David Hume - Causation?

Question

Was Davids Humes theory of causation a good one? What are criticisms of it and which philosophers criticised it?

Answer 1

Hume suggests that Causality is not a fundamental feature of reality. To say that X causes Y is simply to say that whenever X occurs, Y follows it. And this is linked in the case of Humans with the expectation based on habit that whenever X occurs Y will occur.
Hume's target was Descartes- the great French rationalist.
As far as criticism is concerned, Hume's Scottish colleagues completely misunderstood what he was saying. There is a hall of residence in Glasgow Uni named 'Beatty Hall'. 'That silly biggotted fellow Beatty', as Hume always referred to him, was given a chair at Glasgow in Logic & Philosophy, hence the greatest of the British Philosophers, like any profit, received no honour in his own country. By contrast, in France where Hume was welcomed and in which he wrote his celebrated inquiry, Hume claimed that the women in the Salons had not only read, but understood his work. No further comment, save that Hume was unduly pessemistic when he claimed that his great work "had fallen stillborn from the press".
Wittgenstein picked up Hume's inquiry and after a 5 minute perusal, said "I have no need need to read this. I understand his problems".

Answer 2

maybe he appreciated this but i'd say the important point is to raise the suspicion that just because two things happen in time does not mean they are connected. If a comet falls on the horizon and someone gets sick, these may not be connected. The matter is about understanding the environment and what we think are legitimate causal connections. But what if we don't understand the universe and we must be careful or make these connections with insufficient information. For example: Pushing buttons on the key board, we assume the finger pushing is causing this, But without sophisticated understanding of molecular physics you would not know that between the finger and key pad there is a space of electro magnetic force. And your finger isn't really touching anything as you think of it. In deed matter has lots of space, like looking at a group of dots from far away it looks solid. Yes your understanding of causation is different from your understanding of constatnt conjuction. Hume is saying it shouldn't be. It is erroneos has he himself states. You show me a clear example of constant conjuction, no problem. Now show me an example of causation and I will show you just like the key pad that there is no causation. You think there is but it isn't. That's the illusion whooooo. Humans live under many illusions, if we step away from the social conciousness ie turn off the tv and deal with the people who e4xist and what they believe. We will see it is just as varied as anything. Many silly beliefs and understandings, am we really any better. We connect many events but not always is it causation. We (certainly males) love reason and order. The world is not logical, it doesn't care. That's why women make better witches.

Answer 3

He doesn't reject the notion of causation, although he is rather cynical about it in his analysis of causation as constant conjunction. What he does do is reject previous ideas that causation is some mysterious power that one object exerts over another.

Hume does not think we can prove that one thing causes another; but this does not mean that we are not justified in holding beliefs about causation. If we never believed that one thing caused another as a practical hypothesis, we would be unable to get on with our lives.

Of the major philosophers, Humne's works are amongst the best written and easiest to understand. There are also many accessible introductions to his thought.

While he says this, he knows we must live as if it is true, trusting every time we put our foot down the floor will remain as solid as ever, that every time we we hit the cue ball a certain way in to the one ball, it will move in definite certain way following the collision. But he says just because it was this way, and has been every time we know of, it does not mean it will be the next time. This is Hume's claim.

His arguments are flawed. He is trying to convince us on the basis of cause and effect that there is no cause and effect little odd, no?

**source is not mine. RESEARCH

Answer 4

I am thankful to Yahoo and to the people who take their time and provide answers to some confusions that happen to some folks. This explanation really helped me. Thanks,