A Critique Of David Hume Empiricism
Chapter One
Preface
. Background Of The Study
The hunt for knowledge that’s both absolute and certain has been nonstop. still, since at least the time of Aristotle, there has been a strong epistemological tradition grounded substantially on mortal experience, which isn’t directed towards the possibility of achieving absolute knowledge.
This tradition is a typical illustration of the doctrine of empiricism. Researchers argue that it’s unreasonable to set a thing of absolute and each- inclusive knowledge, especially when there’s close at hand the power to increase practical knowledge by slower but reliable styles.
Empiric are content in erecting a system of knowledge that has a high probability of being true indeed though it’s absolute certainty can not be guaranteed.
David Hume is one of the topmost researchers in the history of epistemology and theories who has distinguished himself as a harmonious and coherent radical empiric.
According to him, the only true knowledge is experimental, and any conception that isn’t available to sense perception is bare fantastic thinking.
The only abstract objects of the abstract wisdom or of demonstration are volume and number, and all attempts to extend this further perfect species of knowledge beyond these bounds are bare sophistry and vision.1
With an ideological ferocity, he calls for a book- burning crusade of any metaphysical work.
He proclaims
When we run over libraries converted of these( empirical) principles, what annihilation must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of or academy theories, for case lets ask does it contain any abstract logic containing volume or number? No. Does it contain any experimental logic concerning matter- of- fact and actuality? No. Commit to it to the dears for it can contain nothing but sophistry and vision.2
Hume’s offer of vigorous sensism as an volition to our natural and acquired scientific, metaphysical and socio-artistic deposits, creates more problems than it resolves. It withers all foundation of wisdom and gospel. It leaves us in make- shift, flaxen subjectivism of dry empiricism.
David Hume’s empiricism within the environment of knowledge is great, but a harmonious empirist will end up destroying the veritably foundation of knowledge. The epistemological, scientific and ontological heritage of humanity is we suppose further than a series of prints.3 To reduce them as packets of prints. To reduce them as packets of prints as Hume would want to believe is myopic.
The above as a way of preface forms the background of our study.
Statement Of The Problem
There are problems in Hume’s proposition of empiricism. The major one arises in an attempt to answer the question of how dependable is our senses. veritably frequently, our senses deceive us. This is true when we see a mirage, in the changing size of objects according to our cerebral and physiological state, in daydream and other forms of visions.
The problem is that there’s no way of incontinently secerning the real from the fantastic in similar situations. The mirage for illustration is an effect caused by hot air in comeuppance or on roads, that makes you suppose you can see commodity, similar as water, which isn’t there.
Now the question is, how do we separate between a true sense experience from a false or illusory sense experience?
therefore, arises the notorious arguments from vision which places dubieties on the trustability of sense experience.
Purpose Of The Study
It has formerly been refocused out that David Hume maintained a radical stage in his position on knowledge accession by maintaining that knowledge comes only from sense experience. He did this by drawing out the problems essential in reason as a source of knowledge.
The purpose of this study is thus to examine David Hume’s position and also to show that in as important as we agree that mortal beings acquire knowledge through senses experience, sense experience alone can not constitute or guarantee knowledge. Just as Jacques Maritain refocused out that every philosophical system contains some verity and tells commodity about the real, some doctrines still exaggerate their claims and this is where they also run into problems. This is so with David Hume, he ran into this kind of problem and this was because though knowledge can be acquired through sense experience, he exaggerated the position by maintaining that knowledge can only come through sense experience.
It thus becomes part of the purpose of this study to point out some of these problems as we can in order to show that though sense experience leads to knowledge, still knowledge doesn’t stop there after there are some limitations to the senses in epistemological procedure so that whatever information we admit through the senses are subordinated to judgment before it’s accepted.
Significance Of The Study
When this work is completed, it’s our stopgap that it’s going to be of significance in the sense that at least we’d have succeeded in bringing to light some of the veritably important aspects of David Hume’s empiricism and at the same time would have also succeeded in pointing out problems essential in it.
