Thursday, February 12, 2009
From 2/11: Customary Conjunction
Moving away from the rationalism of Descartes, we have now ventured into the empiricism of Hume. Rather than questioniong the senses, Hume feels that human understanding can begin in no other place. Unlike Descartes, Hume is suspicious of the powers of the mind, arguing that we only imagine necessary connections between causes and effects when in fact there are only customary conjunctions whereby certain events tend to coincide. Is this a more honest treatment of human knowledge? Can the mind really know nothing without the senses? Does a certain relativism creep in here? As Hume might say, look to your own experience!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
After studying the ideas of both Hume and Descartes, I have come to the conclusion that my own ideas on these subjects align very much with Hume’s. I trust entirely in my senses and how they confirm my experiences. I agree with Hume in the suggestion that human ideas come from our experiences. If we have not come across an emotion or situation in our own life, we cannot understand or create it within our own minds.
The concept of Customary Conjunction is an interesting concept that I am beginning to agree with. As human beings we base our lives on the certainties we have come to expect. The rise and fall of the sun controls our daily lives and habits, but what would happen if the sun did not rise? Hume advises us that there is no certainty that the sun will rise. Probability exists, and the sun most likely will rise, but there is no assurance that it always will. Hume believes that every effect stands alone, apart from any cause. This idea teaches us to remain skeptical of the things we have come to count on. We never truly know what to expect from tomorrow.
Post a Comment