| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "DAVID HUME MIRACLES": |
|
|
David Humes: "Of Miracles", 2004.
Examines the debate of miracles presented by David Humes' work, "Of Miracles".
1,989 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper begins by stating Humes' definition of miracles, which helps to narrow down exactly what the author is considering by using the word "miracle". It then goes on to discuss Humes' consideration of evidence, his argument pertaining to the passion of surprise and wonder involved in miracles, his comments on the "beginnings" of miracles, and lastly the contradictions of miracles among various religions. The author's conclusion blends Humes' argument with her own beliefs, forming a debate of faith and reason in relation to miracles. The paper quotes the text extensively.
From the Paper
"If the knowledge is not readily available to prove such a miracle wrong, it would become ever more possible that it could gain followers and support. Once such a thing is proved to be false, everyone, even the strongest believers, come to agree. For instance, when the world was proved to be round, even though throughout history everyone believed it to be flat, the evidence and sources were undeniable. Likewise, with miracles, every phenomenal event has probably stemmed from humble and innocent beginnings, that develop into an uncertain force to refute."
| |
|
David Hume's ?On Miracles?.
This paper discusses philosopher David Hume's concept that there can be no evidence for miracles, based on his essay "On Miracles", Section Ten of "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding".
1,620 words (approx. 6.5 pages), 0 sources, $ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that David Hume argues that there can be no evidence for miracles, in spite of the many claims made for miracles throughout historical and religious literature; if there were evidence for a "miracle", then it would no longer be a miracle but rather just a new scientific fact. The author points out that miracles are mostly based on claims and testimony and not at all on hard evidence; the more outlandish the claims, the more probable it is that the testimony is false even if the witness is credible. The paper stresses that, according to Hume, belief in the miracles in the Bible is an extension of this human psychological need.
From the Paper
"Therefore, the laws of religion cannot be classified as the laws of nature. Miracles are in most cases permitted by the laws of religion but not by the laws of nature. Hume does not deny the efficacy of religion, but he does want to distinguish the laws of religion from the laws of science. The laws of science are based on direct human experience, which is backed up by the experiences of others and found to be consistent and reliable over time. Few people know someone who has experienced a "miracle," let alone having experienced one first hand. When we do experience a "miracle" first hand, there is usually a scientific explanation for the experience."
| |
|
David Hume on Miracles, 2006.
A discussion of Hume's philosophy regarding life after death and miracles.
2,743 words (approx. 11.0 pages), 20 sources, MLA, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper shows Hume's opinion that life after death does not exist, and neither do miracles. The writer discusses the influence Hume had on Kant and the differences between them. In conclusion, the writer explains how Hume protects himself from criticism of the church by stating that religion is founded on faith, and not on reason. The writer posits that the reason Hume left the Presbyterian seminary was because he knew he could not positively answer the final question before ordination: "Do you believe in God?"
From the Paper
"But how does Hume know that no one has ever been seen alive after having been seen to be dead? After all, there are plenty of reports of raisings from the dead in the Bible. Presumably Hume thinks all those reports are false. But how does he know that? It looks as if he is saying that they must be false because miracles just don't happen. In this case what Hume is using is circular logic. Miracles don't happen because there are no such things as miracle thus miracles can't happen.
"Hume puts no faith in human testimony either. In his opinion no amount or quality of human testimony could be sufficient to outweigh the negative evidence. He seems close to saying that you can know in advance, and without looking at any of the favorable evidence, that all miracle reports are false "
| |
|
David Hume's and Skepticism, 2002.