The work will inversely be of help or backing to scholars who’ll want to do some workshop in the area of David Hume’s empiricism as it’ll give some aid to them by furnishing them with a kind of sapience into the nature of Hume’s empiricism. But we must point out then that this work shouldn’t be taken as each there’s in Hume’s empiricism. But where still, we couldn’t cover, the references. That appear at the end of the work will thus be acceptable to direct or relate scholars to where information as regards those areas will be gathered.
To people who may not be doing workshop on David Hume s Empiricism; tonon-philosophers, who may therefore be reading for knowledge accession or for pleasure, this work will inversely be of immense help as the approach that will be espoused then and the choice of workshop won’t be delicate to understand.
Compass And Methodology
We’ve formerly shown from the title of this work that this work is concerned with furnishing a notice of David Hume’s empiricism. still, just as it’s done in every critical study, we aren’t going to rush into the review just like that, we thus will have a companion or concentrate as regards what to condemn. Hume’s empiricism itself is to give the companion because, as we’re going to condemn it, we will have to present his empiricism so as to point out what it entails. After doing this, we will also know how to anchor our review to the problems we will observe, having discovered the nature of Hume’s Empiricism.
Methodology
The system to be espoused in this work is that of critical study. As the work is on David Hume’s empiricism, the system will thus be, first of all to present a general overview of empiricism. After this we will also constrict our attention down to Hume’s notion of the subject matter empiricism. It’ll be after presenting these that we will thus settle down to condemn.
For the purpose of convenience still, our review is going to be in two phases. The first phase will be to give the attacks which had been leveled against Hume’s empiricism by other people, this is because we’re relatively apprehensive that Hume’s empiricism has come under attacks over the times.
The alternate phase of the review will thus be our own review. We’ll then point out as will be suitable, some of those problems Hume’s empiricism are shrouded with due to Hume’s radical position, and grounded on these, we will thus draw our examens against his empiricism.
Literature Review
Our end then’s to give the anthology with the knowledge of some of the textbooks used in this work. But first of all, David Hume’s book constitute primary literature.
In his book, “ An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding ” edited by Eric Steinberg and published by Hacket Publishing Company, Indianapolis in 1977,4 David Hume was fraudulent on demonstrating that an enquiry, the objects of mortal reason will be discovered to include only relations of ideas and matters of fact. These are only two orders under which any knowledge that’s certain can be placed. All issues dealing with figures are intimately certain and thus under “ relations of ideas ” where anything discoverable by experience is under “ matters of fact ”.
Also, in another book, “ David Hume and problem of reason; recovering – the mortal lores ”( published by Yale University Press in 1990) 5, John Danford explained how dubitation concerning the capability of reason to lead to knowledge accession led to Hume’s position was to show that when reason is cut loose or disassociated from experience, it can only induce indecision and confusion.
In the book, A Critical Account of the gospel of Kant, published by James Maclehose in 1876,6 we see Edward. Caird showing Hume claims about the passivity of the mind in knowledge accession on through the ” association of ideas ”. Then the mind is shown as not laboriously dealing with given accoutrements to come up with knowledge but as chancing formerly in the veritably data of sensation certain natural relations or associative principle by virtue of which one idea calls up another and thus present a clear picture of commodity to the mind.
End Notes
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, edited by Eric Steinberg,( Indianapolis Hacket PublishingCo. 1977),p. 112.
Ibid pg. 114.
Pentaleon Iroegbu, Metaphysics The Kpim of Philosophy,( Owerri) International Universities Press, 1995),p. 179.
OpCit.
JohnW. Danford, David Hume and the Problem of Reason; Recovering the Human lores( New Haven and London Yale University Press. 1990)p. 85.
Edward CairdM.A, A Critical Account of the gospel of Kant( Glosgow James Maclehose 1877),pp. 67- 68.
Leave a Comment