חדש באתר: NotebookLM עם כל תכני הרב מיכאל אברהם

Q&A: Hume and the Causal Connection

Back to list  |  🌐 עברית  |  ℹ About
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

Hume and the Causal Connection

Question

I read in The Sciences of Freedom that the Rabbi writes that Hume challenges the physical component of the causal connection. My question is: where does Hume write this? As far as I know, he challenges the logical component, doesn’t he?
And another question—

Regarding the logical component, how can one say that there is such a thing? Causes do not entail their effects, even if we accept strong determinism. Am I mistaken?
For Hume, the concept of causality includes: (1) temporal priority. (2) spatial contiguity. (3) a "necessary connection," by which he means some kind of dependence that goes beyond spatiotemporal proximity. Which of these is the physical component?
Thank you!

Answer

A, hello.
You yourself brought the relevant points. None of them is the physical component. Number 3 is logical necessity. The physical component is causation itself, meaning not only that "if A then B," but that "because of A, therefore B." If I remember correctly, the discussion is in his book A Treatise of Human Nature.
See also here on Wikipedia:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%93%D7%99%D7%99%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%93_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D#%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94
 
I didn’t understand your question about the logical component.

Discussion on Answer

A (2018-05-25)

My question is this: the Rabbi wrote in The Sciences of Freedom that Hume argued against the physical component of causality. So I asked: where did he write that? Hume doesn’t really relate to the physical component as a component of causality at all, only to the three components I mentioned above… so it’s not really clear to me where the Rabbi got that from.
Thank you

Michi (2018-05-25)

That’s what I wrote: he gave up on the physical component because he thought it was unnecessary and incorrect as part of the definition of causality. And indeed, his definition does not contain the physical component.

השאר תגובה

Back to top button