Hume points out a few similarities between animals and us humans, such as the concept of blood circulation and the ability to learn by experience. He points out one method of experience: the reward and punishment system. As far as rewards go, a child may get money for good grades on a report card, or a dog may get a treat if it performs a trick correctly. But as far as punishment goes, a child might get grounded if he gets bad grades, and a dog may be sent to it's crate if it misbehaves. Both species learn by experience that if they do something good, they will be rewarded. Hume goes on to say humans and animals alike also contain instinctive traits. This includes the ability to judge whether something is right or wrong such as a gut feeling before an iffy act. Whereas an example of an instinctive trait for an animal could be how Husky's have the natural instinct to run away, or a dog has a natural instinct to howl when it hears others. I think what Hume is trying to get at here is that we are more closely bonded to animals than we think we are. What do you think?

Probability and Chance

Section 6 of Hume's Enquiry goes over chance and probability. Hume claims that the concept of chance does not even exist. It is our ignorance of the real cause of any event that has similar influence on the understanding. On the other side of the spectrum, he does claim that probability is existant. But I see the subject a little differently. There is chance in probability. If something is in fact probably, it has a chance of occuring. Therefore chance does in fact exist, but chance relies on probability. But then we can look at it from a different angle and say that they are almost the same thing. This is really really confusing so please comment on this!

Of Miracles

Hume infers that miracles are violations of nature, seeing as when you pray to God, you are asking him to violate the natural pattern of something. According to Hume, evidence favoring that a miracle is in fact a miracle will always be proven wrong by evidence of a natural law which has supposedly been violated. This is a very controversial statement seeing the multiple medical "miracles" that have been witnessed over the years (Malignant brain tumors suddenly disappearing, terminal illnesses letting people live years longer than they've been expected to, etc.). Then again, one could say all of those are explainable if examined scientifically, so that statement Hume makes is truly up in the air.

Of the Association of Ideas

Hume attempts to distinguish between relative ideas and matters of fact. Relative ideas are in a sense mathematical truths, so we cannot count them out without contradicting ourselves. Matters of fact are the truths we learn through experience. We comprehend matters of fact through cause and effect, seeing that an experience leads us to assume a cause unbenknownst to us yet. Hume argues that cause and effect assumptions involving two events aren't necessarily true. It is possible for a simple connection to be contradictory seeing that a simple connect is usually an assumption most likely without reason.

Of the Origin of Ideas

Hume points out that there is a the difference between impressions and ideas. Impressions start outside us and travel through our senses, our emotions, and other mental sense we may contain. On the other hand, our thoughts or ideas, beliefs and convictions, or any memories that we may have connect to or derive from our impressions. He claims that we construct our ideas from basic impressions either through effect, resemblance, or continuation.

Hume: Miracles

Hume defines a miracle as: "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."

Hume's definition means, that God can break his own rules in nature. But why would God break his own rules that he created himself? Why would he let something slide and make an exception, it would make him just as human as anyone else then. Simply, miracles don't exist, the believer most likely experienced something overwhelming, or storytelling a miracle severely mutilated down along the lines of communication. Furthermore some of the miracles, actually all of them are scientifically impossible or have some sort of thorn in the side of the story that seems far from ever being true.

Hume: Sceptical Ideas?

"that causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason but by experience" (p.17)

Probably one of the most given and used quotes ever, Hume lays it out simply: you need experience to know what the cause and effect are. Cause and effect can be predicted with sciences, evaluated with mathematical equations in some cases and theorized by many people; however you will never know the true outcome of the effect or even cause for that matter unless you preform an experiment and achieve the experience. Is Hume insecure? Does he think sciences and math can't prove a point? Does one really need to see it to believe it? In contemporary times, we believe some things we are told and never actually see proof. We are taught based on facts and built up data that makes logical sense.

Hume: Ideas

"All ideas, especially abstract ones, are naturally faint and obscure: the mind has but a slender hold of them: they are apt to be confounded with other resembling ideas; and when we have often employed any term, though without a distinct meaning, we are apt to imagine it has a determinate idea annexed to it. On the contrary, all impressions, that is, all sensations, either outward or inward, are strong and vivid: the limits between them are more exactly determined: nor is it easy to fall into any error or mistake with regard to them." (p.13)

After reading this segment in the origin of ideas section in Hume's book, I re-read it and analyzed it some more. I believe he is trying to point out that abstract ideas are suppose to be unclear and hazy. He seems to make it clear that it's okay for abstract thoughts to exist, it's a part of understanding. However, these abstract thoughts don't have many connections and memories in our minds, so we find come common connections to associate them with. By associating them with another concept, idea or object we can understand the abstract concept, even clarify it to the point of breaking free of the abstract unclear feeling of a thought.

Impressions and sensations, internal or external and definite and present. You know they exist and there is no unclear feeling about an impression because its your own opinion. Sensations are clear because there needs no clarifying about what you feel. You cannot mistake being nervous for being happy, I believe thats what Hume is trying to get across. Your view on someone is your own opinion and feelings towards them, therefore it is definite and has to exist because you are the creator.

book 2, chapter 33

"Something unreasonable in most men. There is scarce any one that does not observe something that seems odd to him, and is in itself really extravagant, in the opinions, reasonings, and actions of other men. The least flaw of this kind, if at all different from his own, every one is quick-sighted enough to espy in another, and will by the authority of reason forwardly condemn; though he be guilty of much greater unreasonableness in his own tenets and conduct, which he never perceives, and will very hardly, if at all, be convinced of."

Locke seems like he's trying to expalain that men have a flaw in picking apart themselves. At least how i percieved it. Women seem to pick apart themselves and over analyze their actions, personalities and apperance. Men however seem to give little attention when compared to women.


"Another instance. A man receives a sensible injury from another, thinks on the man and that action over and over, and by ruminating on them strongly, or much, in his mind, so cements those two ideas together, that he makes them almost one; never thinks on the man, but the pain and displeasure he suffered comes into his mind with it, so that he scarce distinguishes them, but has as much an aversion for the one as the other. Thus hatreds are often begotten from slight and innocent occasions, and quarrels propagated and continued in the world."

Another concept of men and their thought process, men seem to combine a tragic event and the person whom inflicted the harm as one. Feelings and emotions are later on ruptured when the thought or sight of the same person who previously inflicted the emotion or pain.

A third instance. A man has suffered pain or sickness in any place; he saw his friend die in such a room: though these have in nature nothing to do one with another, yet when the idea of the place occurs to his mind, it brings (the impression being once made) that of the pain and displeasure with it: he confounds them in his mind, and can as little bear the one as the other.

This seems to be a common issue in contemporary times, people are scared of rooms or places where people have died.

Locke. book 2, chapter 31

I don't quite understand Locke's definition of adequate. He breaks ideas into two groups. One seems to be "simple" depending on archtype and the other "a partial or incomplete representation of those archetypes". What is the difference between ideas being adequate or ideas of substances. I believe all educated ideas have substance to them simple or not. I feel Descartes was a little more clear when it came to concepts and ideas that were new to a reader.

Ideas referred to anything my be true or falsea

"Whenever the mind refers any of its ideas to anything extraneous to them, they are then capable to be called true or false." This is true, but only to a certain extent. Locked doesn't take into account the state of being unsure. There are obviously times in life when you cannot deem something to be true or false, therefore the in between marker would be uncertainty. To deem something either true or false everytime your mind analyzes something is a ridiculous concept because sometimes we are not presented with enough evidence to ascertain a conclusion.