Based on your reading of Hume’s negative critique of a traditional understanding of causation and his positive alternative account of causation, which of the three following interpretations do you think best captures Hume’s view? State which interpretation you think yields the most rational account of Humean empiricist epistemology and offer a brief justification of why this is the most rational account. You should answer this question as a ‘rational reconstructor’ would: your aim is to yield an interpretation of Hume that leads to the most rational philosophy from your present point of view. Contrast this approach to the ‘historical reconstructor’ who would aim to offer an interpretation of Hume purely on the basis of textual and historical interpretation without concern for the rational validity of Hume’s thesis. You, the rational reconstructor, should see yourself as aiming for an interpretation that leaves Hume in the philosophically most defensible territory.
Note that each of the three possible interpretations offered below have been defended in print by eminent readers of Hume and so none can simply be dismissed as trivially false or an obvious misinterpretation. The three possible interpretations are:
- Total Skeptic (TS): Hume shows that there can be no demonstrative knowledge of causation and therefore that there is no such thing as causation itself.
- Agnostic Realist (AR): Hume is a realist about causation (he believes that there really is causation in the world), but he is arguing that we should remain agnostic about the true nature of this causation (since we can have no direct knowledge of it).
- Customary Account (CA): Hume is dubious about demonstrative knowledge of real causation such that we need an account of our idea of ‘causation’ that is cast in terms of probable and customary knowledge.
Those in the (a)-blog group should click on 'comment' below and post this week -- though all others are welcome to weigh in as well.
The interpretation that best captures Hume's view is the Agnostic Realist view stated above. He feels that there is causation in the world but that we do not have knowledge of the cause and effect. But by virtue of him feeling that there is causation in the world it means that it is possible that we can have knowledge of it we just don't have it yet. And this is why he is agnostic about it because he cannot say that we will never have the knowledge or that we definitively will either.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eric that the most rational interpretation of Hume's view is the Agnostic Realist. Hume undoubtedly believes that causation exists. However, his claim is that we cannot form a rational idea about causation to use as a basis in inferences. As the blog entry states, we can perceive the effects of a cause, but we cannot perceive a cause itself. In light of this lack of abilitity to experience causes, we can have no direct knowledge of them. Therefore, we should remain agnostic about its true nature.
ReplyDelete(AR) or CA. Hume is too into the whole "practical" philosophy idea to be a total skeptic. He could also fall under CA though because Hume would say that the hard core evidence of empiricism leads us to believe that making a connection between "sun came up" to "sun will come up" is a bit of a long shot. But in keeping with his practical philosophy, he would say that, for the purpose of everyday living we should understand that causation doesn't make sense, but choose to over-look this for convenience sake. It seems that the two interpretations lead to each other. Here, I believe is where relativist-like ideals somewhat collapses into itself. It almost gives the sense of "pointless information." Why give an explanation or rule for something if it is not going to be applied or used? Just to keep it in the back of your head or just to know?
ReplyDeleteI think that agnostic realist interpretation of Hume is the most fitting, not just in the way the he explains the phenomenon of causation, but for his entire attitude toward the practice of philosophy. This is primarily because of the way Hume poses his skepticism of causation. Even though the types of claims that he makes (i.e. we cannot be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow just from past knowledge) may seem to lend themselves to total skepticism, Hume clearly emphasizes foregrounding philosophical inquiry in everyday life. Since he does not seem to be suggesting that we live life immersed in the idea that we have no knowledge about the unobserved, we can assume that he is an agnostic realist. Realistic in the sense that he wants people to be aware of his account of skepticism without necessarily living by it. Instead of trying to make his conclusions demanding of adherence, he is able to use his ideas about causation (a purely philosophical notion) to make inferences about the way that people actually do live.
ReplyDeleteI think that the agnostic realist category is most fitting in which to place Hume’s philosophy in regards to causation, because when the term ‘agnostic’ is applied in a religious context, it means neither faith, nor disbelief in God. And I think that though the words “faith” and “disbelief” aren’t necessarily the words we would use to argue a position on causation, I think they do convey a correct understanding, especially for Hume’s own position. He is very skeptical of it, yet at the same time recognizes that it is something in use.
