University Philosophy: Kant and Hume's Theories on Causation, Freedom

This assignment delves into the philosophical concepts of Kant and Hume, focusing on their contrasting views on transcendental idealism, causation, freedom, and determinism. The analysis begins by exploring Kant's transcendental idealism, emphasizing the role of priori knowledge and experience in shaping perception and understanding. The assignment then examines the concept of causation through the lens of Kantian philosophy, using a scenario involving a cat's actions to illustrate the application of his theories. The paper further contrasts Kant and Hume's perspectives on freedom, determinism, and the relationship between them. The assignment highlights the differences in their approaches to these concepts, including their views on how individuals should exercise freedom and how determinism interacts with free will. The paper also provides examples to illustrate the practical implications of their theories. The assignment is a take-home term test for a philosophy course, requiring students to explain the ideas of Kant and Hume clearly and precisely, demonstrating their understanding of the concepts discussed.

Section 1
Question 1
The philosophy of transcendental idealism correlates the “The nature of Appearance,” “The
nature of the objects in themselves” and “the relation of the things to the appearance which is
visible to humans.” Philosopher Immanuel Kant described transcendental idealism more
precisely by stating that all propositions are priories and every priori can be explained with the
help of mathematics or logic (Kant’s Transcendental Idealism, 2016). This connection of
perception and logic further explains that the previous experiences and knowledge of a person
plays an active role in the development of experience about an object. With the help of
transcendental idealism, Kant established a thesis according to which the establishment of “time
and space” associated with the objects is an essential ingredient for an experience related to the
object. Knowledge, justification, and arguments are the necessary elements of a priori for the
completion of epistemology driven circle associated with observation and experience related to
any object (Kant, 2009).
The elements of the priori help a human to generalize the experience and add content in the
thoughts, in the absence of content; empty thoughts can never initiate and resolve a priori.
Section 2
Question 3
The temporal order of the events can define three activities of the principal subject or the human.
1. He climbed up on the ladder.
2. He perceived pictures on the wall, one after another.

3. He realizes that the cat is passing by him on the same path.
4. He saw the cat slipping over a paper and falling.
The Kantian theory of causation defines that every event that takes place has a definitive
connection with any previous event. It means either it is a reaction of any previous event or it is
an output of some necessary action that was required at the same time and space. Further, he
described the nature of the events where he said that precondition is a possibility of previous
object relative experience (Klengled, 2017).
From the Kantian point of view, it can be seen that Rosie was not having any previous
experience associated with the slippery nature of the paper; Rosie compared it with many other
surfaces that were fit for running. The lack of the exact experience turned out to become the
cause of an event.
Kantian point of view is also applicable to the principle subject or the human; he should have
looked at the floor instead of empty walls. Under this condition, he could sense the threat which
was on the cards for Rosie. Inattentiveness of the human subject thus defines the cause behind
the slip of the cat.
Question 4
According to Kant, Rosie purrs because she presupposes my touch and the delight that she
receives, it is not an empty thought, it is full of previous pleasant memories. Hume, on the other
hand, will explain it as the naturalistic impression of pleasure.
Section 3
Question 5

(a) The difference between the types of freedom as explained by Kant and Hume
Kant explained that a free person should practice his freedom under the guidance of reasons and
logics that can alert him about the consequences and help him in adding purity into the act.
However, this type of freedom connects the acts of an individual with consequences and norms
that are prevailing in the society. Kant’s freedom was dependent on the norms set by the
sovereign, society and other practices. According to Kant, freedom should be responsive to the
reasons.
Hume, on the other hand, defined freedom as the means to attain the necessity; however, it never
means that a person can adopt immoral conduct to fulfill his necessities. According to Hume,
social orders and sovereigns should ensure an environment where morality and purity of the
thoughts should remain as a necessity for human beings (Stevenson, 2010).
(b) Kant described determinism as a chain reaction between choices and physical acts done
by a person to meet with the choices. Kant connected the preceding states with a chain of
time and nature. Hume, on the other hand, defined determinism as an output of the
naturalistic interpretations caused by the situations. The Kantian framework defines an
incompatibility between free will and determinism because of the presence of logic and
consequences. Hume’s determinism, however, shows compatibility with the free will
because under this condition one event leads towards the other (Bricke, 2018).
(c) For instance, jumping a red light on an empty square can be defined with the help of
determinism. The Kantian framework suggests that I should abide by the laws set by the
traffic department. It also reminds me of certain experiences of mishaps. Hume’s
framework suggests that Red signals are designed to regulate the traffic; they are not

present to bring a halt on the traffic. However, the necessity of the safety and normative
value associated with the presence of the red signals prevents me to cross it (Hume,
2014).

References
Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. (2016). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/.
Bricke, J. (2018). Hume, Freedom to Act, and Personal Evaluation. HPQ,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27743849?seq=1.
Hume. (2014). Hume on Free Will. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/.
Kant, I. (2009). Kant on Freedom. Ohio State University, https://u.osu.edu/freewill/kant-on-
freedom/.
Klengled, P. (2017). Contradiction and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law. De Gruyter,
https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/kant/108/1/article-p89.xml.
Stevenson, L. (2010). Freedom of judgment in Descartes, Hume, Spinoza, and Kant. British
Journal for the History of Philosophy,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09608780410001676476?
journalCode=rbjh20.