Discusses philosopher, David Hume's argument against the Skeptic movement and illuminates three problems found in this argument.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 6 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
David Hume was an undeniably brilliant philosopher who, at times, suffered in his writing the inability to adequately express his actual philosophy and thoughts. One of his most stunning arguments was, in actuality, a refutation of the Skeptics, a movement started in great part by Descartes, who attempted to convince Aristotelian philosophers that our experiences with the world are based solely upon our senses and, as such, our senses and thus our perception of the world and reality can be deceived. Therefore, the skeptic encourages us to question the validity of trusting only our senses for our knowledge of the world. While Descartes' and the other Skeptics' arguments were and continue to be the stuff of philosophical cliche (the "prove you exist" argument) the truth is that, as David Hume points out, there is no real point in pondering whether or not we actually exist. The fact of this futility is proven in the very real problem in that if we assume that the universe is the individual creation of just the "I", then the very same person is also taking on the role of God, which, according to Hume and others like him, is an impossibility. The ultimate end of the Skeptics argument, if you follow it to its logical conclusion, is that it is possible that all of us are the creation of some one person's imagination and that, as such, our existence is subject to the whims of one person's perception of reality and the self. Hume's argument, that such skeptical investigations of reality and the actuality of the self is pointless, is one which has a great deal of validity. But, there are counter arguments to his counter-argument, and in the interests of a full academic exploration of his philosophy, it is necessary to explore some of those arguments. It is the purpose of this paper, then, to examine three problems found in Hume's argument and to demonstrate that the exploration of reality from a skeptical point of view is nothing more than an exercise of thought, one that can ultimately only lead lead to psychological diagnoses of breaks in sanity rather than a treatise on our actual reality.
| |
|
David Hume, 2004.
This is a paper that discusses the beliefs of the Scottish philosopher David Hume.
65,535 words (approx. 262.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 7,127.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses some of the ideas of the 18th century Scottish philosopher, David Hume. The writer examines Hume's concept of cause and effect. David Hume's use of reason versus experience is discussed in this paper. The writer also looks at Hume's view of religion.
From the Paper
"David Hume was an eighteenth century Scottish philosopher and historian. He believed that the biggest obstacle to improvement in the moral or metaphysical sciences was what he referred to as the obscurity of the ideas and ambiguity of the terms. Hume argued that conventional definitions defining terms in terms of other terms create confusion by substituting synonyms for the original and thus never break new ground. Stephen Miller writing in "Wilson Quarterly" explains that Hume believed determining the cognitive content of a idea or term required ... "
| |
|
David Hume, 2007.
This paper looks at the beliefs and works of philosopher, historian and economist David Hume.
4,340 words (approx. 17.4 pages), 0 sources, MLA, $ 114.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that David Hume was seen as a very prominent figure in history both in the Scottish enlightenment and in Western philosophy. The writer notes that interest in Hume's work in recent years has become more centered on the philosophical writing that he did, but it was for being a historian that he originally gained some notoriety. The writer points out that much of what Hume had to say became closely involved with others as they examined their own philosophies and ideas. This made Hume's work much more significant because so much of what he stated and believed in was studied by others and expanded on as time passed. The writer concludes that Hume meant a great deal to many philosophers, and this is part of the reason that his work is still so alive and important today while the work of others of his time have not been as closely studied.
From the Paper
"In David Hume's article on empiricism, he attempts to show how some things that people believe to be real are the product of false knowledge, and there is a difference between things that people perceive to be true and things that actually are true. Hume's theory is that only things that can be proven, such as mathematics, are absolutely true. Other things may seem to be true because something usually happens related to something else, but even though this seems to always be the case there is room for argument in that it does not have to be the case every time, simply because it has happened that way in the past. Hume believes that the only truth is mathematical truth, and that there are many other things in the world that people falsely perceive to be true because they have not subjected those things to an examination that is serious enough to show otherwise."
| |
|
Philosopher David Hume, 2007.
This paper examines the modern classical philosophy of David Hume.
2,960 words (approx. 11.8 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 87.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in his essay "Of the Original Contract", David Hume affirmed that the sovereign power of the government emanated from the people themselves; thus, the people have the power to resist the sovereign power of the government whenever the government fails to do its intended job. The author points out that, in general, contractarianism is an agreement between the society and the people in power for the purpose of maintaining peace and order. The paper relates that Hume focused not on the power of the individual, but on the power of these individuals as group or community. The author also notes Hume's belief that, without a society, there is no government but there can still be a society even without a government.
