How To Write An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding By Jc Mr. Hume

1462 Words 6 Pages
JC Mr. Hume I wish to discuss your theory of causation and necessary connection, which have become the subject of much controversy among later thinkers. I would like you to clear up many of the things that these philosophers believe are controversial about your work. But first, in order to do so I think it is only fair that we first clear up what your goals were in writing An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding.
DH I do agree that in order to best understand my theory it would be beneficial to understand my intentions for writing An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. An important goal of mine was to undermine superstition and also the philosophical environment that encourages it.
JC This is unclear to me, as any reader can determine
…show more content…
DH I think we have moved on to a topic that I later discuss in Section 4, we must properly understand the limits of the human understanding in order to not use false metaphysics as these thinkers have.
JC This leads us to your Fork. I am not speaking of your silverware but rather the term that has been coined to refer to your division of “all the objects of human reason or enquiry”(EHU 4.3). You chose to divide human understanding into relations of ideas, and matters of fact. We must take our time with discussing this aspect of your theory as the idea plays a major role in the rest of your work, EHU, and also seems to helps lay the foundation for your theory of Necessary Connection. But some argue perhaps there are demonstrable truths outside of the realm of logic, arithmetic, geometry, and mathematics. For example, some moral theorists would argue that it is certain that some virtues are good, and it could never be true that their contradiction would be good. You argue that ethics falls under the category of matters of fact, and you state that in regards to matters of fact the contradiction could never be thought of as impossible. The term, Hume’s Fork, is often used by contemporaries to imply the strong counter argument to your separation of human understanding into these two distinct realms, which some have said, rule out propositions that do not fit into either one of these categories (Edward and Brown 2016, 5.1). Could you please address this argument and do you at all think you made a misstep in only including these two divisions to cover the whole of human

Related Documents