ALBA PARÍS MIQUEL
12/05/2017
ORAL PROJECT: DAVID HUME
I will be talking about David Hume. I choose this author of philosophy because he is
very important in the history and specifically, probably b ,by far, the most important
modern philosopher in English language (he was Scotsman).
The aim of this oral project is to show you the basic concepts about David Hume and
his “scepticism moderate”. For this, I will explain at first a small biography, after, the
basic concepts about his knowledge theory and, for last I will explain his famous
example about the shock of two billiard balls. This example is in the text that I’ve given
to you, with some pictures to illustrate and improve the understanding. So, the
structure of my presentation is:
1) Who was David Hume and what does his philosophy consist of?
2) Knowledge theory: AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.
- Section 7: Of the idea of necessary connexion ͢͢ the example of “shock of two
billiard balls”.
3) Conclusion: logic inconsistency about causality concept.
My presentation will be take about 8 (eight) minutes, and if you have any question I will
answer at the end.
WE START:
1) Who was David Hume and what does his philosophy consist of? He was born in
Scotland and died there. He had a happy existence as he himself confesses in an
autobiography. He was able to dedicate himself almost exclusively to philosophy from
since (?) a very young age, so he was a true intellectual. Hume lived the period called
the Scottish Enlightenment, which after joining England (seventeen seven, 1707)
began its economic, cultural and social glory. His philosophy was developed in many
aspects, but always with the purpose of being able to help us to change our existence
and to be able to guide us in our lives. A fully enlightened project. In short, his writing
was contrary to any metaphysics, and therefore, defends science and criticizes
religion.
So, having explained this, we are at the second point: his knowledge theory.
2) In this section 7 Hume will question the idea of necessary connection, arguing that we
don´t have a certain impression of such a necessary connection. Hume explains that
what really happens in our mind is: when many similar and uniform cases arise, we
believe that this cause is always and necessarily followed by the same effect. It is at
this moment when we believe that we have the idea of cause and necessary
connection. The connection we feel in the mind is a customary transition from the
imagination (the habit) from an object to its usual companion; At this point we form
our idea of necessary connection. But we can never prove it empirically because we
don´t know the origin of the necessary connection. It is an idea that arises from the
habit of seeing a plurality of similar cases, then, a customary connection. The mind
infers one event from the other, and this we are only able to do after a prolonged
course of uniform experience.
To be able to understand this, let us think of the first time a human could saw being
saw movement communicated by impulse. Let's think through the famous example of
the two billiard-balls. (So you can understand the drawing you have on the paper of
my project).
- Picture a pool table.
- Now picture two balls on the table which we will label "A" and "B".
- We hit ball A with the assurance that it will strike ball B. Using the causality, we
would assume that ball A's motion and collision with ball B would cause the
motion of ball B. Therefore, A caused B.
- But why?
To Hume, we have no evidence to support this statement, and so begin the issue of
causation. Hume asks why we should connect A and B without any actual evidence
linking the two. You could say that you could repeat the event and produce the same
results (science), but he would say that you must repeat the event an infinite number
of times, which is impossible. The only thing we have according to his thought is the
hope that certain events will follow others that precede them. Therefore, it can`t be
explained that the cause and effect is the behaviour of nature, but the habits of human
psychology. As Bertrand Russell will would also say, it is a kind of superstition.
3) The conclusion and main idea that I want to highlight is: Hume argued that we have
an instinctive tendency (like other animals) to believe in causation due to the
development of habits of our nervous system. It is a belief that we can`t eliminate, but
and we can`t prove by any argument, deductive or inductive, neither.
This approach defies common sense, appearing in the human being this existential
problem: What justifies our confidence in the existence of a causal connection and
what kind of connection can we know? This is a problem for which no solution has
been found.
Now we can understand that we want to believe the idea of necessary connection,
because otherwise our scheme under which we think and act in the world would be
destroyed.
Finally let us consider a reflection before leaving: We know that when crossing the
closed door we will find a floor to tread because the habit has told us so, but who
assures us that we will not fall into the void? Or even, every morning the sun rises but
this again is only habit, who does not tell us that the sun will not rise tomorrow?
