Essay on Concerning Hume's Natural Philosophy

Hume, in Section 3 of his EHU, states that there are three principles of association of ideas.  Which are these?  Can you provide two examples of each different from the ones he has provided in his text?

Throughout the reading of Hume’s EHU, he gives several examples to support his claim that there appears to only be three principles of association of ideas. Those “three principles of [connection] among ideas, [are], Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect” [2nd1963: 19]. Resemblance means a way in which two or more things are alike. But Hume does not talk about how two objects that are in front of you are similar, but when you look at an object, meaning person, place, or thing, it reminds you of another object that had or has similarities. Contiguity is the state of bordering or being in direct contact with something, although, Hume does not refer to this term in the literal sense the psychological sense. In psychology contiguity is the sequential occurrence or proximity of stimulus and response, causing their association in the mind. Finally, cause and effect, the principle of causation, describes a relationship between actions or events in which at least one action or event is a direct result of the others. One thing Hume is very adamant about is that you cannot always predict the effect from a certain cause, that is unless you have already experienced the situation. Below are some examples of each of Hume’s three principles of association of ideas as well as my reaction and response to his reasoning.

    Resemblance is one of the three principles of association of ideas due to the fact that when you see a picture of something, naturally your mind is flooded with thoughts of the original. Resemblance, as mentioned before, is also present when looking “upon the appearance of the picture of an absent friend, our idea of him is evidently enlivened by the resemblance, and that every passion, which that idea occasions, whether of joy or sorrow, acquires new force and vigour” [2nd1963: 41], the sheer power that resemblance has is incredible. Looking at a picture of a friend or family member can generate an insane amount of emotion and imagery of those memories you had with that person. Resemblance does not just revolve around pictures and places you have been, but also items you have used and seen in the past. Hume states “when a new object, endowed with similar sensible qualities, is produced, we expect similar powers and forces, and look for a like effect” [2nd1963: 32]. For example, when a new yo-yo toy is produced but instead of traditional round sides, they are jagged, the expected outcome is that it will still work the same way as the traditional yo-yo. The new yo-yo resembles similar features of the traditional yo-yo, therefore, the process of using the object and the result of using the object should also be similar. That being said, the conclusion that the new yo-yo should work the same as the old yo-yo, comes from the experience of using a yo-yo. Now in the event that the nature of the toy changes, the internal components are different shapes and sizes than the traditional, the experience of using the toy becomes useless. Experience plays a large part in the concept of resemblance but when the course of nature changes on the object, the experience can no longer play a part in producing an inference or conclusion.

Contiguity is the hardest concept to understand of the three principles of association of ideas, but Hume provides numerous amounts of examples that help comprehend the concept. One of the first examples Hume presents that allow for better comprehension of contiguity is “the mention of one apartment in a building naturally introduces an enquiry or discourse concerning the others” [2nd1963: 19]. From this, the inference is made that because there is a concern with one apartment unit in the building, they must check all the other units in the building are undergoing the same situation. Due to the proximity of the units, there is an association created in the mind that it may not be just one apartment experiencing the situation but could be multiple. The contiguity that Hume references throughout the text are related to the psychological definition of the concept. Meaning that the sequential occurrence or proximity of stimulus and response causes their association in the mind. Which also relates contiguity to the concept of cause and effect. Of the three principles of association of ideas, contiguity is the most prevalent concept. Another example Hume leads us with is that “contiguity to home can never excite our ideas of home, unless we believe that it really exists” [2nd1963: 44], this is because contiguity can bring associated ideas to life and bring more vivacity and force when it is paired with resemblance. Contiguity does not operate upon our senses, but discovers itself through the mind, often through resemblance. Contiguity by itself is not as strong, for example, when going back to the home you grew up in, you would think of the family members in the house, maybe the cars in the driveway, but once you enter the house and it smells like the last meal your mother cooked, you immediately get a mass number of memories. The weight of the memory comes from the resemblance of the senses, at the beginning, it was only contiguous thoughts of relatives and items in the time you lived at that house. Contiguity is the most prevalent because it occurs in the mind, not so much in the senses, and contributes to both resemblance and cause and effect.

    The concept of cause and effect is quite simple, practically everything that goes on in life is due to cause and effect. Hume gives the example, “if we think of a wound, we can scarcely forbear reflecting on the pain which follows it” [2nd1963: 19], because of the wound, we are able to realize the effect is excruciating pain. Vice versa, when someone tells you they are in a large amount of pain, and you notice they are enduring a wound, it is a matter of fact that the wound is causing the pain. In the text, Hume proposes the question “What is the nature of all our reasonings concerning matter of fact?” [2nd1963: 28], to put it simply, his answer is due to the relation of cause and effect. He is then asked a second question, “What is the foundation of all our reasonings and conclusions concerning that relation [of cause and effect]?” [2nd1963: 28], his response; experience. Both of his answers support each other, you can infer the effect of certain causes through experiencing either or both the cause and effect before. Without experience, trying to infer an effect of a cause never seen before, is impossible. Some believe you could use reason to determine the outcome, but Hume uses an analogy of two billiard balls colliding with another. While watching them go toward each other it is hard to tell which way they will go after the collision. Will the white ball stay still, will it bounce off the table, will it follow the other ball? Hume suggests the only way to pronounce with certainty what is going to happen is through experience. Furthermore, “this proposition, which causes, and effects are discoverable, not by reason but by experience” [2nd1963: 24], can be explained through Hume’s marble stone example. If you place two smooth slabs of marble in front of a person with no previous knowledge of working with marble, he will struggle to understand that because the large slabs of marble are pushed together, they will be stuck together and require an incredible amount of force to pull them apart. But through experience, one can have the correct knowledge on how to pull the two slabs apart correctly and safely without breaking them. This proves his theory to be correct, that causes, and effects are discovered through experience and not through reason, which is why cause and effect is one of the three principles of association of ideas.