David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume argues that our knowledge is derived from empiricism, the epistemological view that knowledge originates from our experiences and observations, is true. Hume motivates this argument by providing an analogy to a loaf of bread. He claims it does not necessarily follow that a loaf of bread will be nourishing, just because a previous loaf of bread with similar sensible qualities was nourishing in the past. I agree with Hume’s claim and I believe that this claim can be applied in a way that Hume doesn’t consider. In this essay, I will show that Hume’s argument is sound by providing additional distinct reasons for thinking that the premise he offers is true. In his paper, An Enquiry Concerning Human

This leads to the example posed by Hume: The bread, which I formerly [ate], nourished me… does it follow, that other bread must also nourish me at another time, and that like sensible qualities must always be attended with like secret powers? The consequence seems nowise necessary. (7) …The future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. (8)
Hume claims that the experience gained from previous loaf of bread gives us a sense of knowledge that the next loaf of bread will be just as nourishing and possess similar sensible qualities to the previous loaf of bread that has been eaten. Hume believes the knowledge obtained from empiricism and repetition and familiarities of experiences leads to the principle of custom. (9) It seems so often (if not always) to be the case that the bread does nourish us