Hume's Argument Against Attract Thinking

“Nature always wins out against abstract thinking” is a skepticism that Hume mentions in section four which he says will never undermine our reason of life. Hume in section five claims to have proven that there is a step in our reasoning that is not supported by any process of understanding. Such that without objects from experience we would never have the ability to understand. For instance, Hume mentions there is so solid reason why we should reason cause and effect. The argument Hume presents explains why an individual will need experience in the first place to make judgement and understand material things. Hume is a philosopher that believes in empiricism, so he looks towards observation to give us knowledge of external objects. Anything in the external world that we can clearly observe is what Hume calls “matters of fact” and …show more content…
Anything that cannot be observed, abstract or abstruse philosophy much of what Descartes focuses on, Hume classifies as metaphysics and believes them to be fictions. Hume wants to move metaphysics away from fictions and bring them to understanding which needs to look upon itself prior experiences. Hume’s argument how is it possible if at all a human understanding to make predictable inferences without cause and effect. Cause and effect allow the mind to move from one thought to another. When these laws of association are led by custom/habit they form innate ideas. Hume thinks that our knowledge of causation should be formed by instinct rather than by reason. It is very important that we see the world through experiences because reason is too unreliable a tool. The instincts enforced by custom are far less susceptible to error, and are

Show More

Related Documents: Hume's Argument Against Attract Thinking

Is Globalization Working?