FREE ESSAY ON HUME'S AFFIRMATION

HUME'S AFFIRMATION

Hume's affirmation David Hume makes a strong affirmation in section IV of an Enquiry
Concerning Human Understanding. Hume states, I shall venture to affirm as a general
proposition, which admits of no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not, in
any instance attained by reasonings a priori; but entirely from experience. In this
statement, when discussing knowledge of this relation, Hume is referring to the relation
between cause and effect. This argument can easily be dismissed as skeptical, for it puts
all knowledge of this sort in doubt. However, Hume does not hastily doubt that this
knowledge is not a priori, as a skeptic would. Instead Hume offers a sound argument as to
why cause and effect knowledge can not be a priori, and thus his argument is not
skeptical at all. Before Hume commits himself to this affirmation, he establishes several
things first. He explains that all reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on
the relation of Cause and Effect. In support of this, Hume explains that, if asked, any
man believing in a matter of fact would give as a reason in support of this fact, some
other fact. It is from this that Hume concludes that all reasonings concerning fact are
of the same nature. It is here that one continually assumes that there is a connection
between the current fact and that, which is inferred from it. Furthermore, Hume states
where there nothing to bind them together; the inference would be entirely precarious.
Meaning, any matter of fact is supported only by another matter of fact, and if this
connection is removed, one is left with a fact that is completely dependent. In addition,
any fact will ultimately be dependent on a primary fact, which in turn is founded on
cause and effect. It is only after Hume establishes this that he affirms that knowledge
of this relation is never attained by reasonings a priori. Knowledge based on cause and
effect, for Hume, relies entirely on human experience, and it is for this reason that it
can not be a priori. Hume does not blindly state this proposition, he supports it with
several examples that I find irrefutable. He suggests that no man when presented with
gunpowder can imagine the explosion that can follow. The same is true when discussing the
consequences of releasing a stone from one's hand. Without prior knowledge, it would be
impossible to predict that the stone would fall to the ground. No object ever discovers,
by the qualities that which appear to the senses, either causes which produced it, or the
effects which will arise from it; nor can our reason, unassisted by experience, ever draw
any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact. It is here that Hume proves
that knowledge based on cause and effect relies solely on experience and can not be based
on reasonings a priori. Knowledge that is a priori is the exact opposite of knowledge
that is obtained through experience. For the very definition of a priori is knowledge
that is presupposed as prior to experience. It is apparent, from Hume's past arguments
that certain things are impossible to know prior to experience. Hume applies this same
reasoning to all the laws of nature, and all the operations of bodies. He states that it
is the influence of custom to infer that anyone without prior knowledge, would be able to
predict the communication of motion between one Billiard-ball to another upon impulse.
Hume follows by stating, were any object presented to us, and were we required to
pronounce concerning the effect, which would result from it, it would be impossible to do
so, without consulting past observation. In all aspects of matter of fact, Hume has
provided sufficient evidence, to support his affirmation. A skeptical argument is one in
which everything is doubted. Hume is certainly not doubting everything when affirms that
knowledge relating to cause and effect is never a priori. For it is in this same
affirmation that he offers an alternate explanation to knowledge of this relation.
Instead of solely doubting, as a skeptic would, Hume offers experience as an alternate
explanation to the relation between matters of fact. While Hume does deny that knowledge
of the relation between cause and effect is a priori, he is far from skeptical. He
instead gives a complete and sound argument as to why this knowledge is based on
experience instead. It is for this reason that his argument is not a skeptical on.