Philosophical Empiricism and the Limits of Knowledge

Topic 5: Introduction to Philosophical Empiricism

Empiricism emphasizes the role of sensory experience in acquiring knowledge. It denies the existence of innate ideas, proposing that the mind begins as a "blank slate." This perspective challenges traditional metaphysics, which attempts to transcend the boundaries of experience.

1. Epistemological Foundations

1.1. Elements of Knowledge

According to Locke and Hume, an "idea" represents everything we know or perceive. Hume refined Locke's concept of "idea" to encompass sensations and perceptions. He identified two key elements of knowledge:

• Impressions: These are immediate sensations—our direct experience of the world. They are strong, vivid feelings that form the raw data of our senses.
• Ideas: These are memories of past impressions. Consequently, they are weaker and less vivid than impressions.

Empirical Criterion of Truth: To determine the truth of an idea, we must trace it back to its corresponding impression.

2. Critique of Substance and Cause

2.1. Critique of Substance

Substance refers to the underlying essence of things, what they truly are despite their varying appearances. Empiricists argue that since the idea of substance cannot be derived from any specific impression, it lacks a basis in experience. They view the idea of substance as merely a collection of simple ideas (derived from simple impressions) linked together by imagination. For example, the substance of a "rose" is simply a combination of impressions of color, scent, texture, and so on.

2.2. Critique of Cause

We understand causality as the relationship between cause and effect. However, empiricists argue that we have no direct impression of necessary connection between events. We only observe a constant conjunction, a regular association between events. Our belief in causality arises from habit and custom, not from direct experience of a necessary link. This critique challenges our understanding of the world, cause and effect, and even the concept of God.

3. Critique of Rationalist Metaphysics

3.1. Critique of External Reality

Locke posited that the external world is the cause of our impressions. Hume, however, argued that since causality cannot be proven, we only have access to isolated impressions (phenomena), not to their ultimate source. This leads to skepticism about the external world. While Hume doesn't deny the world's existence, he emphasizes that it's a matter of belief, not certain knowledge.

3.2. Critique of God's Existence

Philosophers like Locke, Descartes, and Aquinas used the principle of causality to argue for God's existence. Hume's critique of causality undermines these arguments. He doesn't deny the possibility of God's existence, but rejects the claim of certain knowledge about God's nature or existence.

3.3. Critique of Personal Identity

The concept of a permanent self, a continuous subject of our mental acts, is also challenged by empiricism. We have no direct impression of a permanent self, only a succession of individual states of consciousness. Hume suggests that memory links these states, creating the illusion of a continuous self. The error lies in confusing the idea of a succession of states with the idea of a permanent personal identity.