Hume and Kant: Causality, Skepticism, and the Categorical Imperative
Hume on Causality
Hume defines causes as the event or phenomenon involved in the production of another. The cause, then, precedes the effect.
If only the validity of what gives us the experience is accepted, it only shows that in the causal link, we call a phenomenon that precedes another.
For example, if a stone hits a glass and breaks it, what we see are the two facts, one after another. So, the cause is but a temporal succession observed many times. We get used to it, and we create the habit of waiting. When we see the first phenomenon again, we consider the following immediately after. But there is no need for this to happen; it might be something else.
Skepticism
Skepticism is a philosophical doctrine that denies that man is capable of knowing any truth.
The human being lives in a world full of facts and needs to know something about them. Hume was aware that his research led to philosophical skepticism. He also knew that skepticism cannot be sustained in our daily lives.
That’s why Hume prefers to use skepticism in highlighting the limits of our knowledge, to place them within the scope of our cognitive capacities and not take them further. It is the rejection of any metaphysical dogmatism and intends to maintain our knowledge within the framework that can provide expertise.
Metaphysics
With his theory of knowledge, Hume dissolves two important concepts: substance and causality.
For Hume, they are only relations of ideas that cannot be explained by experience and logical thinking. Hume argues that human knowledge is limited to simple phenomena, denying any kind of reality that is not phenomenal.
Kant’s Transcendental Illusion
Kant’s transcendental logic is divided into analytic and dialectic. The first is a priori elements of understanding necessary to think about any object, the so-called logic of truth, and the second, the logic of illusion.
- The three main objects of metaphysics, which Kant called ideas of reason, are the self, the world, and God. These ideas are not part of the phenomenon, and reason falls into contradictions when attempting to know them. Reason falls into a delusion, the illusion of transcending the limits, believing it can make statements about objects that are beyond experience.
This deception that takes over reason, Kant calls it a transcendental illusion, is to go beyond the empirical use of categories. This illusion is inevitable and natural. The transcendental dialectic is exposed when it seeks the transcendent use of categories and pursues the illusion of passing their boundary negotiations. For Kant, the categories can only be applied to what is sensed.
The Copernican Revolution
Kant explains that he received a great illumination that was to unveil his Copernican revolution, which will carry through rationalism and empiricism, dogmatism and skepticism, and open a new perspective in philosophy.
For Kant, knowledge can be universal and necessary because it results from the imposition of the subject (a priori) on the object.
- The a priori forms are, for example, like blue-tinted glasses, which allow us to see the world, but the vision is dyed blue. So it’s important to remember that blue is not a property of what we see but a filter that we put on.
- Empiricists advocate a passive role of the subject in the act of knowing so that it only receives impressions from the object. However, Kant argues that in the act of knowing, the subject is active, and it is the object that must adapt to the mechanisms of the subject.
This is known as transcendental idealism. Idealism because ideas or mental structures allow transcendental knowledge because these ideas are universal and transcend due to their a priori character.
The Categorical Imperative
Kant’s imperatives are categorical, that is, they require and compel compliance without conditions or exceptions.
When we use reason to guide our conduct, the result is presented in the form of orders so that the moral law is set as imperatives. Kant says that when our actions are based on subjective preferences, they are selfish; orders only require us what we want to do.
The law used to define Kant’s categorical imperative is: “Treat every human being not as a means but as an end in itself.”
A single action, if the action involves duty, involves general duty at all. An action is not good because of its consequences but because of its intent.
The laws of the will that are subjective should become universal objective laws.
It contrasts with the hypothetical imperative, which is what is done to an end and is owned by ethical materials. The categorical imperative instead serves no purpose; the action is performed by itself and is good in itself, without seeking reward or escape from punishment.