David Hume: Atheist Philosopher

In the movie 12 Angry Men it showed many examples of Hume’s ideas such as skepticism, pluralism, relativism, and reasonable doubt. First let me explain what skepticism is, skepticism doubts the validation of knowledge or particular subject. Pluralism is the position that there are many different kinds of belief—but not all just as good as any other. Relativism is when the position that each belief is just as good as any other, since all beliefs are viewpoint dependent. Reasonable doubt is lack of proof that prevents a judge or jury to convict a defendant for the charged crime. They must provide proof beyond reasonable doubt to be proven guilty.

There is a crisis of personal identity and the ‘self’ which arises from David Hume’s conclusions of living life in a balanced manner. According to Hume, a balanced life integrates reason, sociality, and business in such a way so that they have a “mitigated skepticism.” However, if one of these three areas is more focused on than the others, such as reason, than one begins to lead a not-useful, non-goal-oriented life full of “little satisfaction.” Pure reason also leads to extreme skepticism and is against nature. Hume explains that “no durable good can ever result from [excessive skepticism]” because it has no influence on society or on the mind. This lack of good caused by pure reason is a crisis of personal identity and the ‘self’ because it is against nature, and according to Hume, the ‘self’ and one’s identity is found in perceptions that are unjustified by nature. One’s sense perceptions are independent of one another and cane never exist at the same time. Thus, as a result, Hume explains that one perceives something from these perceptions, his or her ‘self’, but that this is an illusion because the ‘self’ does not continue if the perceptions are fleeting and not simultaneous. Relating Hume’s denial of pure reason with these illusory perceptions, extreme skepticism makes one doubt the existence of these perceptions and his or her perception of ‘self’, and this doubt

I would never have thought to myself how diet, psychological health, physical health exercise habits, and events throughout the day would affect the dreams I have at night. I took all of these factors into consideration when I was trying to analyze my dreams. I have learned that my sleeping habits do affect my daily life, and the interactions I had with others throughout the day. Freud once said “that whether we intend it or not, we 're all poets. That 's because on most nights, we dream. And dreams are a lot like poetry, in that in both, we express our internal life in similar ways. We conjure images; we combine incongruent elements to evoke emotion in a more efficient way than wordier descriptions can, and we use unconscious and tangential associations rather than logic to tell a story”.

These ideas were expressed in his “Tabula Rasa Theory of Human Behavior”. In his writing, Locke says,”Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas—How comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience.” According to this quote, Locke explains that people are born with empty minds, but individual learning and experiences will help to shape life. Experience comes from two different sources: outer experience and inner experience. Outer experience comes from the senses and provide sensory details like color, shapes, heat, and sweetness. Since these qualities exist in material objects, every human perception is the same and produce the same impact in each human. Inner experience comes through self reflexion and provides ideas such as beliefs, ideas, and thoughts. Unlike outer experiences, inner experiences can differ from person to person. Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues used the “Tabula Rasa Theory of Human Behavior” as reference when writing the Declaration of Independence because Locke believed every person deserves a shot at happiness since birth. In the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers write that the “pursuit of

However, Descartes and Hume shared in the skeptical approaches that they had towards philosophical beliefs and subjects. According to Stirling (1999), Hume was also a great philosopher. From an epistemological point of view, he questioned the notions of identity that was personal and argued that that there is nothing as ‘self’ which was permanent and progressive. Hume dismissed the belief of casualty and argued that our concepts of case-effect concerns were based on thinking rather than in causal forces

Hume presents 3 characters, every of whom represent a unique position on this issue, engaged during a dialogue along. Demea argues for the position of non secular Orthodoxy, and

Logically speaking, Hume’s theory makes the most sense due to the knowledge learned from cause and effect. I understand the relationship between the beginning to its adjacent cause and it applies to everyday life in society. Unlike Hume, Descartes suggests the origin of knowledge is logical and through self-doubt. Yet, he is unable to provide proof of the existence of god despite playing a substantial role in his theory. Hume on the other hand can only confirm what has already happened, being that is the most truthful and logical

However, here it must be mentioned that David Hume’s reputation as a philosopher rests less on an apologist for feeling and more as an opponent of the moral power of reason, famously summarized in the claim that “reason is the slave of the passions” (Hardin, 2007, p. 25). Hume gives emphasis mainly on the psychological phenomenon of sympathy or a specific faculty of emotional communication that leads to the birth of humanity or

