of fact, eg. that there is a fire in front of me,
certain matters of fact not currently present (eg.
if I get too close that fire will burn me). Hume
observes that it is supposed that there is 'a
connexion between the present fact and that
which is inferred from it', otherwise, the beliefs
we form about events beyond the evidence of
our memory and sense would be 'entirely
precarious'.
- Causal Relations Not Known Through Intuition:
Where does this knowledge of cause and effect
come from? Hume: it's not something we could
know through pure reason alone. If a man 'of
strong natural reason and abilities' encounters a
new object, he couldn't infer anything about it's
causes or effects' He couldn't know, for
example, that fire burns, just by contemplating
the sensible qualities of fire and without some
prior experience of fire's effects. Hume's
example: Adam, first experiencing water, could
not intuitively know/infer the effects it would
have (i.e. 'that it would consume him') just by
thinking about it. So, knowledge of c/e isn't
based on a priori reasoning, so it must come
from experience; 'the proposition that causes
and effects are discoverable, not by reason, but
by experience, will readily be admitted'; in
particular, it's the observation of correlations
between different kinds of events that forms
the basis of causal reasoning and inference.
- All causes are entirely separate from their
effects which makes any inference from one to
the other which is based on reasoning alone
entirely arbitrary and unfounded.
- Familiarity with certain events produces the misconception that we can
discover the cause/effect of these events by mere operation of reason.
- Billiard ball: 'may I not conceive, that a hundred different events might as well follow from that
cause?' No a priori reasoning favours a certain outcome, on the contrary, our judgments about
c/e are based on experience, and past exp. alone can guide us alone in making whese
judgments.
- Familiarity with certain events produces the misconception that we can
discover the cause/effect of these events by mere operation of reason.
0 comments
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.