Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

David Humes loose causation

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • David Humes loose causation

    If you aren't familiar with the biggest troll (or one of) in philosophy, you will soon come to realize why he is labeled as such with relatively quick research. One of his, most interesting assertions, is that cause and effect are "loose", in a sense. Meaning, the only required connection between cause and effect, is that the former comes before the latter. But, there is no necessary connection between any specific cause X and any specific effect Y. Whatever you observe that declares otherwise, is a trick of the senses. Other then, more specifically the problem of induction, I think if you take the premise to its logical conclusion, it reduces to absurdity. For instance, there is no necessary connection between the outside world and the effect it has on your senses. Therefore, your senses become untrustworthy. But, in order to affirm a claim as such, you need to have reliable senses (because an empirical claim, requires empirical evidence). Hence, a contradiction.

  • #2
    Originally posted by ClassicalLiberal.Theist View Post
    One of his, most interesting assertions, is that cause and effect are "loose", in a sense. Meaning, the only required connection between cause and effect, is that the former comes before the latter. But, there is no necessary connection between any specific cause X and any specific effect Y.
    It's not mere succession but also contiguity and constant conjunction that are necessary in Hume's account of causation. For all intents and purposes his account eliminates necessity from causation, in the sense that it eliminates what most people would think worth calling necessity; what he says, though, is that the necessity we think is in the objects is really the sense we have of moving from the idea of the effect from the idea of the cause. Our minds 'spread' out onto the world.

    Originally posted by ClassicalLiberal.Theist View Post
    Whatever you observe that declares otherwise, is a trick of the senses. Other then, more specifically the problem of induction, I think if you take the premise to its logical conclusion, it reduces to absurdity. For instance, there is no necessary connection between the outside world and the effect it has on your senses. Therefore, your senses become untrustworthy. But, in order to affirm a claim as such, you need to have reliable senses (because an empirical claim, requires empirical evidence). Hence, a contradiction.
    There are lots of questions about how to apply Hume's account of causation to the psychology he develops throughout his Treatise. Even his account of causation seems to involve causal notions in saying how it comes to be that we form the habits which express themselves in the internal sense of necessity associated with causation: the habit is formed by repeated exposure to such instances, and then once the habit has been formed, causal 'inference' consists in the idea or impression of the cause "determining" the mind to have the idea of the effect. It's not obvious that the constant-conjunction account can be easily substituted into these cases. (It isn't clear how the account is extended to mental phenomena at all, as it isn't clear what the contiguity condition means for mind-world and mind-mind relations.)

    Comment

    Working...
    X