Table of Contents:
Contractarianism and its Forms
Hume on the Variants of Contractarianism
Hume in his own Refutations
Modernity and Civil Society
From the Paper
"One will also notice that as to compare with other contractarians, given the situation, David Hume justified the resistance and disobedience on the part of the people from the sovereign government. It is also noticeable that his concept of contract is far less individualistic and statist. I believe so because Hume focused not on the power of the individual but on the power of these individuals as group or community. I believe this subject, the power of the community, is the consent of the people rendered and given to the government."
| |
|
David Hume, 2008.
An overview of the views and writings of David Hume.
1,831 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The author of this paper describes the work of David Hume and refers to him as "probably the greatest philosopher to write in English". The paper then goes on to explain Hume's ideology as well as his interests in the social sciences including economics, politics and literature and their place in the development of mankind.
From the Paper
"Adam Smith is normally noted when discussing the beginnings of economics. However, it was his friend, David Hume, who wrote the "Political Discourses" as part of Essays and Treatises, part 2 of Essays Moral and Political, who is believed to have been a major influence. Hume is probably the greatest philosopher to write in English, and it is chiefly as a philosopher that he is read in modern times (Chappell), not only because of his enlightened ideology, but because of his interests in the social sciences including economics as well as politics and literature and their place in the development of mankind. His philosophical writings were wide and deep, especially on the balance of trade and thoughts on mercantilism."
| |
|
David Hume and the Idea Of Necessary Connection, 2008.
A review of the concepts of necessary connection in David Hume's essay, "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding."
943 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes and reviews David Hume's essay, "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding," in which he attempts to show what we do and do not know about causation. It analyzes Hume's arguments in his essay, particularly with respect to the idea of necessary connection and presents examples of how Hume's arguments can be applied to day-to-day life.
From the Paper
"Hume's Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a remarkable essay, and to grasp it fully requires maintaining the rigid intellectual distinctions that Hume did maintain. Again, his inquiry focuses on what we know about the world, not what the world is or how it behaves. Indeed, Hume concludes that what we know about the world is limited, and we must rely on our limited understanding to allow us to carry on our day-to-day affairs. Hume set himself apart from the rationalist metaphysicians, who wrestled with questions about the nature of the universe, whether or not there is a God, and the immortality of soul. Hume's inquiry was essentially a preliminary to this: how do we know what we know. How can we ask if there is a God if we cannot know what the causal connection is in the world around us."
| |
|
David Hume, 2002.
An analysis of the arguments in "A Treatise on Human Nature" by David Hume.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper offers a detailed summary of the arguments in David Hume's book, "A Treatise on Human Nature". The author supports her interpretations by quotes, focuses upon Hume's content rather than his style, and evaluates the merits of Hume's arguments.
| |
|
David Hume, 2004.
An analysis of David Hume's ideas about government and politics.
998 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the article by David Hume entitled "That Politics May be Reduced to a Science", examining the nature of government and the differences which create argument and dissension. The paper explains that some maintain that all the goodness of government derives from the goodness of the administration, which also means that a bad government derives from a bad administration. Examples are cited showing that this is the case and Hume states that all absolute governments depend on the administration, which he sees as a weakness in the form of government. On the other hand, he states that a republican and free government would be an absurdity unless there were real controls imposed by a constitution. Hume then discusses the nature of law in regard to government and thereby attempts to reduce politics to a science.
From the Paper
"Hume's analysis of government is extensive and detailed, including different types of ruler and the characteristics that such a ruler might manifest. He discusses the Nobility and its behavior in office. This leads to his statement of an axiom he says is universal, that "an hereditary prince, a nobility without vassals, and a people voting by their representatives, form the best monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy" (76). This statement is further an example of the sort of general truths that Hume says can be made about politics and that, therefore, can make politics a science."
| |
|
David Hume's "Inquiry IV", 2006.
This paper discusses David Hume's views on matters of fact in his "Inquiry IV".
