Hume’s Critique of Causation, Substance, and Metaphysics
The Problem of Causation and Necessity
No to Causation
Hume denies the principle of causality, which states, “Everything that begins to exist has a cause.” He argues that this principle cannot be proven as necessarily true because:
- It is not a relationship between ideas, which we can know intuitively.
- It is not knowledge of facts based on our current impressions or memories. Knowledge of the future, including cause and effect, is merely a result of habit and custom, not a necessary connection.
Hume contends that our belief in causality stems from habit and custom, not from any direct impression of a necessary connection between cause and effect. We are simply accustomed to associating certain events together.
No to Necessity
Hume argues that even if we accept the principle of causality, we cannot demonstrate a necessary connection between a particular cause and its effect. He states that:
- There is no impression that proves a necessary cause-and-effect relationship.
- A priori knowledge (knowledge independent of experience) cannot demonstrate this connection, as it only applies to relations between ideas.
- Experience, which is based on individual cases, cannot be used to induce a general law of necessary connection. We can only observe a relation of spatiotemporal contiguity (things happening close together in space and time).
Custom and Belief
Hume explains our tendency to establish necessary relations between causes and effects as a product of”custo” or habit. Repeated experiences create a belief in the necessity of the connection, even though it is not rationally justified. This belief, according to Hume, is a feeling based on our impressions, not a product of reason.
Hume’s Two Levels of Critique
Hume’s critique of causality operates on two levels:
Ontological Level (Reality)
Hume denies that causality is a real feature of the world. He believes it is a construct of our minds.
Epistemological Level (Knowledge)
Hume acknowledges that causality plays a role in how we understand and navigate the world. It functions as a”law of our way of thinkin” because experience leads us to believe in its necessity.
The Problem of Substance
.
** About the Lockean concept of substance: On the Lockean concept of substance: Locke considered the notion of substance as a complex idea resulting from the combinatorial activity of the mind. There was no experience whatsoever of substance, had experience of a number of qualities that always appear together in the same way. Locke believes that although there is no sense of substance (is unknowable) is necessary to assume that under the qualities there is something that unites them and that is the substance.
However, Hume says the idea of substance is the result of combinatorial dynamics of mind and not per impression, therefore does not respond to anything real.
** On the Cartesian view of substance: after denying the validity of the notion of substance in Locke, Hume makes a critique of Descartes makes use of it:
– Criticism of the Cartesian extended substance, Descartes distinguished between secondary qualities and primary qualities. High schools are subjective perceptions of the mind. With respect to the primaries, Hume’s criticism assumes Berkeley: these qualities are dependent on the secondary, because only through them, we come to those.
– Critique of the infinite substance-God-Cartesian no perception of God. But Hume denies value to innate ideas. And also denies objective validity to the principle of causality. Then there is no basis to sustain the existence of God. Hume said that there is no basis to support its non-existence, which his position seems to be agnosticism.
– Critique of Cartesian thinking substance: even accepting the validity of the whole process of methodical doubt, it only shows that there are undoubted thoughts, but there is something behind them, namely that there is no substance. If we stick to the principle that every idea has to respond to an impression, there are internal impressions. But there is no impression of conscience. At most, we assume that behind these scattered impressions there is something that unifies, but it is unprovable assumption.
The rejection of metaphysical phenomenalism and skepticism.
The Hume’s theory of knowledge leads to a denial of metaphysics. This is because Hume can only count on our impressions, but: 1) I do not know what they are about my impressions of sensation, or what value they may have my ideas and impressions of reflection, and, 2) of reality external knowledge can not be strict.
Hence all knowledge is reduced to pure knowledge of phenomena.
Empiricist positions taken by Hume to its extreme, put us in the position of not being able to substantiate knowledge. Just value is obtained through the prints. There is a valid method. No substances in those given the qualities known through prints. Etc.
This position denies the possibility of grounding knowledge is known as skepticism.