This paper discusses David Hume's attack on rationalism in discussing the nature of causation and his promotion of the idea of empiricism. It discusses how Hume showed that expecting an effect to occur as a result of a cause was based solely on experience - the basis of empiricism and not on logic - the basis of rationalism. The paper also shows how Hume proved that rationalism alone could not discover cause and effect, but neither could it rationally exist.
From the Paper:
"Hume argues that there is no proof of the necessary connection between cause and effect, as these are, as he concluded, empirical notions. Because empiricism does not rationally prove anything, but only suggest a strong likelihood of truth, cause cannot be rationally connected to effect, but only be conjoined to each other. However, due to the nature of empiricism, Hume argues that the connection can still exist, as it is perceived by the mind to exist. Therefore, we can only imagine cause and effect, but only in the mind. This means that cause and effect can only exist in the mind of the empiricist, who takes knowledge from experience without rational or scientific proof; yet ironically, it is scientific proofs which depend on observations from experience. Once more, the empiricist draws attention to the follies of pure rationalism."
Sample of Sources Used:
HUME, David, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding from Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, Third Ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 1992.
MORRIS, William Edward, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: David Hume, [Online], 2001. At http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume [Accessed 30/05/2006].
KEMERLING, Garth, Hume: Epistemology, [Online], 2001. At http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/Hume.htm [Accessed 30/05/2006]
EGAN, David, SparkNote on An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, [Online]. At http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding [Accessed 1/06/2006].