690 words (approx. 2.8 pages), 2 sources, $ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews David Hume's "Inquiry IV" on matters of fact and relation of ideas, geometry and value, cause and effect. The author presents Hume's conclusions on matters of thought. The paper compares Hume to Descartes.
From the Paper
"David Hume considered the nature of thought and drew two important conclusions. First, an idea is real only if it is derived from or reducible to sense impressions and, second ,a term is meaningful only if it stands ..."
| |
|
David Hume on Human Judgements, 2005.
This paper discusses 'Section VII" of David Hume's "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" which concludes that reason and rational judgments are merely habitual associations based on previous experiences.
1,440 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that 'Section VII" of David Hume's "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" opens by differentiating the mental processes associated with the exact and provable mathematical nature of science in the natural world and what he calls "the finer sentiments of the mind". The author points out that Hume recognizes the validity of science and the physical world and does not dispute the logical deductions made from observance and experimentation; however, he says knowledge itself is not a finite object that is subject to science and mathematics. The paper stresses that Hume does not question of God exists or whether man has a sou but rather he says that these things are not known and therefore causal theories, which rest on the supposition that they do exist, cannot be true.
From the Paper
"He uses the sun rising every day as an example, inferring that the fact that the sun has always risen every day does not, logically at least, mean that it will rise tomorrow. The reason that the sun rises every day is a function of physics, and the fact that the sun rises one day is not connected to its rising the previous day, but to those laws of physical motion. Thoughts, ideas and impressions cannot be measured in physical terms. A weakness in this argument would seem to be that he is separating deductive reasoning based on observable facts from the conclusions established in the mind regarding these facts. While he dismisses thought as an abstraction separate from science, he contends that space and time are the way impressions occur to us and these abstractions are the basis of ideas."
| |
|
David Hume, 2005.
Analysis of the first major work, "Treatise on Human Nature," by the English philosopher, David Hume.
2,807 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper begins with a look at the differences between empiricist and rationalist philosophies and then launches into a summary and analysis of David Hume's "Treatise on Human Nature".
From the Paper
"Hume argues that he cannot make the hypotheses of the moral rationalists intelligible. Reason, Hume argues, judges either of matters of fact or of relations. Morality never consists in any single matter of fact that can be immediately perceived, or understood by reason alone; morality for rationalists must thus involve the perception of relations. Inanimate objects and animals can bear the same relationship to one another that humans can. However, humans do not draw the same moral conclusions from what objects or animals do as when humans do the same. Even if humans could indeed determine a correct subject-matter for the moral rationalist, the situation would exist that the understanding has no more room to operate, so the praise or blame that follows cannot be the work of reason (Price, 1968, p. 73)."
| |
|
David Hume's Philosophy, 2006.
This paper argues that David Hume's definitions of determinism and necessity are not compatible.
1,453 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that, within the confines of Hume's definition of liberty and necessity in his "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding", Hume claims that free will and necessity are compatible; however, outside his definitions, the theory falls apart. The author points out that Hume's definition of necessity starts with his deterministic beliefs. The paper relates issues of the incompatibility of these two concepts and the definitions Hume uses to explain them: (1) Laws to human behavior always have exceptions; (2) Hume's analysis of what is required for responsibility helps to explain why it is useless to deny determinism by appealing to the existence of chance events in the world to disprove Hume's definition of liberty and, (3) if Hume's definition of liberty with the "could-have-done-otherwise" principle are replace, the compatibility of liberty and necessity disappears.
From the Paper
"If you combine Hume's determinism concerning human actions with his theory of causation, you basically have his working definition of necessity. Hume believes that there are observable, constant conjunctions between motives (including character traits) and actions in human behavior and goes so far as to claim if one were to look over human history, one discovers that the "same motives always produce the same actions." In Hume's conception of the world, it would be a violation of the law of nature for a prior event to occur and a subsequent event not to and this picture of the universe as law-governed applies just as much to human actions as it does to the behavior of the rest of the natural world."
|
|
|
