Required Readings:1. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Emphasis on Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 7)2. Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (Entire book if necessary but emphasis on Chapters 5 to 11)Essay Prompt:David Hume proposes a skeptical solution to the doubt that we can perceive the connection between a cause and its effect, or even understand whether the sun will rise tomorrow. State and evaluate Bertrand Russell’s alternative solution to that offered by David Hume.Instructions and Criteria:1. Kindly, first introduce Hume’s skeptical doubt and his skeptical solution– the doubt is that there is no causal (necessary) connection between a cause and its effect and we are mistaken to make this inference.– Hume’s solution to this doubt is that we perceive this causal connection from custom and habit. We’ve seen a cause and its effect happen in conjunction so often that we infer that it will continue to happen in the future. However, this perception, or custom, exists only as an idea in our minds and thus, causal connections between causes and events do not exist outside of our ideas of them.2. For Hume’s part, it shouldn’t take up more than 1/4 or 1/3 of the essay, it should be direct and to the point, but enough to allow the reader to fully grasp the idea so we can properly examine it through Russell3. Introduce Russell’s response to Hume *Unfortunately, I’m having difficulty with Russell*– I believe he directly responds in Chapter 6 of his book with his Principle of Induction– Principle of Induction is in two parts; (1) The greater the number of cases of two events being consistently associated with each other, the more probable their future associations will be and (2) A sufficient number of cases of the association of A with B will make it nearly certain that A is always associated with B, and will make this general law approach certainty without limit– From here, Russell’s theory of our knowledge of General Principles should be evaluated– If necessary, Russell’s theory of our A Priori knowledge should be mentioned– And, lastly for Russell, I believe his theory of Universals and our knowledge of Universals should be relevant as well4. Russell’s response should be the majority of the essay, perhaps 2/4 or 3/5 of the essay. It should cover what is directly relevant without unnecessary details5. A reflection and critical evaluation of Russell’s response. What do you think of Russell’s objection? Is it valid? Does it defeat Hume’s solution to the doubt? Kindly explain why you think it does or it doesn’t.For This or a Similar Paper Click Here To Order Now
Menu
