Kant did Answer Hume's Problems

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Kant did Answer Hume's Problems

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:39 pm For my money Kant did not answer the problems set down by Hume who remains his superior, though he did try.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:06 am Kant did answers on Hume's Problem of Causality and Induction in a very paradigmatic approach.

See this;
What Hume did not see, from Kant’s point of view,
is that the merely comparative universality of inductive generalization
can indeed be overcome
by transforming initially merely subjective “empirical rules” into truly objective and necessary “universal laws”
in accordance with synthetic but still a priori principles of the unity of nature-in-general.[Note 52]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
Note 52. Kant’s argument in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science provides a specific realization or instantiation of this idea in the case of Newton’s theory of universal gravitation: Newtonian mathematical demonstrations, in the context of the Newtonian mathematical theory of space, time, and motion, can indeed lead to a more than merely inductive status for an especially important empirical causal law.
Kant then supposes that the mathematical theory of space and time, as further determined via the Analogies of Experience, can (at least in principle) do something similar for lower-level empirical laws such as the sun warming the stone.
The question of the relationship between lower-level empirical laws and the “pure natural science” discussed in the Metaphysical Foundations is especially difficult, however, and it involves us, eventually, with the new questions about the relationship between empirical laws and the transcendental principles of the understanding raised in the Critique of Judgment: for further discussion see Friedman 1992a, 1992b, 2013.
You have to read the whole SEP article to get an idea what Kant's answers to Hume is about. Even if you do, I believe you would not be able to grasp the whole discussion on this issue.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:54 am :lol:
You speak for yourself.
You have to do more than copy and paste.
Tell us in your own words how Kant improves upon Hume's account of causality!
Any one has any view on whether Kant succeeded in answering Hume or not?

Re my views see the following posts.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant did Answer Hume's Problems

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

link

Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:16 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:31 pm
Hume believed that cause and effect cannot be reasoned. Did Kand find an answer for that?
That is his problem of induction, which is only a problem if you are ignorant of constant conjunction. We can only assume causality, but on the balance of probabilities we can predict the future outcome of known events. Hume was not the skeptic that Kant accused him of being, and was happy to confirm his position on determinism and compatibilism.
It was on this very matter that Kant said he was "interrupted from my dogmatic slumber", yet Kant's solution was to most clearly define metaphysical elements of nature to find direct and indubitable links of causality between elements. A thing which Hume already knew. For my money Hume's objection should always be present in the mind as this presents a sort of scientific humility which Kant lacked.
QM phenomena supports a Humean skepticism leaving Kant in the dark about what the hell is that all about.

Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience, as thought be Locke's tabula rasa, and Hume's insistence that experience is the source of all knoweldge.

Kant' "I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding."

This pure understanding is Descartes regurgitated.

Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world and it is from that that our experience may be used to guide us to science.

My worry with this is that since our inherent knowledge "pure understanding" is only ultimately derived from our evolved experience we have no special warrent to know reality outside of the narrow confines of the human metric.

Kant knows too well from this that the reality beyind human experience is a constant problem fro his ideas and talks much about never knowing the "things-in -themsleves" being never truly knowable.
Noted your points above and I disagree with some of them. Noted you are not very familiar with Kant's philosophy and some of the nuance points of Hume.

First of all, given his time, Hume did admit there a lot of things re 'human nature' [& human mind] he did not know that is beyond what he had presented in his Treatise and Enquiry.
I don't have the reference on hand, I will search for it later.

Based on what and how Hume set up his Treatise and Enquiry, it is logical one cannot derived the Law of Causality and secured Induction from experience alone. That is merely based on Constant Conjunction, habits and customs not a matter of fact.
Hume's focus is on direct Experience [re senses] which enable strong impressions in contrast to common reasoning which is based on faint images and vague ideas i.e. memory or imagination of the strong impressions.

Kant agreed with the above based on what Hume's construction of his Framework and System of Knowledge.

However Kant presented a paradigmatic approach to Hume. [related to his Copernican Revolution]
Instead of Hume assertion of Laws of Causality is an inference from constant conjunction of direct-Experiences [strong impressions], Kant claimed, that direct-Experiences [strong impressions] itself is grounded upon the Law of Causality itself.

What Kant is asserting is, without the inherent PRIMAL Law of Causality [a concept of Pure Understanding] existing a priori, there would be no direct-Experiences generating strong impressions.
So Hume's direct experience is groundless without reference to the Primal Law of Causality.

It is true, from Hume's framework, the majority will infer the Law of Causality from constant conjunction, but that is a pseudo or post-hoc law of causality and not the Primal Law of Causality.

So Kant claimed Hume is ignorant of that PRIMAL inherent Law of Causality embedded the mind of ALL humans.
As you alluded, this Primal Law of Causality is adapted from evolution since 4 billion years ago since the first one-celled entities emerged.

