The continuation of our discussion of Hume's "Enquiry," in which we arrive at a devastating argument for a kind of skepticism that leaves natural science ungrounded by any rational warrant.
amazing stuff. my distance education course makes this subject matter so dry and difficult to understand. thanks for going above and beyond bridging the gap!
Dr. Rosenfeld, could a counter argument to Hume’s problem of induction be that it seems Hume is focusing mainly on efficient causes? Leibniz criticizes modern philosophers for disregarding final causes in his “Discourse on Metaphysics”, and I know this was also a critique that Heidegger leveled on modern philosophy (that they focused only on efficient causes). If you disregard all other causes, there does not seem to be any justification for efficient causes alone. Also, from what I’ve read, the Greeks considered “cause” to mean more of “responsibility” for the effect. Thanks for all the great videos!
Hi, this may sound a bit crazy but I can offer you the answer how, we can conclude that based on the same cause we will get the same consequence. This is possible if we make a deduction from the induction, that is, if we understand why it happened for the first time. Then we will understand why this will happen every time it is repeated. And why in these circumstances nothing else can happen. Take for example that you walk towards a wall and your body stops when you are in contact with a wall. The first question is why did that happen? And not something else ... When we divide the whole case into "all" factors that make it up, we will get: you who move, the floor, the space you pass through, the wall ... What we must understand is that every factor that exists has its own identity and cannot be different at the same time. So, just as in the identity of the body as well as in the identity of that wall there is no transience through each other due to the structure of those identities, it is not possible for those identities. That is why it happened, what is only possible, which can only happen through the contact of these identities. Therefore, in each repeated case, the same consequence will occur, stopping the body in contact with the wall. And for the first time, what was only possible in the contact of these identities happened. It is impossible for nothing to happen, and the only thing that can happen depends on the identities involved in the process. Every identity can react only according to what it is and in no other way. This limits the consequence and therefore only what each identity brings to the process for itself can always happen. Now try to imagine any other possible consequence, without having to change the identities we had in the first case, any different consequence will require some change of some identity in the process, and that implies a change of what Hume call the cause. Each repeated case will end the same if the same identities are present because each factor from that process has its own identity which at the same time cannot be different and therefore cannot react differently. A wall cannot have the identity of transience and non-transience for the body at the same time, the same goes for the space you walk through ... An identity is one that limits the possibility of a consequence to the identity it possesses. This is a simplified example of necessity in causality and I don’t think it provides a deeper understanding of necessity in causality but it is a powerful example that points to necessity that is indisputable without changing any identity in the process itself, and if we do, change something in the process itself, then we have changed the cause itself, so we should not expect the same consequence. I apologize if the translation is not perfect everywhere, I am dyslexic. That’s part of my charm.
Isnt this almost like a phenomenologist/Heideggerian philosophy? We perceive phenomena like cause/effects and this in turn shapes the way we "understand" the world around us as beings-within-world?
One question:--- Analytic statement- predicate is contained in subject. Fine, but is it also other way round true when we affirm subject is also contained within predicate? What about the statement "All persons are female." Is it an analytic statement bcz by its concept as above that predicate is contained in subject; the above statement is correct? I intuitively can see my reasoning is wrong. But where? Plz shed some light.
For the statement of "unicorns have no horns", how can I necessarily say that this is true if unicorns do not exist? Even if just a concept, it does not relate to anything actual material existing thing, and I think the same could technically be said of the term of bachelors even (if I understand correctly), as bachelors are only merely a concept and not necessarily an actual existing thing. We only really have the particulars in experience, and only generalized concepts that don't relate to any singular existing thing, technically.
cause and effect do not have to be 100% necessarily connected. dunking the brush and applying it to the wall and moving it about necessarily causes the object to be painted. But smoking tobacco causes cancer, though not necessarily in all smokers.
I would say the cancer/smoking is more correlation than cause/effect. If it would be truly cause/effect you're right, then every smoker should get cancer.
