David Hume Effect

This paper focuses on the ideas of David Hume and his work concerning cause and effect. Firstly, I am going to explain impressions and ideas and how Hume concludes that we cannot have the idea of power. Secondly, I am going to explain why Hume declares that there is a perception necessary connection between events. Thirdly, I will explain Hume’s definitions of causation and the conclusion he cones up with that states that cause is the conjunction that reinforces our ideas. Lastly, I will raise two objections that challenge his causality argument.

Impressions are emotions and perceptions caused by mental experiences, while ideas are faint thoughts and beliefs that are based on these impressions. Hume argues that external impressions of the
By saying things are connected, we are really saying that they have an associative connection in our thoughts that gives rise to this inference. This is called causation. Hume presents two definitions for causation. The first definition is based on external impressions and suggests that a cause is an object that is followed by another and all similar objects to the first and followed by objects that are similar to the second. The second definition is based on internal impressions and suggests that a cause is an object that is followed by another, and whose appearance conveys the though to the other object, because our awareness of being determined to move from cause to effect. Hume proposes that of our idea of cause is the conjunction of the two and together they reinforce all our impressions, and thus, causation can be linked to
People judge similarity differently and nowhere in Hume’s argument, does he clarify on what defines as similar. If the similarity between objects is subjective to the person who is viewing them, then the relation to causation will also be subjective. The only way Hume responds to this objection is by stating that similarity is not always subjective. He states that some things are just objectively similar to one another and that causal relations are what link the two things. However, response is not strong, because it does not. The second objection is it is hard to tell the difference between constant conjunctions that are accidental and ones that are genuinely causal. For example, two people both do a 40-minute workout everyday at the same time in the same room at 2pm. One person puts on an alarm for 2:40pm and when the alarm goes off the other person stops working out, but actually the alarm did not actually cause the other person to stop working out. If Hume’s argument was true, objects that are related as cause and effect are contiguous to each other. However, Hume does not state that cause and effect must be spatially contiguous, only temporarily. However, even if they were spatially contiguous, we can argue that day follows night; but night does not cause day, so it is evident that Hume’s claim of cause and effect is