Kant and Hume: Epistemology And Metaphysics: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Kant and Hume: Epistemology And Metaphysics » Kant and Hume: Epistemology And Metaphysics

Kant and Hume: Epistemology And Metaphysics

Kant and Hume: Epistemology And Metaphysics

Iagoism
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2004
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 8

Posted 12/07/04 - 10:30 PM:	#1
When one event causes another, most people think that we are aware of the connection between the two events, that the second event follow from the first. Hume denied that we could have any idea of cuasation other else than the following:when we see that two events always occur together, we tend to form an expectation that when the first occurs, the second is soon to follow. This constant conjunction and the expectation thereof is all that we can know of causation, and all that our idea of causation can amount to. Such a lean conception robs causation of all its force and some later Humeans like Bertrand Russell have dismissed the notion of causation altogether as something akin to superstition. But this violates common sense, thereby creating the problem of causation–what justifies our belief in a causal connection and what kind of connection could we have knowledge of? – a problem which has no accepted solution. Hume's view seems to be that we (as well as other animals) have an instinct-like belief in causality based on the development of habits in our nervous system, a belief that we cannot eliminate but which we cannot prove to be true by any kind of argument, deductive or inductive, just as is the case with regard to our belief in the reality of the external world. Kant on the other hand, chose to abandon the quest to try to know the world in itself, instead acknowledging that there is no way to determine whether something is experienced the way it is because that's the way it is, or because the faculties we have with which to perceive and experience are constructed such that we experience it in a given way. He demonstrated this with a thought experiment, showing that we cannot meaningfully conceive of an object that exists outside of time and has no spatial components. Although we cannot conceive of such an object, Kant argues, there is no way of showing that such an object does not exist. Therefore, Kant says, metaphysics must not try to talk about what exists, but instead about what is perceived, and how it is perceived My question is: Are there not other ways, specifically emprical, rational ways,(not transcedental/aesthtic) we can choose to understand the world in itself?

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 131
Total Posts: 4213

Posted 12/08/04 - 12:31 PM:	#2
I'm not certain, but I think Bertrand Russell said that the principle of induction was a priori; and that there is less certainty about the fruits of induction as there is about the principle of induction.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

SocraticBrian
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2004
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 450

Posted 12/08/04 - 01:14 PM:	#3
Iagoism wrote: When one event causes another, most people think that we are aware of the connection between the two events, that the second event follow from the first. Hume denied that we could have any idea of cuasation other else than the following:when we see that two events always occur together, we tend to form an expectation that when the first occurs, the second is soon to follow. This constant conjunction and the expectation thereof is all that we can know of causation, and all that our idea of causation can amount to. Such a lean conception robs causation of all its force and some later Humeans like Bertrand Russell have dismissed the notion of causation altogether as something akin to superstition. But this violates common sense, thereby creating the problem of causation–what justifies our belief in a causal connection and what kind of connection could we have knowledge of? – a problem which has no accepted solution. Hume's view seems to be that we (as well as other animals) have an instinct-like belief in causality based on the development of habits in our nervous system, a belief that we cannot eliminate but which we cannot prove to be true by any kind of argument, deductive or inductive, just as is the case with regard to our belief in the reality of the external world. Kant on the other hand, chose to abandon the quest to try to know the world in itself, instead acknowledging that there is no way to determine whether something is experienced the way it is because that's the way it is, or because the faculties we have with which to perceive and experience are constructed such that we experience it in a given way. He demonstrated this with a thought experiment, showing that we cannot meaningfully conceive of an object that exists outside of time and has no spatial components. Although we cannot conceive of such an object, Kant argues, there is no way of showing that such an object does not exist. Therefore, Kant says, metaphysics must not try to talk about what exists, but instead about what is perceived, and how it is perceived My question is: Are there not other ways, specifically emprical, rational ways,(not transcedental/aesthtic) we can choose to understand the world in itself? My understanding is that knowledge is that which we intelligenctly understand and reasonably affirm. Even Hume, presumably, had good reasons for his conclusion that we have no direct knowledge of causation. Hume relies on rational arguments for all his affirmations...though he does not acknowledge it... Hume offers no reasons to accept his own judgements as correct.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 12/08/04 - 03:00 PM:	#4
Iagoism]My question is: Are there not other ways, specifically emprical, rational ways,(not transcedental/aesthtic) we can choose to understand the world in itself? Roughly, Hume held that only what we do observe, or what we can observe, can be known. But, since we can observe only the constant conjunction of events, but not a causal nexus between them. we cannot know that there is a causal connection between events. He concluded that constant conjunction, together with an "expectation" that this constant conjunction will continue, is all there is to the idea of causation. However, in the late 19th century, the great American empiricist, and the founder of Pragmatism, C.S. Pierce, invented the notion of abduction, like and yet, more powerful than that of induction. More recently, philosophers have discussed the idea of inference to the best explanation whereby we posit, or hypothesize an explanation which, although, not itself observable, nevertheless provides the best explanation for what we are able to observe, and gains its plausibility from that. This notion of "inference to the best explanation" makes us understand, for instance, why we think that the theoretical entities of physics, like neutrinos, or quarks, or strings, exist, although they are unobservable. It is because they provide the best explanation we have for the observations we are able to make. The causal connection between events and classes of events can be seen as validated by the inference to the best explanation. In other words, the best explanation we have for a constant correlation is that there is a causal connection.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.