International Relations Study Guide:
Hume’s views about casual reasoning and induction

1. Why does Hume hold that knowledge of causal relations is necessary for increasing our knowledge of matters of fact beyond what we can know just by present perception and memory? (Use examples)

* Hume states that even though everyone may not agree, if there’s truth behind present perception and personal recollection, everyone would agree that only a small percentage of what we take ourselves to know is based on these notions. Most of our factual knowledge is based on things that are too remote in space and time for us to have knowledge of them from present perception and personal recollection. Therefore, this leads Hume to declare T1 which states that knowledge of matters of fact that aren’t based on personal recollection or present perception are based on causal relation. When Hume says “matters of fact” he is referring to propositions that either assert or imply existence of a physical or mental entity or event. Hume demonstrates the extent of knowledge that can be obtained from causal relations in two very clear examples: A man believes that he knows his friend is in France. He is able to believe this matter of fact through the causal relation that occurred when he received a letter from his friend, which was sent from France. Even though he never perceived nor remembered perceiving his friend being in France, he was able to obtain the knowledge that he was there from the cause of the letter being sent from France. This knowledge that he has obtained is the effect that is based solely on the cause of that letter being sent from France. Example 2 is when a man believes that he knows that other men had been on a deserted island. The reason for this is his finding a watch on the beach. Once again, he never perceived or remembered perceiving humans being on the beach, but from the relation of cause and effect (finding the watch and knowing that only man could have brought it there) he was able to obtain the knowledge that there were at some point humans on the beach.

2. Why does Hume hold that causal relations are not knowable a priori, but only by inference from past experiences? (Explain fully, by including all of Hume’s reasons for denying that causal relations are knowable a priori, including, among others, his attack on the Rationalist Conception of Causality.)

* Hume holds that causal relations are not known a priori, but only from inference from past experiences for multiple reasons. First, we cannot know the effect of a cause without experiencing it first. He illustrates this by analyzing Adam from the Bible. He says that there is no possible way that Adam could have known that water was something liquid and that it could drown him or that fire was hot and could burn him if had never experienced it before. Without having experienced these things, he never could have obtained this knowledge. Hume further illustrates this point when discussing that we could have no idea the capabilities of a computer just by looking at its pieces. Only after first experiencing a computer could we obtain that knowledge. * To further attack that causal relations are not known a priori, Hume attacked the Rationalist Conception of Causality. This concept is made up of three parts which include: the effect is contained within the cause, there is a special tie or connection that binds cause, and the cause&effect relationship is exactly the same as the premise conclusion relationship in a valid argument. He attacks the first by saying that if the effect was contained within the cause, then the effect could be changed by re-examining the cause. What would happen if the effect was completely different from the cause and therefore, you could no longer find the cause? However, Hume proves that the effect is a completely different even than the cause, and therefore the effect can’t be contained within it. For