ReplyDeleteHume splits his acceptance or rejection of causation into the context in which it is being used or discussed. Hume would say just because causation doesn’t make sense in a philosophical context that that is no reason in which to reject it in a practical context, after all, it is something we heavily rely on and it does not let us down all that often.
I am going to have to agree that the agnostic realist interpretation and the customary account both seem to fit Hume's argument better than the skeptical account; in that they allow for the an account of causation which is not too skeptical ,in the case of (AR), while allowing for some way of keeping the door open to possible knowledge via methods not previously employed by Hume personally. In Section IV (pp.80)he states that he does not know the "secret powers" by which "sensible qualities" are known but does not completely relinquish the idea that it can be known by someone other than himself.
ReplyDeleteI will also agree with nearly everyone who has posted so far and say that, if we looke at it as a rational reconstructionalist, the agnostic realist interpretation best serves as a description of Hume's ideas on causation. This is by far the most rational account for his ideas. I agree with Nick P. when he says that Hume could not be a total skeptic. Hume would obviously agree that we do not know the cause of the sun rising, but would not agree from there, as a skeptic would, that there is therefore no cause at all. Hume is far too practical to believe this.
ReplyDeleteHume does not want to be too much of a skeptic and likewise he does not want to be too much of a dogmatic rationalist. It seems that he wants to be in the middle of these two in being in a state of "mitigated skepticism". Hume believes that causality cannot be justified, although he values being a man as well as a philosopher. Thus, Hume tends to be an agnostic realist. Causation does exist in the world, but humans are not packing the requisite gear to understand it.
ReplyDeleteThe view of Hume as an Agnostic Realist seems most fitting when discussing Hume's view on causation. He admits that we recognize general causes as derived from our experience of particulars, but argues that it is out of our capabilities to try to understand such causes. So while he upholds the existence of causes, Hume maintains that resemblance of past to future events is not sufficient for knowing the "secret powers" behind causes. In this way he asserts a skeptical point of view on causation, while still recognizing the reality of the origins of causes which we are ignorant of.
ReplyDeleteI would say that Hume is an agnostic realist. Even though he dose call into question causation, he still says that you should not get to caught up in that. you still have to live as a human being in a human world, regardless of why the sun comes up, if it rises at all. Hume is, i believe, more aptly described as a pragmatist. He is skeptical that the world works in the common sense way, yet Hume still uses the common sense rules of life. a practical application of a philosophic perspective. I would have to say that Hume dose not really fit any of the aforementioned descriptions. He has his head in the clouds, yet oddly, his feet are on the ground.
ReplyDeleteIn so far as Hume says, "every effect is a distinct event from its cause" says that he understands causation to be an intellectual tool which is commonly employed to make sense of experience (p.19). It does not seem to suggest that causation somehow "exists 'in' nature". However, in section 4, page 19, Hume explains how he sees the role of the philosopher in the past as one who searches "in vain" for "the discovery" of "general causes", which he describes as the causal principles which would underlie "the ultimate causes and principles" that have already been discovered. It just seems to me that in some cases, Hume implies that causation is not some sort of entity that somehow persists 'in' nature. At other times, as in the quote above, he seems to say that philosophers search in vain for something that exists, but is simply beyond the capacity of the human understanding to comprehend. In light of this contradiction, given that the agnostic realist assumes causation exists but cannot be understood and that the total skeptic assumes causation does not exist, I am going to assert that Hume himself is not sure and so sometimes he is a total skeptic, and other times he is the agnostic realist.
ReplyDeleteI have to lean towards the 'Customary Account' in my interpretation of Hume. I think his discussion of how custom leads the imagination to formulate an unsubstantiated idea of causation illustrates his unwillingness to prescribe to any specific, demonstrative, idea of causation.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Total Skeptic view underlies his philosophy in that he recognizes his inability to demonstratively prove causation, but I don't think that he links his own inability to prove causation to the absence of causation in general.
I agree with the above students that the Agnostic Realist position is also very appealing and could be derived from Hume's work as well. I personally do not subscribe to this view because I see CA as more descriptive of Hume's problem; CA determines the modes of description which Hume finds unsuitable for describing the nature of causation (namely those derived from custom and probable knowledge). AR advocates for agnosticism, which to me insinuates that Hume is uncommitted to how causation works, and would be willing to accept an account which he found reasonable (it says the same thing as CA but is less specific about the problems within defining 'inner mechanics' of causation).
