A discussion on humes perspective on the idea of causation and kants response

We simply use resemblance to form an analogous prediction.

dogmatic slumber

The second step of the causal realist interpretation will be to then insist that we can at least suppose in the technical sense a genuine cause, even if the notion is opaque, that is, to insist that mere suppositions are fit for doxastic assent.

According to Guyer, Kant claims that our knowledge of such objective temporal series depends upon our knowledge that they are determined by particular causal laws.

Causality is for Hume, the basis for many of our inferences and deductions about the world. By employing that word, we pretend not to have given the ultimate reason of such a propensity. If it is true that constant conjunction with or without the added component of mental determination represents the totality of the content we can assign to our concept of causation, then we lose any claim to robust metaphysical necessity.

Hume causality

Although Hume does the best that can be expected on the subject, he is dissatisfied, but this dissatisfaction is inevitable. There is no middle ground. But all empirical laws are only particular determinations of the pure laws of the understanding, under which and in accordance with the norm of which they first become possible, and the appearances take on a lawful form—just as all appearances, notwithstanding the diversity of their empirical form, still must also always be in accordance with the condition of the pure form of sensibility [i. Clearly it is not a logical modality, as there are possible worlds in which the standard laws of causation do not obtain. Clarendon Press, Oxford, Oxford U. Kant begins with the purely logical relation between ground and consequent. Here is a key passage where Kant contradicts Hume.

It is easier to follow if one recalls that the universal principle of causality asserts nothing about the nature of empirical phenomena as they are independently of how we experience them. One must sharply distinguish between the general principle of causality of the Second Analogy—the principle that every event b must have a cause a—and particular causal laws: particular instantiations of the claim that all events of type A must always be followed by events of type B.

Though it is highly technical, it touches many issues important to contemporary metaphysics of causation.

kant vs hume causation

This is called an assumption since we have not, as yet, established that we are justified in holding such a principle.

Rated 10/10 based on 118 review
Kant and Hume on Causality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)