bahman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:01 pm
The article you suggest says that the subject is still subjected to controversy. It is very long too. Do you mind elaborating on the topic?
The story is like this.
The Emergence of the Dogmatic Empirists.
Since from evolution we have the tribe of Empiricists who are very dogmatic with experience which is the obvious thing to human consciousness.
It is from this that Hume constructed his Empirical Model of Causation which gather a group of very strong dogmatists on Empiricism.
The Rise of the Dogmatic Rationalists
You cannot deny the reasoning faculty is a later development in human evolution with the emergence of the cortex and prefrontal cortex.
This tribe of Rationalists reasoned and inferred the Law of Cause and Effect as a law that is independent of experience. Here also, there is a strong tribe of very dogmatic rationalists who are in opposing camp to the Empiricists.
The problem with pure rationalism without limitations is it enable theists to argue for the existence of God and other supernatural things and beings that exists beyond human experience. This is what was not acceptable to Hume.
Neither group of very hardcore dogmatic Empiricists nor Rationalists would give in [loosen] with their respective dogmatic beliefs on the issue of causation.
Then, among the very hardcore dogmatic Rationalists was Immanuel Kant who had held to this rationalists view for a long time.
Kant Awoken from his Dogmatic Slumber by Hume
However at some point in time Kant was 'hammered' by Hume's theory of causality [empirical based] that woke him up from his dogmatic-slumber-of-rationalism. Kant was very appreciative of Hume for that "knock." But he was in a dilemma between holding to his rationalism and taking into account Hume's challenge.
Besides Kant DID NOT agree with Hume totally re Causality being reduced to Constant Conjunction, Custom & Habits
It took Kant about 10 years to reconcile his rationalism with Hume's theory of causality.
For that I believe Kant had to surrender 80% of his rationalism and keep only 20% of rationality thus adopting 80% of empiricism.
As you can see Kant had the humility to admit he was wrong [80%] with his dogmatism on rationalism but kept the relevant and critical 20% of rationalism and he subsequently combined that with 80% on empiricism.
So note, Kant did agree with Hume but only 80% and he resolved the critical 20% of the problems via the
a priori concepts which are grounded on "experience", albeit on the adapted experience-of-the-collective since 4 billion years ago.
Kant's 80%-Experience - 20%-Rationality MODEL
Kant then went on to construct a "80% experience - 20% rational Model of Causality" which is in alignment with Reality.
Kant provided very solid sound arguments and justification to support his new theory on causality. I will not go into the details of Kant's argument. Btw, one will have to spend a significant amount of effort and time to understand [not necessary with] Kant.
Whilst Kant was humble to admit his dogmatism and so change his views, there are still a lot from the Empiricist tribe that are still very dogmatic with their theory of causality [i.e. reducible to experience, custom and habit].
It is not exactly there are
controversies, it is just that there are remnants of hardcore dogmatic empiricists who just cannot be humble and are stuck to Hume's theory of causation [Hume's defined and limited empirical framework] come what may. This is despite Science which is not dependent on Hume's theory of causality and ignoring the associated problem of induction, is so successful.
Hume admitted he was ignorant of much of human nature [as with his time] so his theory is conditioned by such a limitation. However re Kant's deeper reflection with advances in human nature to the present, it is proven Kant is right. As such those current empiricists who cannot accept Kant's solution are as ignorant as Hume was in the mid 1700s in terms of the related subject.
Kant questioned, if Hume is right, how come Science & Mathematics [ignoring problem of induction and Hume causality] is possible and so successful.
As such Hume must be missing "something-X" and Kant discovered that "something-X" as explained in his Critique of Pure Reason and on morality [is - ought resolved].