David Hume’s Two Definitions of Cause Essay -- Philosophy Essays

David Humes Two Definitions of CauseDavid Humes cardinal definitions of apparent movement found in both A Treatise of sympathetic Nature, and An interrogatory Concerning Human Understanding have been the center of much controversy in regards to his actual view of causation. Much of the debate centers on the lack of consonance between the two definitions and also with the definitions as a part of the greater text. As for the latter objection, much of the inconsistency can be remedied by sticking to the story presented in the Enquiry, as Hume makes explicit in the writers Advertisement that the Treatise was a work which the Author Hume had projected sooner he left College, and which he wrote and published not long after. and not finding it successful, he was sensible of his error in spillage to the press to early, and he cast the whole anew in the undermentioned pieces, where some negligence in his former reasoning and more in the expression, are, he hopes, corrected. (Hume 1 772, xxxi) Generally the inconsistencies are cited from the Treatise, which fails to recognize the purpose of the Enquiry. This brings us to the affirmable tension between the two definitions. J.A. Robinson, for example, believes the two definitions cannot refer to the same thing. forefather Garrett feels that the two definitions are possible, but only with further interpretation. I testament argue that the tension arises from a possible forgetfulness on the part of the referee about Humes aims as a philosopher, and that Humes Enquiry stands on its own without any need for a critics extrapolations. To ensure Humes interpretation of causation and the arguments against it, we must first follow the locomote Hume took to come to his conclusion. This requires brief consideration of Humes copy princi... ...place. If both definitions of cause are necessary for a full understanding of the word, and an absolute variant becomes problematic and unnecessary, then neither Robinsons nor G arretts interpretations are correct. If my account of Humes mitigated skepticism is correct, then I see no need to go any further than the Enquiry to understand Humes theory of causation. As a philosopher, Hume recognized the constraints of our reasoning, and as a man, he was able to give an explanation for our actions.Works CitedHume, David, 1772 (reprinted in 2004) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (New York, Barnes and Noble)Garrett, Don, 1997. Cognition and Commitment in Humes Philosophy (New York, Oxford)Robinson, J.A., 1962. Humes Two Definitions of Cause. The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 47, 162-171.1 Modern Philosophy lecture. 3/30/05. Dr. Ott