The hunt for absolute and certain knowledge has gone on for a long time. However, there has been a significant epistemological tradition focused primarily on human experience, which is not geared toward the prospect of gaining absolute knowledge, from at least the time of Aristotle.

This tradition is a good example of the empiricism theory. Empiricists believe that setting a goal of absolute and all-encompassing knowledge is impractical, especially when the potential to enhance practical knowledge through slower but reliable ways is near at hand.

Empiricists are satisfied with creating a system of knowledge with a high likelihood of being correct, even if absolute certainty cannot be guaranteed.

David Hume is a radical empiricist who has distinguished himself as one of the finest empiricists in the history of epistemology and metaphysics.

He believes that the only true knowledge is experimental, and that any thought that is not based on sensory perception is merely wishful thinking.

Quantity and number are the only abstract objects of abstract science or demonstration, and any attempts to extend this more perfect species of knowledge beyond these confines are nothing more than sophistry and delusion.


He calls for a book-burning campaign of any philosophical work with ideological zeal.

He declares:

What destruction must we wreak when we run over libraries that are convinced of these (empirical) principles? If we hold any of the following volumes in our hands: or school

As an alternative to our natural and acquired scientific, philosophical, and socio-cultural deposits, Hume’s proposal of strong sensism causes more issues than it solves. It suffocates all scientific and philosophical foundations. It abandons us to a haphazard, sandy subjectivism based on dry empiricism.

Within the context of knowledge, David Hume’s empiricism is admirable, but a constant empirist will end up destroying the fundamental foundation of knowing. We believe that humanity’s epistemological, scientific, and ontological heritage is more than a collection of sensations. 3 To reduce them to impression bundles. It’s myopic to reduce them to bundles of impressions, as Hume would have us believe.


As an introduction, the above serves as the backdrop for our research.


There are flaws in Hume’s empiricism theory. The most important one emerges in an attempt to address the question of how trustworthy our senses are. Our senses frequently betray us. This is true when we perceive a mirage, when objects change size depending on our psychological and physiological state, and when we have hallucinations and other illusions.

The issue is that in such instances, there is no way to tell the genuine from the unreal right away. A mirage, for example, is a phenomenon generated by hot air in deserts or on highways that causes you to believe you can see something that isn’t there, such as water.

Now the dilemma is: how do we tell the difference between a genuine and a phony sense experience?


It has already been mentioned that David Hume took a radical stance on knowledge acquisition by claiming that knowledge can only be acquired by sensory experience. He accomplished this by highlighting the flaws in reason as a source of knowing.

The goal of this research is to look into David Hume’s stance and prove that, while we all agree that humans gain knowledge through their senses, sense experience alone does not constitute or guarantee knowledge. While every philosophical system has some truth and conveys something about the actual, certain philosophies exaggerate their claims, which is where they run into issues, as Jacques Maritain pointed out.


When this work is finished, we hope that it will be significant in the sense that we will have succeeded in bringing to light some of the most fundamental features of David Hume’s empiricism while also pointing out its flaws.

Students who want to undertake some work in the field of David Hume’s empiricism will benefit from the work because it will offer them with some insight into the nature of Hume’s empiricism. However, it is important to note that this book does not represent the entirety of Hume’s empiricism.


The title of this work already indicates that it is concerned with delivering a critique of David Hume’s empiricism. However, like with any critical study, we will not go right into the criticism; instead, we will have a guide or emphasis as to what to analyze. Hume’s empiricism serves as a guide because, in order to criticize it, we must first offer his empiricism in order to understand what it involves. After discovering the nature of Hume’s Empiricism, we will be able to connect our criticism to the challenges we shall encounter.


The critical study method will be used in this project. The method will be to first offer a comprehensive overview of empiricism, as the work is on David Hume’s empiricism. Following that, we’ll concentrate on Hume’s concept of empiricism as a subject matter. We will thus sit down to criticize after we have presented these.

However, for the sake of ease, we will divide our criticism into two parts. Because we are well aware that Hume’s empiricism has been attacked over the years, the first part will be to provide the attacks that have been launched against Hume’s empiricism by others.


Leave a Comment