Hume's Philosophy of Causality and Empirical Knowledge

Hume's Philosophy of Causality

Hume's Critique of Causal Knowledge

The existence of causal knowledge, according to Hume, is not a relation of ideas. The mind can never find the effect in the supposed cause by the most rigorous examination, because the effect is distinct from the cause and consequently cannot be discovered within it.

Causal knowledge is not a demonstrative knowledge obtained through reason, as its opposite does not imply a contradiction or logical absurdity.

Empirical Basis of Causal Belief

The belief in the existence of causal relationships arises from experience, specifically from observing the spatiotemporal contiguity and constant conjunction of two facts. For instance, Adam, without prior experience, would never have known that the collision of two billiard balls would result in the movement of the second.

The Problem of Necessary Connection

Hume argues that the causal relationship is not a knowledge gained by the mind through relating ideas, but rather a knowledge of facts that relies entirely on experience. Therefore, we cannot assert that it is probably true that there are causal relationships simply because we believe this statement to be necessary knowledge, as experience cannot provide necessary truths. Nor can we consider it a true knowledge attained from a series of experiences, as such an assertion would implicitly rely on a prior conviction of the probable existence of causal relationships.

Implications and Interpretations of Causality

Faith in Causal Regularities

It is argued that we must, therefore, have faith in the existence of regularities and causal relationships. Only then can we formulate explanatory theories that extend beyond concrete experience. While we may be predisposed to think causally, we cannot conclude from this, as Kant did, that the causal relationship is objectively real.

Tentative Explanations

However, theories established based on faith in the existence of causal relationships can only aspire to be tentative explanations. They will be replaced when they fail to respond adequately to our questions.

Hume vs. Kant: Divergent Views on Causality

Hume's Perspective on Causality

• Empirical: Derived from experience.
• A Posteriori: Known after experience.
• Contingent: Could be otherwise; not logically necessary.
• Not Strictly Universal: Exceptions are logically possible.

Kant's Perspective on Causality

• A Priori: Independent of experience.
• Necessary: One of the twelve categories of understanding.
• Strictly Universal: No exception to the principles of causality.
• Particular Causal Laws: Only specific causal laws are empirical.

Hume's Fork: The Knife of Hume Explained

The "Knife of Hume" refers to a methodological principle: if an idea cannot be reduced to its simple constituent impressions, then the term designating that idea has no empirical meaning. The limit of our knowledge, for Hume, lies in impressions.

Hume shares with Locke and Berkeley the fundamental premise of empiricism – that experience is the source of all knowledge – but, unlike them, he also asserts the limits of that knowledge.