Hume and the III Premises
3662638
Throughout the readings of David Hume there are several key factors to understand before truly understanding what Hume is trying to explain in his way of thinking. One of the biggest ideas and explanations Hume has for the thought process of humans relies on the theories of both relations of ideas and matters of fact. In section IV of his readings Hume identifies the similarities and differences of these two ideas and how everyday world events and ideas fall into one of these two categories. Hume also uses three different premises to complete his full circle of thought concerning the human mind. I will begin by explaining both relations of ideas and matters of fact. Then follow up by explaining each of the…show more content… Premise II states, that all conclusions concerning the relation of cause and effect are founded on experience. Hume states right away in his argument that, “I venture to assert, as true without exception, that knowledge about causes is never acquired through a priori reasoning, and always comes from our experience of finding that particular objects are constantly associated with one other (Hume 12).“ Hume is explaining that only through experience can causal relationships can be learned. Hume uses the example of Adam and his perfect reasoning abilities. Even with perfect reasoning, Adam would never be able to infer that from the light and warmth of fire that it could have burned him. “The qualities of an object that appear to the senses never reveal the causes that produced the object or the effects that it will have; nor can our reason, unaided by experience (Hume 12-13)…” What Hume is trying to make clear here is that we cannot just rely on our senses and perceptions to come to conclusions regarding matters of fact. We only understand the consequences and outcomes of touching fire from experience. Hume also uses an example involving the motion and physics of billiard balls. If we were asked to describe an event or the effects of an object without recalling past experiences, the mind must create or invent the effects itself. “The mind can’t possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, however carefully we examine it, for the effect is…show more content… Premise III states that all conclusions from experience are not founded on reason. Hume uses the example of billiards and how the balls react physically after being struck by one another. When watching the first ball in motion, we would not be able to derive what will happen when the first ball strikes the second ball without any prior experience. Hume poses the question, “If we are asked to say what the effects will be of some object, without consulting past experience of it, how can the mind go about doing this?”(Hume 13) This is further explaining how cause and effect are totally different from each other, thus leading us to never be able to discover the root of cause and effect. Hume explains that there are two types of reasoning, relations of ideas are demonstrative reasoning and matters of fact are considered moral reasoning. Both of these reasoning’s can be denied however. When denying demonstrative reasoning, you must be able to imagine the opposite. Going back to the billiard example, the motion of the first ball could suggest motion in the second but we can also think of one hundred other events that could take place when the two balls strike each other, unless we have prior experience with billiards. In the end Hume comes to the conclusion that experience is the only principle of future events that have or will resemble the past in some