Hume's claim against miracles is that it does not matter how strong the evidence for a miracle it may be it is rather more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it. Hume states that there are two ways in order to decide to believe a piece of evidence. The reliability of a witness is the first factor. A witness can be dishonest or be ignorant about a situation which would make their claims worth little. So Humes says to take in consideration how reliable the witness is. The second factor is the probability of what a witness testifies. For example, Sandeep can claim to have seen a miracle. However, it is more than likely that his testimony is false. This also includes our own senses. For example, if I see a miracle it is more than

is responsible for the effect, there is no proof that the cause is responsible for the effect’s occurrence, it could be purely coincidental. It could be imagined that the sun would go out before it rose the next day or that the sun would turn green the next day are all as justifiable as thinking the sun will rise tomorrow from the evidence from it doing so in the past. So it is because this claim is not contradictory and it can be conceived to be false, its not enough to just understand what it means to know it to be true. It takes going out and experiencing the world, to make these observations for ones self to see that the world is one way rather than another way. Therefore, according to Hume knowledge of matters of fact is impossible, he does acknowledged however that that people had to think in terms of cause and

In “History of Philosophy Vol. 5” its states, “he sees how little reason can prove…by the natural beliefs which common human nature imposes on him as on others” (5: 317). According to Hume, a necessary connection can exist between two events. However, men cannot be free and determined, for one cannot exist while the other remains. “A History of Western Philosophy” reads, “If every impression is a distinct item in our experience, there can be no necessary connection between two ideas derived from two impressions, however closely juxtaposed the original impressions may have been” (318). Hume describes liberty as, “a power of acting or not acting according to the determinations of the will.” However, liberty and necessity cannot work together. For if you say they can, it is saying you believe in chance; because events cannot happen by chance, this argument is proven

He argues that polytheism was the first expression of religion, and from there he creates a hierarchy within religion that dictates monotheism, specifically Christianity, as the most advanced theology. While he does not largely disagree with religion as adamantly as Freud, he is highly judgmental of most worshipers. He writes, “If by chance, the ignorant masses confine themselves to the notion of a perfect being… they coincide, by chance, with the principles of reason and true philosophy” (16). His value of religion is based upon the correctness of the theology as he philosophically views it. He believes that most worshipers are not believing in the right God, and for this reason their beliefs are invalid. If somehow they believe in the same deity that Hume does, it is for the wrong reasons. Through Hume’s origin of religion and his biased philosophical viewpoint, he groups many theologies together that he is personally ignorant of. His example of the “intellectual approach” to religion is the first example of how an outsider’s perspective limits the scope of the

The perspectives that we adopt when interacting in the world play an integral role in the processes of thinking and learning. This notion is implicit in the way people speak informally about learning, such as when a tutor says to a struggling student "Maybe it would help if we approached this from a different perspective." In some areas of education, such as in history or literature, understanding perspectives is an explicit focus of the curriculum. And in everyday contexts, it has been suggested that perspective-taking is the primary mechanism with which humans are able to learn from others. Tomasello, Kruger, and Ratner (1993) assert that a learner attempts "to see

A miracle can be described as a highly improbably or extraordinary event that brings about welcome consequences. Some people believe miracles are remnants of a superstitious past, while others believe that miracles do, in fact, exist. Being a Christian, I was raised to believe that miracles happen everyday, but most people do not know that they are happening. The question “Do miracles exist?” is like trying to answer the question of whether or not God exist. It’s an almost impossible question to answer. Reasons are given for why or why not you should believe in miracles but no one has been able to give sufficient evidence for an absolute answer. I believe that miracles do exist.

I concur that our encounters and responses to the sentiments we get in our ordinary day to day lives. For instance on the off change that you have a negative involvement with an event congregation, the majority of the cynicism that you encountered there will inundate your contemplations when the point of event congregations comes up in discussion. The issue of induction is an extraordinary apparatus in understanding the way individuals think and Hume was important in creating this hypothesis. While I comprehend his view on inductive thinking, I am significantly less slanted to concur with it. This is on account of being the pragmatist that I am. I don’t feel as if a stone acts differently when looked at versus when I’m not observing it. Moreover, if the idea of the universe has remained steady throughout human history, I don’t perceive any reasoning Hume could say that would stop it from continuing in the same manner.