Example research essay topic: Cause And Effect Matters Of Fact - 1,359 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Humes thoughts on metaphysics, more specifically causality, had a major impact on Kant. Although Kant disagreed with many aspects of Humes account, by writing a whole discourse devoted to it, it is obvious that it influenced him greatly. The main disagreement was, for Hume causality was analytic and for Kant it was synthetic. In the Prolegomena, Kant tries to solve some of Humes errors, and at the same time remove his skepticism.

In Book I, Part III, 1 of the Treatise, Hume distinguishes two groups of philosophical relations: those which depend entirely on the ideas, which we compare together, and such as may be changed without any change in the ideas, or Relations of Ideas; and those which dont depend on the ideas alone, or Matters of Fact (Treatise 69). Contiguity, identity, and cause and effect belong to the Matters of Fact. If I consider the idea of my pillow and the idea of my bed, and nothing else, I cant tell whether my pillow is close to my bed. I may have two resembling perceptions of a tomato, but I cant determine whether Im dealing with the same tomato from the resemblance, no matter how exact. Causation, like contiguity and identity, doesnt depend on the ideas alone; we cant discover causes merely from their idea. But theres a difference between cause and effect and the other two relations which dont depend merely on our ideas, Hume claims.

He asserts that these other relations cant be discovered by a mere comparison of ideas, for causation, memory and experience are also needed. Likewise, in the Enquiry, Hume argues against the a priori justification of causal judgments on the grounds that it is impossible to foretell how objects have behaved prior to having experienced them. One would have to invent an effect, and such invention would be arbitrary. The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and can never be discovered in it...

And as the first imagination or invention of a particular effect, in all natural operations, is arbitrary, where we consult not experience; so must we also esteem the supposed tie or connexion between cause and effect, which binds them together, and renders it impossible that any other effect could result from the operation of that cause (Enquiry 18). In the preceding quote, Hume is saying that if reason produces an idea, then those instances of which we have no experience must resemble those of which we do. From the mere fact that we can imagine an alternate effect, makes the alternate effect a possible and feasible idea. This alone is enough to invalidate the assumption that all future instances of a cause will result in the same effect of all prior instances experienced. Next, Hume attacks the a posteriori justification of causal inference, or the assumption of an effect from a cause based on observation or experience.

This attack involves two arguments, which are directed against the universality and the necessity of judgments concerning causal connections. The first argument is the attack on the justification of induction. Hume says we cannot make an inference from the fact that a certain pattern of succession has always been observed, to the conclusion that the pattern holds in all cases, including those which are unobserved. To make such an inference requires the assumption of the uniformity of nature, and such an assumption is a generalization which cant be justified. It is impossible... that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded upon the supposition of that resemblance.

Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular; that alone, without some new argument or inference, proves not that, for the future, it will continue to do so (Enquiry 24). There are two theories behind the knowledge from reason or understanding argument; it can either be through intuition / demonstration , or probability. The intuition / demonstration theory fails because we can have an idea of the future being different from the past. Hume says that if we can have an idea of something, then it is possible. The probability theory also fails because it says we infer any event is true because of experience. However, this relies on the original principle, that the future / present resembles the past.

So it is a circular argument. The second argument is directed against necessity. Hume claims that the only necessary connections of which human beings have any knowledge are those found in mathematics. In all Matters of Fact, the only connection we can find is made in the imagination. After repeated exposure to a pattern of succession, we expect the customary pattern to repeat itself yet again. There arises a feeling of connection in the mind, which is the origin of the idea of a necessary connection. [T]here is nothing is nothing in a number of instances, different from every single instance, which is supposed to be exactly similar; except only, that after a repetition of similar instances, the mind is carried by habit, upon the appearance of one event, to expect its usual attendant, and to believe that it will exist...

This connexion, therefore, which we feel in the mind, this customary transition of the imagination from one object to its usual attendant, is the sentiment or impression, from which we form the idea of power or necessary connexion (Enquiry 50). Hume argues that one can never observe in a single instance what event will follow what other event, given that one has never experienced the first before. This can be seen experimentally, in cases in which a person is confronted with something entirely new to him. After experiencing a repeated pattern of succession of kinds of events, we predict that the pattern will repeat itself at every future time. But there is no difference, in our perception of the events themselves, between the first observation and any of the later ones, except that they have repeated themselves. We can find nothing in the events which can be called cause, power, force, or the like.

So our expectation must have its origin in a customary transition in the mind. So for Hume, we have experience of similar objects being conjoined with other similar objects. He therefore defines cause as, an object, followed by another, and where all objects similar to the first, are followed by objects similar to the second. However, we also have experiences of a cause engendering on the mind an effect, as a result of customary transition. Therefore we may also define cause as an object followed by another, and whose appearance always conveys the thought to that other (Enquiry 51). To Kant, this is equivalent to making causality an illusion.

In the Prolegomena, Kant describes the concept of cause, in Humes book, as a bastard of the imagination, impregnated by experience (Prolegomena Introduction). He finds the consequences of Humes arguments to be altogether destructive of metaphysics, and accuses Hume of overlooking the positive injury which results if reason be deprived of its most important prospects (Prolegomena Introduction). Kant feels that though a great thinker, Hume was hasty and mistaken in his argument (Prolegomena Introduction). Kant gives credit to Hume for starting a well though out, well investigated project. Although he does not agree with Humes conclusions, Kant does feel that he was an acute man, to whom we owe the first spark of light (Prolegomena Introduction). Hume and Kant both agree that the concept of cause was right, useful, and even indispensable for our knowledge of nature... [the problem that arose was] whether that concept could be though by reason a priori, and consequently whether is possessed an inner truth, independent of all experience, implying a wider application than merely to the objects of experience.

Kant feels this is Humes problem. The difference between the two is their concepts concerning the origin of causality. Hume believes that causality, as well as mathematics are analytical. Alternatively, Kant perceives that not only the connection of cause an...

Research essay sample on Cause And Effect Matters Of Fact