Introduction: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and David Hume (1711-1776) are two of the most influential and remarkable philosophers who have ever lived. Their perspectives on various subjects have certainly left a dent on the topics of literature, history, and philosophy. They were not afraid of turning away from common knowledge, and reinventing certain understandings about the world. Each of these philosophers were known for their new, innovative, and challenging ideas. The topic of causality (the relation between an event and a second event, where the first event is understood to be responsible for the second) was one specifically discussed by both men with great intensity, and their respective opinions shaped the minds of hundreds upon hundreds …show more content…
This is true because of three reasons: firstly, Hume takes on a completely skeptical approach to the matter, not allowing any space for discussion. He, in basic terms, states that the relationship between cause and effect does not exist. On the other hand, Kant is more flexible, stating that, in some way, Hume is right, but in many ways, he is not. Second is the fact that, in his argument, Hume uses his understanding of empiricism and solely that to form a conclusion, while Kant uses traces of both empiricism and rationalism to explain his theory. Lastly, it is clear that Hume limits the mind. He gives no importance to the tool that is responsible for the progress of humanity, by solely talking about the importance of experience and the senses. Kant, again, is not biased, and uses both experience and reason as a basis to his argument, thus giving both these elements strength. These are three of the reasons why Immanuel Kant´s ideas on the relationship between cause and effect are more acceptable than that on David Hume. Kant is less skeptical, has a broader range and variety of arguments, and does not limit his understanding to one aspect of …show more content…
Empiricism and rationalism are mainly used in their arguments, but Kant and Hume make use of them differently. Hume uses a more skeptical, ruthless approach, while Kant is accepting of that, but has his own ideas. An example of this is clearly found in one of the titles of a section in David Hume´s book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, which is: Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding. The word “skeptical” is employed by the author in an attempt to show the reader his opinion on the subject. Hume states that knowledge about the relationship of cause and effect is not attained by a priori reasoning, which is knowledge independent of experience, and that it only comes from experience. In other words, Hume is stating that, without experience, a relationship between cause and effect does not exist, and that it is not at all dependent on reason. This approach is, needless to say, very skeptical, and some may even say