Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
David Hume, a pivotal figure in the Scottish Enlightenment, fundamentally challenged traditional philosophical assumptions about knowledge and causality. His empiricist philosophy, outlined in *A Treatise of Human Nature* (1739-1740), posits that all knowledge originates from sensory experience. Hume distinguished between two types of truths: ‘relations of ideas’ – discoverable through reason alone, like mathematics – and ‘matters of fact’ – known through experience. The question asks whether Hume would consider the necessity of ‘The Sun will rise tomorrow’ and ‘2+2=4’ to be equivalent. Understanding Hume’s skepticism about necessary connections is key to answering this question.
Hume’s Distinction: Relations of Ideas vs. Matters of Fact
Hume argued that all reasoning is either demonstrative or probable. Demonstrative reasoning, concerning ‘relations of ideas’, deals with truths that are intuitively certain and independent of experience. Mathematical statements, like ‘2+2=4’, fall into this category. Their truth is discovered solely by comparing concepts, and denying them is logically contradictory. Probable reasoning, dealing with ‘matters of fact’, relies on experience and observation. Here, the connection between cause and effect is not logically necessary but based on constant conjunction observed in the past.
‘2+2=4’: A Relation of Ideas
For Hume, ‘2+2=4’ is a classic example of a relation of ideas. It is analytically true, meaning its truth is contained within the definitions of the terms themselves. We don’t need to observe the world to know this; it’s a truth grasped through pure reason. Denying it is a contradiction – it’s inconceivable. The necessity here is *logical* and absolute. Hume would argue that this truth is certain and indubitable because it’s based on the unchanging relations between concepts, not on contingent facts about the world.
‘The Sun will rise tomorrow’: A Matter of Fact
In contrast, ‘The Sun will rise tomorrow’ is a matter of fact. It’s based on our past experience of the sun rising every day. However, Hume argues that there’s no logical necessity guaranteeing this will continue. We infer the future from the past based on the principle of the uniformity of nature, but this principle itself lacks a rational foundation. We simply have a strong *habit* or *custom* of expecting the sun to rise, formed by repeated observation.
The Difference in Necessity
The necessity of ‘2+2=4’ is demonstrative and arises from the inherent logical structure of the statement. It’s a truth we can know with certainty. The necessity of ‘The Sun will rise tomorrow’ is merely probable, based on past experience and our psychological tendency to project patterns onto the future. It’s a belief formed by custom, not a logically demonstrable truth. Hume would argue that the ‘necessity’ in the latter case is a subjective feeling, not an objective feature of reality. He doesn’t deny we *believe* the sun will rise, but he insists this belief isn’t rationally justified in the same way as mathematical truths.
Table Summarizing the Differences
| Statement | Type of Truth (Hume) | Basis of Necessity | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2+2=4 | Relation of Ideas | Logical contradiction to deny | Absolute |
| The Sun will rise tomorrow | Matter of Fact | Custom and Habit based on past experience | Probable |
Conclusion
In conclusion, Hume would emphatically argue that the two truths are *not* of the same necessity. ‘2+2=4’ possesses a logical, demonstrative necessity rooted in the relations between ideas, while ‘The Sun will rise tomorrow’ relies on a psychological necessity derived from custom and habit. The former is certain and indubitable, the latter is merely probable. This distinction highlights Hume’s radical skepticism and his insistence that much of what we take to be knowledge is, in fact, a product of our subjective experience and ingrained habits of thought.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.