David Hume’s Skepticism and the Foundations of British Empiricism
David Hume’s Philosophy and Modern Empiricism
Introduction to Modern Empiricism
Empiricism is a constant in English philosophical, political, and scientific thought, integrating all British philosophers, starting from the Oxford School (thirteenth century).
However, when the History of Philosophy speaks of the “empiricist period,” it refers to a shorter period spanning **F. Bacon** (16th century) to **D. Hume** (18th century), including other thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Berkeley.
This line of thinking coincides with a growing economy and the rise of bourgeois liberal politics in England following the Revolution of Cromwell and the first republic (1649–1660). In 1688, the Declaration of Rights was produced, asserting the primacy of Parliament over the King—a system based on the “social contract” rather than divine right.
Empiricism and Rationalism: Shared Cartesian Heritage
Philosophically, modern empiricism is characterized as a response to Rationalism. However, although criticism of rationalism is important, there is some commonality between empiricism and rationalism that must be considered:
- Both movements are heirs of the Cartesian system.
- Each, in its own way, accepts the fundamental principle that philosophy must build upon what is immediately given to human consciousness.
For both streams, the purpose of understanding revolves around “ideas.” As defined in the text: “I call idea everything that the mind perceives in itself, or is the immediate object of perception, thought, or understanding.”
David Hume’s Critique of Metaphysics
Hume strongly criticizes all metaphysical ideas, especially the concept of substance in its three aspects:
- The extended substance (the world).
- The thinking substance (*cogitans* or Self).
- The infinite substance (God).
Metaphysical ideas do not stem from any prior impression corresponding to the idea and, therefore, must be rejected as false.
Hume’s Stance on the Idea of God
Hume argues that causal inference cannot prove the existence of God, because this involves an illegitimate step from an impression to something of which we have no impression.
He believes that the limits of our knowledge are impressions, and if an idea is not based on or derived from an impression, it must be rejected as false.
Hume was not an atheist but an agnostic; he simply radically fulfilled the principles of empiricism: The idea of God transgresses the limits of our knowledge. On this issue, there will only ever be belief, not rational certainty.
Consequences of the Critique of Causality
The empiricist approach, which considers only those ideas for which we have a corresponding impression, leads Hume to develop a devastating critique of metaphysics. This critique is divided into three sections corresponding to the three objects par excellence of rationalist metaphysics:
- The Self (thinking substance)
- The outside world (extended substance)
- God (infinite substance)
Critique of the Thinking Self (Substance)
We have no impression of a thinking substance. If we did, this substance would remain the same throughout our lives. But if I examine my mind, all I find is:
“A bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement.”
Critique of the Idea of the Outside World
The question Hume asks is: How can I assert the existence of external reality unless I step outside my mind? Any object in the external world is reduced to the impression I have of it, and since impressions exist only when perceived, I cannot assert that there is an independent, subsistent reality outside the act of perception.
Critique of God as First Efficient Cause
When we assert the existence of God as the first efficient cause, we are making an illegitimate step from something of which we have an impression to something of which we have no impression (God).