TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE … … … … … I
CERTIFICATION … … … … ii
DEDICATION … … … … … iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT … … … … iv
TABLE OF CONTENT … … … … … vi
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION … … … … … … 1
1.1
Statement
of The Problem … … … 4
1.2
Purpose
of The Study … … … … 7
1.3
Scope
of The Study … … … … 7
1.4
The
Methodology of The Work … … 8
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND … 9
2.1
Life
and Works of David Hume … … 9
2.2 Philosophers’
view on Impression and Ideas … 10
2.2.1 Ancient Period … … … … 10
2.2.2 Medieval Period … … … … 15
2.2.3 Modern Period … … … … 17
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 EPISTEMOLOGICAL
FOUNDATIONS OF HUME’S PHILOSOPHY … 24
3.1
Contents
of The Mind … … … 25
3.2
Association
of Ideas … … … … 34
3.3
Abstract
General Ideas … … … 37
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 ON METAPHYSICS … … … … 40
4.1
The
Impossibility of Metaphysics … … 40
4.2 Hume’s
Fork: Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact.. … 44
4.3
Analysis
and Denial of Causation … … 47
CHAPTER FIVE
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION … … … … 50
5.1 critical Evaluation … … … 50
5.2 Conclusion … … … … 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY … … … … 59
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
Are we not often at times shocked by
the discovery that what we thought was certain is later proved dubious and
false? If this be a regular occurrence, is it not the case that we may become
suspicious of all claims to certainty? But then, the history of human opinion
rightly forms the most fertile source material for the development of any
theory of knowledge. Yet, no theory or belief has proved so full of absurdity,
that it lacked its own disciples. The history of science is itself replete with
theories priory accepted by the sages of old but later on discredited.
Philosophers are therefore concerned
with the basis of all knowledge claims, so that they might arrive at a
consensus for judging these claims. For it, much of what had been taken as
certain has instead been proved false or sceptical. Then, what can we really
know and how can we really ever be certain?
Such were the feelings of David Hume, as he posited
his philosophy of “impression and ideas” of which this work is to throw more
light on.
The philosophy of David Hume then is both an attack on
rationalism and a “reducto and absurdum” of empiricism since the empiricism he
defines is one-sided as the rationalism he attacks. He frankly confessed his
dissatisfaction with his position in a passage which seems to be the starting
point for a consideration of the outline of his work.:
There are two
principles which I cannot render consistent nor is it in my power to renounce
either of them, namely, that all our distinct perceptions are distinct
existence, and that the mind never perceives any real connection among distinct
existence.
Thus, the appeal to those two principles and the
understanding of them is the key of Hume’s work. The first principle, that what
we can distinguish in perception is distinguished in existence is subjective. I
rather see it as making the articulations and distinctions of things depend on
the distinctions of the mind. But the second principle is based on the opposite
assumptions.
Hume’s whole account of causation
depends on his perception that causation is not a relation among the mind’s own
ideas, in the sense that it can be got at by any kind of introspection or
reflection. Thus, the result of Hume’s theory of causation seems to be
subjective when he reduces the conception of necessary connection to a feeling,
and this is precisely because he believes that causation is a relation between
real existences and cannot be perceived by the mind. About causation, he said:
Causation is a
relation, which can be traced beyond our senses and informs us of existence and
objects, which we do not see or feel.
In Hume’s philosophy, the theory of
the “association of ideas” plays the
most important part and was the most recognized in the later history of English Empiricism. No wonder Hume
was constantly making association the work of the understanding and through
this theory, he succeeded in narrowing the fundamental principles of knowledge
to mere feeling. His account of the general principle; also lobbied his
explanation of particular instances of cause and effect. Thus, little did he
mean to think that by causation, we only mean constant conjunction, but that we
sometimes infer causation from the observation of only one instance.
In his own period, Hume affected the
inheritance of the Cartesian rationalism into empiricism and made atomization
of perception the very nerve of his philosophy. From this insight, he viewed
every question especially metaphysical and proposed every solution.
