LECTURE 14:

HUME’S RADICAL EMPIRICISM

In Today’s Lecture we will:

1.Recap our investigation into empiricist theories of knowledge

2.Briefly consider the problem of correspondence and Berkeley’s arguments against

Locke’s theory of knowledge

3.Become introduced to the radical empiricism of David Hume

4.Critique and discuss Hume’s theory of knowledge and its implications on philosophy,
metaphysics, & science.

TODAY’S LECTURE
RESPONSES TO LOCKE
 Experience

Sensation Reflection Passive

Simple Ideas

Active
Complex Ideas

RESPONSES TO LOCKE
Locke’s Theory of Knowledge

Water itself Idea of the

water

Reality Mind

The idea of the water corresponds to a real object

Epistemological dualism

Idea of the
Inner Experience 1. water

External Experience

3. 2.

Water itself
The Problem of Correspondence

Representational theories of perception maintain that everything we know is an idea in the

mind that represents or corresponds to something outside of the mind

Problem:

How do we know if our ideas of an object accurately correspond to the object itself?

All we have are ideas of objects

We cannot have knowledge of anything that is not an idea

Therefore, we cannot have knowledge of an object apart from an idea

Therefore, we can never know if our ideas of water correspond to the water itself

RESPONSES TO LOCKE
Berkeley’s Response to Locke

Water itself Idea of the

water

Reality Mind

Berkeley argues that there is nothing more to an object than the qualities we
perceive (the idea)

We can never perceive the causes of things we perceive

Epistemological dualism

Idea of the
Inner Experience 1. water

External Experience

3. 2.

Water itself
Berkeley’s theory of Reality

Idea of the
water

Ideas exist only in minds

All things are ideas

Therefore, all things exist only in minds

Mind
Berkeley’s Arguments for Idealism
Esse est Percepti
(To be is to be perceived)

All objects (chair, water etc.) are sensible things

A sensible thing is a collection of qualities that we perceive

There is nothing more to any object than the sum of its qualities

All sensible qualities exist only as ideas

Therefore, objects only exist in minds

Nothing exists independently of a perceiving mind

The idea of a substratum (substance/matter) that is the cause of ideas, but free from
qualities is incoherent. This is because we cannot:

a)have an idea of something that cannot be experienced

b)perceive the causes of what we perceive
c)conceive of anything without qualities.

RESPONSES TO LOCKE
In Summary

Locke’s theory of knowledge faces the following problems:

1.The problem of correspondence

We can never be sure whether our ideas of an object correspond to the object itself

There is an epistemological gap between our knowledge of an object and the object itself

2.Berkeley’s Criticisms

We are never able to have an idea of anything that cannot be perceived

The idea of physical substance is incoherent

All that we can be sure of is that minds and ideas in minds exist

We can never have access to the object itself

RESPONSES TO LOCKE
DAVID HUME
David Hume:

oLived 1711-1776

oOne of the ‘great’ British empiricists

oAdvocated a Radical form of empiricism

oMade important contributions to Metaphysics,

Epistemology, Philosophy of Religion

oHume’s radical empiricism has important

consequences for the investigation into
philosophy, religion and science

DAVID HUME
David Hume’s Phenomenalism

All knowledge is derived from and limited to appearances

Appearances are presented to us in our perceptions

Perceptions can be divided between

1. Impressions
Lively, Vivid Sensations

2. Ideas
Pale impressions / copies

All ideas are derived from impressions

All the mind possesses is a collection of perceptions

DAVID HUME
David Hume’s Phenomenalism

There are two bases of knowledge:

1. Relations of Ideas
Ideas that are intuitively or demonstratively certain

E.g. Geometry, Arithmatic, Logic, Algebra etc.

2. Matters of Fact
Ideas that pertain to the world

E.g. The sun will rise tomorrow, This chair is red, etc.

DAVID HUME
What’s so radical about Hume’s radical empiricism?