Kant identify this Primal Law of Causality as the Concept of Cause i.e. as a Category of Pure Understanding which he justified its Universality & Necessity via The Deductions.
It is this Universality and Necessity that justify how Induction works and is valid.
Real scientists don't have to give a damn with the Problem of Induction, but is it this justified Universality and Necessity that ground all Scientific works that facilitate consensus within the majority.

QM as a scientific theory does conform to Hume's superficial ideas but is more aligned with Kant's deeper justified concepts and human nature.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant did Answer Hume's Problems

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Given his time, Hume had the humility to admit he was ignorance of the hidden potentials and powers of the human mind.
It is the advantage of time that Kant [1724-1804] [later] awoken from dogmatic slumber by Hume [1711-1176] to strive to find answers to the questions raised by Hume.
Kant did indeed succeed in answering Hume on the question of causality, induction and morality.

Hume did admit his ignorance more directly, but I don't have the reference on hand yet.

However here is clue where Hume [limited to his time then] admitted his ignorance on the nature of the human mind.
Hume wrote:An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
SECTION I. OF THE DIFFERENT SPECIES OF PHILOSOPHY.
Part 8
It cannot be doubted, that the Mind is endowed with several powers and faculties, that these powers are distinct from each other, that what is really distinct to the immediate Perception may be distinguished by reflexion; and consequently, that there is a truth and falsehood in all propositions on this subject, and a truth and falsehood, which lie not beyond the compass of human understanding.
There are many obvious distinctions of this kind, such as those between the will and understanding, the imagination and passions, which fall within the comprehension of every human creature; and the finer and more philosophical distinctions are no less real and certain, though more difficult to be comprehended.
Some instances, especially late ones, of success in these enquiries, may give us a juster notion of the certainty and solidity of this branch of learning.
And shall we esteem it worthy the labour of a philosopher to give us a true system of the planets, and adjust the position and order of those remote bodies; while we affect to overlook those, who, with so much success, delineate the parts of the Mind, in which we are so intimately concerned?

Part 9.
But may we not hope, that philosophy, if cultivated with care, and encouraged by the attention of the public, may carry its researches still farther, and discover, at least in some degree, the secret springs and principles, by which the human Mind is actuated in its operations?

Astronomers had long contented themselves with proving, from the phenomena, the true motions, order, and magnitude of the heavenly bodies: Till a philosopher, at last, arose, who seems, from the happiest reasoning, to have also determined the laws and forces, by which the revolutions of the planets are governed and directed.
The like has been performed with regard to other parts of nature.

And there is no reason to despair of equal success in our enquiries concerning the mental powers and economy, if prosecuted with equal capacity and caution.

It is probable, that one operation and principle of the Mind depends on another; which, again, may be resolved into one more general and universal: And how far these researches may possibly be carried, it will be difficult for us, before, or even after, a careful trial, exactly to determine.
This is certain, that attempts of this kind are every day made even by those who philosophize the most negligently:
And nothing can be more requisite than to enter upon the enterprise with thorough care and attention; that, if it lie within the compass of human understanding, it may at last be happily achieved; if not, it may, however, be rejected with some confidence and security.
This last conclusion, surely, is not desirable; nor ought it to be embraced too rashly.
For how much must we diminish from the beauty and value of this species of philosophy, upon such a supposition?
Moralists have hitherto been accustomed, when they considered the vast multitude and diversity of those actions that excite our approbation or dislike, to search for some common principle, on which this variety of sentiments might depend.
And though they have sometimes carried the matter too far, by their passion for some one general principle; it must, however, be confessed, that they are excusable in expecting to find some general principles, into which all the vices and virtues were justly to be resolved.
The like has been the endeavour of critics, logicians, and even politicians: Nor have their attempts been wholly unsuccessful; though perhaps longer time, greater accuracy, and more ardent application may bring these sciences still nearer their perfection.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Kant did Answer Hume's Problems

Post by bahman »

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?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant did Answer Hume's Problems

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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].
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Kant did Answer Hume's Problems

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:52 am
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].
I was looking for Kant's argument.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant did Answer Hume's Problems

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:23 pm I was looking for Kant's argument.
All of Kant's arguments, totally and in various aspects, from the beginning to the present are opposed by different factions based on various reasons.

What I noted is, all [99%] the oppositions to Kant's arguments are due to ideological differences and their dogmatic stance; those who oppose do not comprehend Kant's work fully.
For example, Kant's stance is that of Transcendental Idealism, so ideologically there is no way those from the Transcendental Realist camp will not accept [psychologically] Kant's view fully or partially.

Since Kant [ex Rationalist] had adopted a combined Empirical & Rational approach, even the dogmatic Rationalists will object to his new views along with the dogmatic empiricists.

If you think Kant's argument is not satisfactory you will have to read up Kant's work to understand [not necessary agree with] it, then only to counter his arguments.

I have research and read up Kant's work extensively and I believe what he had presented indeed has answered Hume's challenge and improved on the theory of causation.
Post Reply