Philosophy question??/ easy 10 points for philosophers...?

Question

What do you think of Causation?
or
What is you point of view toward Hume's view on causation?

Best answer will get 10 points.. Thank you.

Answer 1

Hello:

Well with our understanding of physics and with our ability to observe things on a microscopic level I think this better satisfies if does not satisfy Hume's ultimate issue with causation (we cannot experience 'cause' so we cannot know for certain what makes what happen).

As for my view toward Hume...its true that at least on an unaided level that we cannot experience cause...really though its not all that practile.

I hope this helps.

Rev Phil

Answer 2

Causation is hardly an 'easy' concept but like Gone Fishing, I'm not a big fan of it.

Perhaps if somehow you could add up all the data in the world, (which, if you believe the world is infinite, is impossible, but lets just let that slide for now) perhaps you could figure out the inter-connectedness of everything but that is just so far away from what us humans can comprehend that its not even worth wasting the time and effort thinking about too closely.

(that is if I'm understanding the concept of 'causation' properly to begin with, which I'm not too sure, but then again I take the easy route out - I'm a philisophical skeptic and I don't believe in any absolute truths)

Answer 3

Causality denotes a directional relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the consequence (result) of the first. The deterministic world-view is one in which the universe is a chain of events following one after another according to the law of cause and effect. If you believe Newton, how can you deny these statements?

Hume's argument is that the mind synthesises and then projects a concept of causal power when it observes similar events to occur together repeatedly (where so many superstitions have come from). Hume argues that we project our feeling of predictability onto the objects, much as he argues that we project our moral attitudes onto situations or objects. Hume concentrates more on the psycholgical side, rather than the scientific side, of causality.

Answer 4

In essence, Mr Hume is /was a doubting Thomas (see doubting Thomas below). He was incapable of accepting ideals with faith alone. He required irrefutable facts that could prove time and time again that ideals or beliefs were infact true. This leads me to believe that Mr Hume was incapable of accepting belief in God or in any divine power. This also lends itself to the belief that he must not have believed in love. Love, at time, has no rationale. Does this mean that David Hume would expect ongoing proof of his partner's love towards him? Or would he be accepting of love without physical proof of it's existence? If he did, would that not then make him a hippocrite of his own philosophy?

Answer 5

We can disregard causation because Revelation, or the First Cause, is the genuine locus. Now, why would I waste my time with a secondary when I can face the primary?

Silly.

Answer 6

I am not a fan of Causation or Hume or his views on Causation. It is not my thing.