Aristotle, Aquinas, & Locke all argue that we can have certain knowledge

For example;

This is a chair
The chair is really red
The chair exists

But! Hume argues that these thinkers fail to follow empiricism to its rational conclusions

Hume: If all knowledge comes from perception

Either
Our ideas are certain but not informative
Or
Our ideas are informative but not certain

DAVID HUME
IMPLICATIONS OF HUME’S
RADICAL EMPIRICISM
The limits of knowledge:

1. Relations of Ideas
Ideas that are intuitively or demonstratively certain

E.g. Geometry, Arithmetic, Logic, Algebra etc.

Relations of ideas can give us certain knowledge

They don’t teach us anything new

They have no bearing or relevance on reality

For Example:

Socrates is a man Doesn’t teach us anything new

All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is mortal Has no relevance upon reality

Certain

IMPLICATIONS
The limits of knowledge:

2. Matters of Fact
Ideas that pertain to the world

E.g. The sun will rise tomorrow, This chair is red, etc.

Matters of fact can teach us new things about the world

But they can never be certain

It is always possible that they can be rendered false

Entirely dependent on perceptions

For Example:
Teaches us something new about the
world
Earth days are now 1.26
nanoseconds faster
Cannot be certain

IMPLICATIONS
 Hume: Sense impressions have priority over ideas
There are no ideas without sense impressions

Hume’s attack on the principle of substance:

It is natural to believe:

Descartes/Locke: There exists both mental and physical substance

Berkeley: Physical substance does not exist but mental substance (mind) does

Hume’s challenge:

Do we ever perceive substance? No.

Therefore, we cannot rationally claim that substance exists

IMPLICATIONS
 Hume: Sense impressions have priority over ideas
There are no ideas without sense impressions

Hume’s attack on the principle of the ‘Self’:

It is natural to believe:

Berkeley/Locke/Descartes: That there is a thinking thing, a ‘self’, ego, etc.

Hume’s challenge:

Do we ever perceive a self? No. Only many perceptions

Therefore, we cannot rationally claim that the self exists

IMPLICATIONS
 Hume: Sense impressions have priority over ideas
There are no ideas without sense impressions

Hume’s attack on the principle of ‘Causality’:

It is natural to believe:

That every event has a cause / Causal connection

Hume’s challenge:

Do we ever perceive a necessary connection? No.

We perceive that A occurs, then B occurs;

but we don’t perceive the necessary connection where A causes B

All we perceive is contiguity (things close together) and succession;

We never perceive causation!

Therefore, we cannot rationally claim that every event has a cause

IMPLICATIONS
Examples against causation:

At age 1 a child begins to:

oFeed themselves
oWalk by themselves
oLearns simple words
oReceives their Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccinations

For Example:

A child (A) receives their MMR vaccinations, then (B) begins to feed themselves

A B

But! A did not cause B.

IMPLICATIONS
Implications for modern scientists:

1.All scientific theories must be limited to what can be observed or observed in principle

2.All scientific claims are either

i. Relations of ideas
E.g. All mammals are warm blooded
Or
ii. Matters of fact
E.g. The Earth day is now 1.26 nanoseconds faster

3.Scientific claims/’laws’/theories cannot be certain (only likely or unlikely)

It is always possible that a scientific claim can be proved false because of future
observations

Popper: Scientific theories must be falsifiable (Principle of Falsifiability)

For example:
Theories of the subconscious cannot be observed or falsified;
therefore they are not scientific

IMPLICATIONS
Summary:

Empirical (all) knowledge can only be either:

Necessarily true but not informative

Or
Informative but not certain

All ideas are derived from perceptions

Any idea we have that is NOT derived from perceptions should be abandoned

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we
make? If we take in our hand any volume, of divinity or school metaphysics, for
instance; let us ask, “Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning
matter of fact and existence?” No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can
contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

(David Hume, Textbook, p.225)

SUMMARY