It is then our task in this work, to
expose the implications of the concept of his “impressions – ideas” theory,
which evidently forms his basic epistemological stand. We shall therefore see
how plausible they are with a critical mind.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
The genesis of the history of
philosophy is the treatment of the Ionian philosophers whose main concern was
to determine the basic constitution of the material substances of the universe.
In this immortal search, Thales
posited water, Anaximander posited air, and Pythagoras came up with units i.e.
the mathematical numbers. The departure of Pythagoras and his subsequent
followers was a gathering storm, which ushered in a sharp digression in
philosophical inquiry. Attention now shifted to the problem of change and
permanence. In this pre-Socratic era philosophy was more cosmocentric in
nature.
Plato in the ancient period posited
the world of forms, saying that the real things exist in the worlds of ideas.
Socrates also on his part believes that knowledge is certain, objective and
universal. It is quite possible for man to acquire knowledge. His was the
dialectical method i.e. beginning from particular cases and concluding with
universal knowledge.
In the Mediaeval period, Augustine
toes the line of Plato. Augustine distrusted the senses as source of knowledge.
The senses in his view do not give us certain knowledge. The objects of
knowledge are not the material things of this world, but the external ideas in
the mind of God. St
Thomas is said by some scholars to have succeeded merely in Christianizing
Aristotle. These mediaeval or Christian philosophers were influenced by the
church supremacy at their time.
In this period, the movement was
actually a rebirth of knowledge, a revival of interest and zeal for knowledge.
It began with a renewed interest in Ancient writings and eventually developed
into humanistic and scientific movements, with emphasis on man rather than God.
Two important schools flourished in this period.
The continental rationalists (Descartes Spinoza and Leibniz)
adopted the mathematical method and believed that reason alone, using the
mathematical method can attain truth without the aid of the senses. They denied
that sense perception was necessary in order to attain knowledge. The
empiricists on the other hand, asserted that all-genuine knowledge derive from
sense perception. Neither Locke nor Berkeley was a consistent empiricist. But
Hume was and he brought empiricism to its logical conclusion. He
tried to portray this by his philosophy of impression and idea. When we
perceive objects, they make impression on us. Ideas are formed from these
impressions. Whether he succeeded in doing this is what we shall be looking at
in this work. We shall be evaluating critically his position about impression
and idea, within which we shall portray the explicit implication of his
position.
1.2 Purpose
My aim or purpose in this research
now is to expose the implications of the concept of Hume’s impressions and
ideas theory. We shall therefore see how plausible they are, with a critical
mind. This work will seek to x-ray the extent to which pure knowledge can be
gotten only through impression or that we can only know something through
experience and without impression, there will be no ideas.
1.3 Scope
This research does not intend to give
an exhaustive study of David Hume’s philosophies. Rather, it centered on his
theory of impression and idea. How he tried to resolve the diverse conceptions
of philosophers on the acquisition of pure knowledge.
1.4 The Methodology of the Work
In this sensitive philosophical discourse, we shall
make use of expository method in understanding the notion of impression and
ideas and Hume’s argument in denying and rejecting reason as a way of attaining
knowledge. Again, we shall use critical method in evaluating Hume’s view. In
general, the methodology is going to be scholarly, academic, and philosophical.
This research work is divided into
five chapters. Chapter one deals mainly with the introduction and the framework
of the entire study, chapter two deals with the literature review. This takes
into account the contributions of other philosophers on the related topic in
the various epochs. Chapter three x-rays the Epistemological foundation of
Hume’s philosophy, chapter four centered on the impossibility of the metaphysics
while chapter five gives an evaluation and critical conclusion to the work.
Buyers has the right to create
dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when
you experience issue with the file received.
Dispute can only be created when
you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of
contents and content of the file you received.
ProjectShelve.com shall either
provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or
send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and
Conditions are applied.
Buyers are expected to confirm
that the material you are paying for is available on our website
ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone
through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE
BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.
In case of payment for a
material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of
ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that
is available on our website within 48 hours.
You cannot change topic after
receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.
Login To Comment