As an empiricist, both Hume and Locke’s theory of perception are based on the simple statement of empiricism that knowledge is possible through experience. Even though Hume and Locke belong to same category I can still compare them with a few points. I shall first show how Hume explains about perception and compare it to Locke. Secondly, I shall further look into how Hume’s theory of perception can be led to a problem of induction and critically consider Hume’s own answer to the problem.
As an empiricist, Hume thought that every knowledge is possible through experience. To Hume, perception is the content of the experience or mind-related activities like feeling, stimulation from sensory organs and imagination etc. Hume divides this perception…show more content… Impressions are something that are current and vivid. Impressions are made when a person sees, feels, love, hate or desire and also kind of an experience. For example, I am siting on a chair and looking at snow coming down from the sky and think ‘Wow! snow in May!’. The fact that I am watching snow, color of snow, feeling of surprise surprise are all impressions. Impressions are all very specific and lifelike. But unlike impressions, ideas are made when I remember the snowy day. The objects of remembrance are ideas that Hume explains. These ideas would be very similar to the impression I had before but they are not as vivid or detailed as impressions. In this sense, Hume says that there’s no a priori because every ideas are from impressions and impressions are possible only after experience. But this argument doesn’t mean that we can only perceive things that are present and real because we do think about centaur and Ironman. Hume divides ideas into simple ideas and complex ideas. We cannot gain simple ideas without impressions. Ideas of color or shape are the example of simple ideas and it is inconceivable that we can get those ideas without experience. But complex ideas are the compound of simple…show more content… But we cannot grasp the causality through our sensory organs. To say that there is cause or effect is merely our speculation. Therefore, beliefs about causes and outcomes are inferential in nature because they are based on reasoning. In other words, according to Hume, the causalities of fact problems are in fact a kind of belief, as they relate to future, past, or present events beyond the scope of human sensory experience but not ‘matter of fact’ nor ‘relation of