Kant and Hume on Causality: Who was right?

>>9107497
Hume. It's not even a contest.

>>9107497
Kant. It's not even a contest.

>>9107497
Causality. It's not even a contest.

why the hell is hume wearin a doorag

>>9107497
Who. It's not even a contest.

Right. It's not even a Kantest

>>9107570
Hume was right brother

Can someone explain what kant contributed to the philosophy of causality?
I just started reading berkeley and he mentions that we may see the effects of colours in the clouds but we cannot experience the cause itself, by which I assume he means necessary connection. Did Loocke have anything to say about causation? What was the view of malebrance?

please respond

>>9107691
Malebranche is similar to Hume but instead of only the appearance constant conjunction, God intervenes to necessarily conjoin event A and event B.

>>9107691
>Can someone explain what kant contributed to the philosophy of causality?
He brought forth the notion that we have built in assumptions within our reason itself. A priori, it was called. He made the claim that causality is reliable, as he trusted this knowledge.
Whereas Hume stumbled a bit. He had an elaborate stance on it, but I find it divorced from life - the same way theoretical physics (and especially cosmological theories based on it) can differ from measured reality.

The cosmological scene is, believe it or not, expecting a new copernican revolution.

>>9107708
Now that you mention it this sounds familiar. But in what ways are his views like that of Hume? Did he deny necessary connection by experience?

>>9107497
Can anybody explain Kant on causality for me? I've scoured the "Hume and Kant on Causality" SEP and I can't really make much sense of how Kant solves the question of causality.

From what I've discerned, Kant claims that causality, like space and time, are a priori features of the mind and are conditions of the possibility for any experience at all. But how exactly does he posit, for example, seemingly empirical phenomena like Newtonian physics do be certain, immutable, objective truths? How does overcome the problem of induction and thus probability in all matters of empirical reasoning?

i don't get it

File: 9781479210213_p0_v1_s192x300.jpg (12KB, 192x248px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 192x248px

Who here pluralism in causality for economic strength?

>>9107712
>He brought forth the notion that we have built in assumptions within our reason itself. A priori
What was the basis for that?

>>9107732
Experience itself. Experience itself presupposes these necessary conditions. You can't have experience without these conditions of possibility

>>9107816
The mind organises sense data into a coherent experience a priori? So necessary connection is still not experienced but infered by the way our mind organises sense data? So Hume was correct that necessary connection is inferred a priori by the way our mind associated events occurring consecutively and all kant did was to say that it is unconscious rationality rather than conscious rationality?

>>9107851

Categories are rules for setting up rules for the synthesis of the manifold.

Here's my personal proof:

1. All the contents of my consciiousness are bound up in a unity [premise]
2. The only way to introduce synthethic unity (the unity of a manyness) into a manifold of contents of consciousness is by reproducing it in imagination according to a rule.
3. The defining mark of objectivity is necessity of connection
4. Synthesis, i.e., reproduction in imagination according to a rule, confers necessity of connection on a manifold.
5. If all the contents of my consciousness are bound up in a unity, then they have, qua representations, an objective order.
6. The contents of my consciousness have, qua representations, an objective order, which is to say, there is an objective order of events.
7. The form of inner sense is time, and therefore all the representations of my consciousness, considered simply qua mental contents, must be arranged in a temporal order. [ additional premise]
8. But since these representations must be reproduced in imagination according to a rule before they can be admitted to the unity of consciousness, they must have a rule-determined time-order which is the order of their reproduction.
9. Thus, any mental content, in order to be treated as a representation with objective reference, must be reproduced in a temporal sequence of representations according to a rule, which is to say, Everything which happens, that is, begins to be, presupposes something upon which is follows (temporally) according to a rule, and, there is an objective order of happenings (events)
Q.E.D.

>>9107851
I don't recall Hume saying that necessary connection between events is inferred. I thought he said it was due to habit and custom, and any a priori deduction would always end up fallacious.

>>9107889
Not my proof btw, just a personal favorite.