A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DAVID HUME'S EMPIRICISM: AN IN-DEPTH EXPLORATION

ABSTRACT: The perpetual process of acquiring information is a fundamental aspect of human existence, which may not pose any apparent difficulties to individuals who are not well-versed in the intricacies of this process. However, philosophers throughout history have regarded these as significant controversies. However, within the field of philosophy, a particular focus has emerged within the subject of epistemology, which aims to examine the process by which knowledge is obtained.

Epistemology encompasses two prominent systems of thought, namely rationalism and empiricism. These two schools of thought, which examine the process of information acquisition, have emerged as contrasting perspectives. Rationalism posits that knowledge is obtained through the faculty of reason, whereas empiricism asserts that it is derived from sensory experience. Throughout the extensive chronicles of philosophy, David Hume has consistently upheld the empiricist perspective. Consequently, we have deemed it imperative to focus our efforts on critically analysing Hume's theory of empiricism. The primary objective of this endeavour is to ascertain whether Hume's theory comprehensively encompasses all conceivable knowledge of reality.

The current issue at hand pertains to the factors that may have influenced Hume's adoption of a radical stance, wherein he asserts that sense-experience serves as the sole reliable means for attaining knowledge that can be deemed certain. However, it is evident that this can be attributed to the pursuit of certain knowledge, a concept that Aristotle introduced by means of experimentation with concrete objects. This notion persisted through the eras of John Locke and George Berkeley, who emphasised the role of perception. It is clear that Hume was greatly influenced by this prevailing perspective. Hence, Hume's radical stance on the limitations of human knowledge emerged as a result of his incorporation of Locke and Berkeley's philosophical perspectives, which placed significant emphasis on sense perception.

Hume's classification of the objects of human reason encompassed two categories: relations of ideas and things of facts. He directed his focus towards the latter, asserting that they can solely be determined by sensory experience. He proceeded to argue that these sensory experiences are obtained as impressions during direct interaction with an object, and subsequently as ideas when the mind contemplates over these impressions.

From an analytical perspective, it can be observed that according to Hume, impressions serve as the sole means of assessing reality. He further maintained that thoughts in the mind must align with these impressions in order to be deemed as providing genuine knowledge. In summary, the attribution of reality to an entity necessitates the generation of an impression.

Hume posited that the concept of causality lacks ontological actuality due to the fact that our experiences solely consist of discrete antecedent and consequent events, without any inherent causal connection between them. The lack of impression generation and experiential accessibility renders all other philosophical ideas devoid of reality. Hume vehemently expressed his complete repudiation of metaphysics by advocating for the incineration of all literary works encompassing this philosophical discipline.

Despite the aforementioned factors, Hume's repudiation of metaphysics can be deemed a futile endeavour due to his reliance on the sensory-based technique of acquiring knowledge, which is not applicable to the realm of metaphysics.

This prompts us to question why Hume considers sense-experience as the sole criterion for assessing the veracity of reality. Are the senses not prone to error? Indeed, it is evident that they are. It is a rare occurrence for two individuals to see an object or phenomenon in an identical manner. This observation becomes even more apparent when considering illusions and hallucinations, as these phenomena serve to illustrate that our senses often provide us with subjective impressions rather than objective reality. Hence, it might be argued that this perspective reflects a flawed understanding of reality as a means of ensuring its own existence.

The information provided by our senses must be subjected to the scrutiny of human reason in order to be deemed as reliable and verifiable knowledge.