David Hume

categorical imperative

Immanuel Kant

philosophy

light bulb joke

metaphysics

Rene Descartes

evidence

force

skepticism

Han Solo

deontology

is unique in how he highlights the place of imagination.

is an empricist despite his recognition of the existence of the “a priori” (i.e. knowledge that is independent of experience) because for him what makes 2+2=4 is definitional, not ontological.

destroyed mind just as Berkeley had destroyed matter by arguing that the mind is only an abstract name for the series of ideas; it is not a substance or an organ that has ideas.

The mind is not a substance, an organ that has ideas; it is only an abstract name for the series of ideas; the perceptions* memories and feelings are the mind; there is no observable "soul" behind the processes of thought. The result appeared to be that Hume had as effectually destroyed mind as Berkeley had destroyed matter. Nothing was left; and philosophy found itself in the midst of ruins of its own making. No wonder that a wit advised the abandonment of the controversy, saying: "No matter, never mind."

observed Bishop Berkeley slay the dragon of materialism with the sword of ‘perception’ but Hume turned that same sword against the immaterial mind and the immortal soul.

Imagine how the ears of the orthodox tingled at these words. Here the epistemological tradition—the inquiry into the nature, sources, and validity of knowledge—had ceased to be a support to religion; the sword with which Bishop Berkeley had slain the dragon of materialism had turned against the immaterial mind and the immortal soul; and in the turmoil science itself had suffered severe injury.

is wrong in his argument that there is no soul, and no science; that our minds are but our ideas in procession and association; and our certainties but probabilities in perpetual danger of violation.

Hume thought he had shown that there is no soul, and no science; that our minds are but our ideas in procession and association; and our certainties but probabilities in perpetual danger of violation. These false conclusions, says Kant, are the result of false premises: you assume that all knowledge comes from "separate and distinct" sensations; naturally these cannot give you necessity, or invariable sequences of which you may be forever certain; and naturally you must not expect to "see" your soul, even with the eyes of the internal sense.

is wrong about cause and effect because, like space and time, it is a priori; that is, it is so inherent in all the processes of understanding that no future experience can be conceived that would violate or escape it.

Can all the sciences be similarly saved? Yes, if their basic principle, the law of causality—that a given cause must always be followed by a given effect—can be shown, like space and time, to be so inherent in all the processes of understanding that no future experience can be conceived that would violate or escape it. Is causality, too, a priori, an indispensible prerequisite and condition of all thought?

is wrong. The mind is not a mere abstract name for the series or group of mental states. Rather, it is an active organ which moulds and coordinates sensations into ideas.

For the mind of man (and here at last is the great thesis of Kant) is not passive wax upon which experience and sensation write their absolute and yet whimsical will; nor is it a mere abstract name for the series or group of mental states; it is an active organ which moulds and coordinates sensations into ideas, an organ which transforms the chaotic multiplicity of experience into the ordered unity of thought. But how?

David Hume, n.All

David Hume