Hume’s Distinction between Ideas and Impressions
Hume asserts that an impression is a perception that entails live hearing, feeling, seeing, and other senses among human beings. This implies that events such as seeing and hearing are real and do not come as thoughts among human beings. Therefore, an impression reflects the actual nature of the occurrence of events among human beings rather than just thinking about them. On the other hand, Hume points out that an idea is a perception of the mind that entails thinking about particular things without having an actual experience of these events. This means that ideas are not real but exist in form of thoughts among human beings. Ideas are not actual events.
Hume’s Account of Imagination and Its Limits
The assertion means that the thoughts of individuals are not limited to their immediate environments and have the capacity of transporting individuals to distant places across the universe. Buchler (2000) asserts that Hume’s account on imagination highlights the view that the imagination of individuals experiences no trouble in conceiving the most natural and common happenings in the world. This means that individuals would face more trouble imagining about things such as monsters as they are not natural and common happenings in the lives of individuals.
One of the most significant limitations of this account is that the mind at times is subject to narrow limits hence only able to think within a certain area. This means that it could be difficult for the mind to move to wider areas as asserted. Another limitation is that the creative power of the mind amounts to no more than augmenting, transposing, and the diminishing of events and objects by senses and personal experiences.
Hume’s Distinction between Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact
According to Hume, the relations of ideas refer to mathematical or logical proposition that that does not reflect any sense of reality. This implies that the relations of thought can be discovered through the operations of human thought. Therefore, relations of ideas are mathematical in nature and no sense of reality can be attached to their operations. Conversely, Hume noted that matters of fact refer to the propositions that are empirically verifiable. This means that matters of fact tell people about the real world but are not rationally certain.
Hume’s Rejection of the Rationalist Idea
One of the vital grounds that Hume uses to reject the rationalist idea of cause and effect is the time of occurrence of particular events. In line with this assertion, Hume is of the view that the priori of time of the cause before the effect should be considered, as some events are never related in terms of time in matters of cause and effect. Another significant ground of rejection is the connection between the cause and effect. This means that in most instances, it is always difficult to determine the connectivity between the asserted cause of a particular event and the effect of that event among individuals. Hume also rejects the rationalist idea of cause and effect on grounds of constant conjunction. This means that in most instances, statement A and B would exhibit immense differences hence should not be understood as cause and effect in any measure.
Concerning the claim that causation is a necessary connection between two events, Hume argues that the assertion is not necessarily true because of the constant conjunction between these events. This means that most events tend to occur independently hence not indicating any sense of connection between them. The causation of an asserted event would not be related to the effect of that event hence no sense of connectivity between them.
Chattopadhyaya (1991) notes that in relation to causation, Hume affirms that individuals reason inductively by associating events that are constantly conjoined. This means that causation and it emanates from mental associations among individuals. This is related to impression in the sense that it reflects the reality of different events such as feelings. It is also related to ideas because of what individuals imagine to be the causes and effect of particular events in their lives. Therefore, cause and
Hume’s Rejection of Rationally Justified Beliefs
Hume rejects rationally justified beliefs with on grounds that the uniformity of such contingent truths could only be based on our experience. This assertion implies that rationally justified beliefs cannot help people make conclusions about the occurrence of the natural events such as the rising of the sun every morning. However, he holds that such natural events form a behavior and the belief about their continued occurrence in the future comes from the experience that individuals hold toward that particular event. Again, the uniformity of occurrence of the event would increase the expectation of future occurrence of the event in line with the experience of individuals.
Hume’s enquiry undermines the foundations of empirical science because it tends to place much reservation on the measures used to determine the real nature of something. According to Hume, the nature of the evidence should be enquired keenly before coming up with a conclusion about the reality of a particular mentioned thing. His assertions tend to undermine the measurements that are used to bring out the real nature and qualities of particular things. For instance, Hume’s enquiry cannot appreciate to the value placed to a salmon piece unless it has been tasted effectively to determine the qualities that make it worthy for consumption by individuals. Therefore, the enquiry by Hume tends to bring about many reservations that undermine the foundations of empirical science.
Synthetic Priori Intended by Kant
Kant approaches the concept of synthetic priori with the revolutionary theory pointing to experience by the concepts of priori and the principles of understanding among individuals. This means that Kant demonstrates the necessity of causation by explicating its connectivity to the understanding existing among individuals. He reiterates that the concept of cause and effect are far from being the only significant way in which individuals are able to understand the connection between different events. Therefore, Kant thinks that he demonstrates the necessity of causation with assertion that metaphysics would play a better role in facilitating the understanding of the causes and effects of particular events before coming to conclusions.
Pierce’s Response to the Conclusion
Penelhum (1992) affirms that Pierce would respond to this conclusion with the assertion that the pragmatism of the matter must be considered. He would demand a proof for the reaction of nature and the interaction of Kant with other individuals within society. He would demand for a lot pragmatism to prove that assertions that nature healed the melancholic nature of Kant as captured in the conclusion. Overall, Pierce’s response to Kant’s conclusion would be strict demanding a lot of evidence and the practicality of the asserted views.
What is Required of a Convincing Solution to Induction
Kant’s solution to induction is extremely convincing. This solution is convincing because it provides an effective explanation of the critique of judgment that should be considered in the making of conclusions in inductive thinking. The solution is convincing because it helps to eliminate gaps existing in inductive thinking and the making of inductive conclusions that could be misleading in themselves. It offers an effective measure to make judgments that induction did not take into consideration. Therefore, it is wholly convincing in offering a solution to induction.