I would say that the agnostic realist category most accurately captures Hume's view. Hume certainly seems to be a realist about causation; he believes that causation exists. However, he argues that we should remain agnostic about the true nature of this causation because we can't have direct knowledge of cause and effect. Hume claims that we may at some point have this knowledge, but we do not and can not know if we will. I agree with Emaline that Hume is realistic in that it is important to him that others are cognizant of his account of skepticism. However, he believes that people should not live by it.
ReplyDeleteAgnostic Realist. Hume to me seems like someone who tries to find the middle way between two opposing camps. His objections to causation lead him down a skeptical road a la Berkeley, but he doesn't believe in it completely. While he can contemplate and realize that since empiricism only works on present or past experiences we cannot absolutely know anything in the future, he won't say that we cannot know anything of the sort. Just because we don't know absolutely that the sun will rise tomorrow, doesn't mean we shouldn't believe that it will. 4 billion years of rising is good enough evidence for him (and me).
ReplyDeleteI like the Customary Account best. I interpret Hume's understanding of causation to be like Berkeley's regarding matter: if there is causation as we customarily think of it, we would never know. A motto of statistics is that correlation does not indicate causation. We can draw a strong correlation between lots of things that we wouldn't say have a cause-and-effect relationship (Ex: The decline of pirates --> Global warming). Hume is just elaborating upon the implications of this valuable tenet. We can only ever observe correlation; causation, if it exists, can only ever be inferred.
ReplyDeleteI am leaning more towards the Customary Account. I think Hume may believe in some notion of causation, but causation is a created term that we cannot fully understand without some sort of experience. We may witness cause and effect but may never know the purpose or actuality of a cause. He in fact states we must be hesitant to infer any cause or effect without first observing or experiencing as to better our understanding. However to define either is arbitrary because neither can infer the existence of the other (chicken / egg ).
ReplyDeleteI think Hume would be agnostic because he acknowledges that causation is neither known nor unknown. However, he was a practical man and I think that he would agree that humans possess a reliance on making inferences and that we cannot ever begin to decondition ourselves. We have no reason whatsoever to think that typing on our keyboards will reveal characters on our computer screens, but that is what we're accustomed to, so that is what we do. It'd be a splendid waste of effort for Hume to push his philosophies on the masses because it would not change a thing. People will still keep doing the things we do, even though every hope for the desired effect is stacked on this theory of causation. I suppose this would be similar to believing in God. While an agnostic in this sense would be in the middle (that is, asserting that God is neither known nor unknown), it would be useless and imprudent to try and persuade a believer to cease their worship. The uniformity principle is the dominant religion of humankind and while Hume stands in the middle as an agnostic, he acknowledges his inability to cure society from trusting in the higher power of inference.
ReplyDeleteI would say Hume is an agnostic realist. He states that when we see the sun rise, that is all we really see, and that we cannot know the power that actually causes the sun to rise. Hume also states how there are a lot of external things of which we cannot know the operation of their causes but that all we know is what we can assume out of habit and repeated observation. However, he is not a skeptic saying there is no greater being that operates this world, but that if there were to be a God, we have no valid proof of knowing. He even mentions that people are arrogant if they conclude an argument to be false just because they cannot prove it themselves. Hume's approach to philosophy is fairly open-minded and pragmatic, and that's why I'm led to believe Hume is an agnostic realist.
ReplyDeleteI believe Hume takes the approach of a total skeptic. This is because of the great lengths he takes to express how we can only come to know an effect through experience, which he states can be one of thousands of other possible outcomes. Instead of providing a direct statement about whether causation exists or not, he continues to attack causation on the grounds that the effects we typically witness arise from custom. By custom, he means the habitual outcomes we observe in familiar actions between certain objects. Hume states that the processes that allow for observing custom have no grounding in demonstrative reason, for reasoning any other possible outcome implies no contradiction. Thus I come to believe that Hume asserts the view that there is no such thing as causation, and that it is more so an illusion under the guise of observing custom.
ReplyDelete