David Hume was an empiricist, he did not believe in innate ideas. His writings were based off of taking Locke’s empiricism a step further, Hume attempts to use the scientific method to study human nature. To expand on this, he thought we are all born Tabula rasa, meaning a blank slate. In acquiring knowledge, or building upon this blank slate, the source of all ideas and concepts come from previous experiences. We have what he refers to as “simple” ideas,” such as the color red or the shape of a circle. These are qualities that are immediately apparent. Upon compounding these ideas we develop complex ideas. For Hume, these ideas are just faint representations of our “impressions” when we reflect upon the past. By impressions, he means our first-hand, in the moment experiences, that come to us through sensation. According to Hume, our impressions are strong and vivid while ideas are relatively weak perceptions. …show more content…
And how do we know it?” otherwise known as epistemology. The process in which he uses can be described as the “transcendental inquiry.” In short, this involves transcending the mind in order to understand the mind. When it comes to the mind, Kant describes two types of knowledge. He holds that most knowledge stems from experience, or a posteriori, but that there are parts that are known a priori, before experience. This sounds like it is close to Hume’s views, but there is a key difference. For Hume and others all a priori statements are analytical and all a posteriori judgements are synthetic. Kant disagrees that all a priori statements must be analytical. Hume thinks there are synthetic a priori statements, most notable in mathematics. Mathematic rely on time and space which is a priori but are also synthetic in the manner that the person is able to produce them and that they could be otherwise. Any basic arithmetic statements for Kant, such as 2 + 3 = 5, are synthetic a priori