Hume’s Empiricism and the Critique of Metaphysics
The Problem of Method
Hume criticizes both the deductive method (scholastic and Cartesian) and the inductive method. He argues against innate ideas and questions the validity of universal propositions based on limited observations. He contends that even if a law is confirmed in numerous experiences, we cannot be certain it will hold true in the future.
The Problem of Causality
Hume denies the principle of causality, arguing that it cannot be proven through experience or reason. He challenges the notion of a necessary connection between cause and effect, stating that we only observe constant conjunction, not necessity. Our belief in causality stems from custom and habit, not from rational justification.
No Causation
Hume argues that causation cannot be true because it would need to be both a relationship between ideas and factual knowledge. However, our factual knowledge is limited to present impressions and ideas, and any knowledge of the future is based on habit, not necessity.
No Necessity
Hume rejects the idea of a necessary connection between cause and effect. He argues that there is no impression of necessity, no a priori knowledge of necessity, and that experience cannot demonstrate a general law of necessity.
Custom and Belief
Hume attributes our belief in causality to custom or habit. This ingrained habit creates a belief, a sentiment or impression of reflection, leading to a form of knowledge based on experience.
Two Levels of Critique
Hume’s critique of causality operates on two levels:
- Ontological: Hume denies the reality of causality.
- Epistemological: Hume acknowledges causality as a law of our thinking, shaped by experience.
Ultimately, causality is based on belief derived from past experience and habit.
The Problem of Substance
Hume criticizes both Locke’s and Descartes’ concepts of substance.
Locke’s Concept of Substance
Hume challenges Locke’s view of substance as a complex idea formed by the mind, arguing that there is no sensory experience of substance.
Descartes’ Concept of Substance
Hume rejects Descartes’ notion of extended substance, arguing that secondary qualities are subjective perceptions. He also denies the existence of an infinite substance (God), as it cannot be perceived and arguments for its existence rely on causality or innate ideas, which Hume rejects.
Hume questions the existence of a thinking substance, as there is no direct impression of consciousness. He acknowledges internal impressions like pleasure and pain but denies a provable unifying substance.
Phenomenalism and Skepticism
Hume’s theory leads to a denial of metaphysics. While we can have beliefs about external reality, we lack direct knowledge of it. Our knowledge is limited to phenomena, or that which appears to us.