Philosophy as a subject brings out the deepest conjectures the human mind can propeli Many great thinkers proposed outlandish ideas in their time, but philosophy leaves many notions proven until they aren’t, and that allows for many theories to pose questions through generations passed down David Hume was an 18th century philosopher and cynicist who proposed the notion of Empiricismi British Empiricists like Hume established themselves as philosophers who believed in knowledge being a wholly sensory experience with no need of further conditioning for the mind Hume believed that knowledge was an accumulation of the sights, sounds, tastes, and infintessimal triggers of human sense without the need of deduction, reasoning, or logic of any sort Hume and the Empiricist culture of his time posed the five senses as literally the root of all knowledge.
The basics of universal law in science show that sugar is sweet since ‘sweetness’ is the reaction to the creation of that particular chemical compound.
Hume could not be disproved in his point of empiricist thought as two balls bouncing can not technically be proven to obey and laws detected by human sensei Gravity was developed by Newton as an explanation to an unseen force, but Hume’s shell like perception of the universe technically disproves gravity as humans can not see, touch, taste, hear, or smell gravity, The ridiculousness of Hume’s principle is obvious, but the lack of explanation as to why he can’t be disproven makes him a interesting piece in the lineage of philosophers through time.
Philosohper David Hume’s concept of causality is somewhat challenging of what his peers posed to be true. Hume claims that one can not deduce the origin and state of somethingjust by examining it. The logic of everyday reasoning is challenged by Hume and humans must use deduction for literally every choice they make Stepping on the brake pad will stop the driven vehicle, but Hume claims this is not causality, this is pure experience that is providing knowledge in this particular scenario. Humans thrive off logic, and Hume’s dilemma provides an unarguable theory that really can toil with how one views causalityl Hume’s ‘Problem of Induction’ challenges traditional understanding of cause and effect becase he implies that humans have no control in the end of what ‘effect’ actually occursr.
Hume’s point stands correct when looking objectively at different scenarios; if someone attempts to bounce a basketball because it lays on a rack with similar balls and appears to have the same consistency as the others, it is because that person deduced its similarities Hume is not incorrect in his claim as there is no precursor knowledge to what exactly will happen when one bounces that ball. The basketball, just like a dinner plate could be a meteorite by Hume’s standards, and technically he is not incorrect Peers of David Hume in the 18th century such as philosopher Immanuel Kant were more practical and true to life with their nations Kant made his point clear in agreeing with much of what Hume stated to be fact, but he disputed Hume when it came to the lack of practicality in his thoughts on causality, The philosopher in Kant agreed that knowledge is gained in part by the accumulation of instances and experience sensed by the sentient mind, but he also realized and conveted that the mind must process these happenings as sensory experience is not enough.
The conveyance of thought and principle allows for evolution of thought, one can not develop thinking simply by wandering and sensing the world in its most literal meaning One may ask if Hume was trying to destroy the fundamentals of science with his theories, and if Kant was trying to do the exact opposite, but the fact that both men can not be disproven in their notions shows that there are questions which never may get answered, The mind is a vast and wondrous place, but there are so many unforseen events around us that cause and effect seems to be the most steady, yet unstable force in this universe. Beyond cause and effect there is reasoning and deduction, two traits that allow the mind to depict universal happenings Hume proved to himself that he could not be disproved, but Kant showed that being correct and incorrect is not so much a paradox, but yet another cause and effect,