Brett Dixon
Houston
Phil 262
12-13-16
Final Exam Essay Hume In section four of Hume’s An Enquiry concerning human understanding Hume sets out to prove that reasoning concerning matters of fact can not exist. He starts out the section by separating the relations of ideas and matters of fact. He says that Relations of ideas are inseparable bonds created between ideas. He uses examples like three times five is half of thirty. Basically, anything that is characterized by what it is. so A bachelor is unmarried for instance. to be a bachelor is to be unmarried therefore it is inseparably bonded to that Idea. to deny that would be absurd because it is the definition of the thing.
Hume …show more content…
I think Hume's validity lies in a “Uniformity principle “ needs to be proved still and no Modest man can do that.
I think what I love about this argument is that It essentially seems to state that there is no reason for you to rely on experience to make claims. As a human being that seems like an absolutely silly idea. Every day we make decisions based on inferences and I don’t think that's wrong. I think what is so genius about his claims though is he essentially states I could wake up tomorrow and be an elephant. The hilarity is that I couldn’t really prove him wrong because experience is my only argument and experience is not fact. I have to admit that although I understand what Hume is saying I don’t very much think living your life according to his truths is well worth your time. I find It hard to believe that you can not claim something to be true if you only know it through experience. I feel like what his way of thinking seems to bring out is a sense of “why bother”. In Hume’s view it seems as though we can’t actually understand anything nor should we worry about it because our experience is not a factual basis to truly prove anything. To believe that as a human being all you can do is make inferences and hope for the best seems rather bleak. I think that also that it doesn’t take as much to prove something as he puts forth. I think if something works …show more content…
He seems to think that If we were able to know of necessary connections only using only reason, there would be no need for experience to prove that any two events are necessarily connected. Hume believes that it is an experience that allows us to learn of this connection. people don’t actually experience the necessary connection they assume it based on what they. Again Hume uses the example of the billiard ball saying that if 100 out of 100 times when you shot a ball into another ball it moves then you can infer a connection exists, but you can still not observe the Necessary
Houston
Phil 262
12-13-16
Final Exam Essay Hume In section four of Hume’s An Enquiry concerning human understanding Hume sets out to prove that reasoning concerning matters of fact can not exist. He starts out the section by separating the relations of ideas and matters of fact. He says that Relations of ideas are inseparable bonds created between ideas. He uses examples like three times five is half of thirty. Basically, anything that is characterized by what it is. so A bachelor is unmarried for instance. to be a bachelor is to be unmarried therefore it is inseparably bonded to that Idea. to deny that would be absurd because it is the definition of the thing.
Hume …show more content…
I think Hume's validity lies in a “Uniformity principle “ needs to be proved still and no Modest man can do that.
I think what I love about this argument is that It essentially seems to state that there is no reason for you to rely on experience to make claims. As a human being that seems like an absolutely silly idea. Every day we make decisions based on inferences and I don’t think that's wrong. I think what is so genius about his claims though is he essentially states I could wake up tomorrow and be an elephant. The hilarity is that I couldn’t really prove him wrong because experience is my only argument and experience is not fact. I have to admit that although I understand what Hume is saying I don’t very much think living your life according to his truths is well worth your time. I find It hard to believe that you can not claim something to be true if you only know it through experience. I feel like what his way of thinking seems to bring out is a sense of “why bother”. In Hume’s view it seems as though we can’t actually understand anything nor should we worry about it because our experience is not a factual basis to truly prove anything. To believe that as a human being all you can do is make inferences and hope for the best seems rather bleak. I think that also that it doesn’t take as much to prove something as he puts forth. I think if something works …show more content…
He seems to think that If we were able to know of necessary connections only using only reason, there would be no need for experience to prove that any two events are necessarily connected. Hume believes that it is an experience that allows us to learn of this connection. people don’t actually experience the necessary connection they assume it based on what they. Again Hume uses the example of the billiard ball saying that if 100 out of 100 times when you shot a ball into another ball it moves then you can infer a connection exists, but you can still not observe the Necessary