What Is Hume's Claim On Causality

In this paper I will explain how Hume defends his claim on causality, or in other words, how even though we see that two events occur in union -one after the other- through our immediate senses at a specific instance, there is no way for us to know the nature of their connection. Given Hume’s claim, I will raise a concern about how this claim might be challenged. Hume explains how we confuse experience with causality. In other words, we often assume that if we tip over an open container then the object inside will scatter but that is merely a speculation and, an assumption that we are seemingly witnessing cause and effect. Hume defends the claim that we can’t observe causation by arguing that if we cannot understand the connection between

Hume defends this by examining the interaction between the mind and soul or as he puts it the power of will. Hume argues that the power of the will, to carry out the task of volition as being the “cause” is beyond our understanding as the connection between the soul and body is inconceivable. Just like the mind naturally associates ideas such as how heat is a constant attendant of flame, the same is true for inward ideas. If we were aware a previous idea of a connection of the body and the soul, then the current connection would be conceivable. Moreover, Hume deduces that if we cannot understand why some parts of our bodies move free while others move instinctively then the power of the mind is limited thus we turn to experience for reason. We must understand why we can control our fingers and not our spleen in order to experience necessary connection. For example, Hume provides the occurrence of a “phantom limb” in order to show how our will is influence through experience without instructing us of a necessary connexion. In other words, in order to move our limbs our the power of our will should do just that but we are unaware of various unknown micro movements oblivious to our knowledge that must come into play in order to acquire the desire action. If the micro movements were to be felt as we “feel” the

However, this claim might be challenge as if we were to neglect causality then we and the world would stop making sense. In order to find evidence for his indispensable claim, sort of things that occur in cartoons must happen such as water going up in a waterfall, that would be evidence for causality. But these type of events do not occur in reality and causality reflects reality. In other words cause and effect is not a matter of experience but an innate process embedded in our brains since the start. Moreover, I would also make the argument given that if Hume argues that cause and effect cannot be observed and therefore nothing can be certain nor suggest any evidence of causality, then in the contrary I would argue that experiences infer causality and that even though cause and effect is observed via experience and inconceivable, there still lies a possibility of certainty, which would make the experience of causality a relations of ideas and not a matter of fact. I am suggesting that his claim is a circular claim in as asking for verification for causality and instead that cause and effect is what the evidence are made up of. Causes are not literal but merely an explanation of the world, not to be confused with our