I've been reading "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding" by David Hume for my Modern Philosophy class. We covered the main arguments that Hume presents, and those being so far, the difference between Relation of Ideas and Matters of Fact, how the Relation of Ideas are known through reason (i.e. 3+2=5) while the Matters of Fact are by experience (i.e. the sun rising). The experience needed for the Matters of Fact are Cause and Effect. However, Hume say's Cause and Effect is not based on reason at all, and only experience, but that we still come to believe things because of we make a connection of cause and effect. Namely, we draw conclusions about the future on the basis of past experience (but, again, these conclusions are not based on reason). The example Hume uses is that of the billiard balls where one ball strikes another.
My question is how does Hume support his view that although we do draw conclusions about the future on the basis of past experience, those conclusions "are not founded on reasoning, or any process of the understanding"? Is he right?
My question is how does Hume support his view that although we do draw conclusions about the future on the basis of past experience, those conclusions "are not founded on reasoning, or any process of the understanding"? Is he right?
Last edited: