David Hume, a British empiricist in the mid seventeen-hundreds, is well known for his belief that experience does not provide evidence for the idea of causality. Hume believed that by assuming causality (the idea of cause and effect) to be an absolute, we are taking the notion for granted. Hume challenges us to look at cause and effect based on experience, asking us to question what and how we can truly know about causation.
What Hume focuses on in this question are the concepts (particularly in physics) that we cannot directly sense: force, energy, power, etc. He can be quoted on this directly in the passage, “There are no ideas which can occur in metaphysics more obscure and uncertain than those of power, force, energy, or necessary connection…” …show more content…
Prominent among these critics would be Xavier Zubiri, Immanuel Kant, and objectivist Ayn Rand. It would appear that while this is indeed a perspective worth understanding, it is entirely outdated; the utter denial of provable causation is the denial of the study of physics.
Immanuel Kant, in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morality, discusses morals within the Categorical Imperative. Kant focuses in part on the idea of promises, and why false promises are morally wrong. This was in part in response to Hume’s Empiricist take on morality, which is that morals are derived from sentiment; or that morals are based on feelings rather than on an objective right and …show more content…
mathematics, history, philosophy, etc.), the subjective thinker is interested in subjective truths (religion, etc.). This is to say that the objective thinker is interested in what defines existence but is disinterested in how existence is defined (which would be the subjective view). As Kierkegaard says, “The way of objective thought leads to abstract thought, to mathematics, to historical knowledge of all kinds; and always it leads away from the subject, whose existence or non-existence, and from the objective point of view quite rightly, become infinitely
What Hume focuses on in this question are the concepts (particularly in physics) that we cannot directly sense: force, energy, power, etc. He can be quoted on this directly in the passage, “There are no ideas which can occur in metaphysics more obscure and uncertain than those of power, force, energy, or necessary connection…” …show more content…
Prominent among these critics would be Xavier Zubiri, Immanuel Kant, and objectivist Ayn Rand. It would appear that while this is indeed a perspective worth understanding, it is entirely outdated; the utter denial of provable causation is the denial of the study of physics.
Immanuel Kant, in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morality, discusses morals within the Categorical Imperative. Kant focuses in part on the idea of promises, and why false promises are morally wrong. This was in part in response to Hume’s Empiricist take on morality, which is that morals are derived from sentiment; or that morals are based on feelings rather than on an objective right and …show more content…
mathematics, history, philosophy, etc.), the subjective thinker is interested in subjective truths (religion, etc.). This is to say that the objective thinker is interested in what defines existence but is disinterested in how existence is defined (which would be the subjective view). As Kierkegaard says, “The way of objective thought leads to abstract thought, to mathematics, to historical knowledge of all kinds; and always it leads away from the subject, whose existence or non-existence, and from the objective point of view quite rightly, become infinitely