Analysis of Hume’s Critique of Causation Essay -- Philosophy Philosoph

Analysis of Humes Critique of CausationSometimes it is hard to be sure what shutdown to draw from a Humean analysis, and he is easy to misrepresent. This is partly because one controversy he is engaged in may raise a make out of related issues that he has dealt with elsewhere, and some(prenominal) of his points seem contradictory. My wish is to consider some of the possible readings of David Humes critique of causation, as it appears in scratch 7 of the Enquiry Concerning humankind Understanding, On Necessary Connexion, and their relation to the propositions of Section II, Of the Origin of Ideas, and Section X, On Miracles. I will offer criticisms and alternatives to Humes account(s) and conclude by picking which interpretation of Section VII trump works for Hume, given certain arguments elsewhere in the Enquiry.The following is a summary of the aspects of the problem of induction as presented in the Enquiry which meet my discussion. Our assurance that certain s ets of conditions are sufficient to produce certain cause is based on past experience that like has been conjoined with like. The whimsy in necessary connection entails (Hume will conclude that it amounts to) a legal opinion that events similar to those experienced in the past will be go with by similar conjuncts. Such a belief may plainly be arrived at inductively, and induction does not discover necessity.11 This argument is against the suppositional necessity of connection. Necessity here may refer to logical necessity, or it may not distinguish between this and physical necessity. To be physic eithery necessary is to be sufficiently caused, but contingent upon the conditions of the event and the properties of all objects involved. Physical... ... but one about reason, that it is not this, but habit, which forms the basis of our beliefs. eon it may be the case that denying an empirical fact may not result in a contradiction, Hume seems to be suggesting that i t would still be superstitious to do so. That abstracting from events to laws is a rational, though inductive, act seems hard to deny. Thus, at best, Hume stick out only show that it is experience which first provides the matter for reason. SourcesHume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (Indianapolis Hackett, 1977) 11 David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, (Indianapolis Hackett, 1977), p.4622 p.5133 p.4944 I think both Descartes and Kant had perfectly effectual a priori demonstrations of the existence of the self, which is all one needs to reach the supposition of existence.55 p.42