0 1. Hume fork

Hume's dichotomy of knowledge is called Hume's fork. It is a pioneer in the division of analytical proposition and comprehensive proposition in later western philosophical epistemology.

From Hume's fork, we can deduce many different knowledge standards, such as innate and acquired knowledge, analytical and comprehensive knowledge, inevitable and accidental knowledge, and the standards for distinguishing these knowledge have been broken by Hume's fork.

Based on this, Hume was able to grasp the key point of empirical reasoning and launched an in-depth discussion on causality.

02. Hume fork

Hume's problem is the most important and distinctive part in Hume's philosophy system. It profoundly and mercilessly reveals the characteristics and limitations of empirical reasoning from the level of cognitive methods, making empirical philosophy more attractive in his hands.

At the same time, it has fundamentally shaken the logical development direction of modern western philosophy, especially epistemology, and dealt a fatal blow to the mainstream concepts of western epistemology.

It can be said that Hume's persistent questioning of causality has played a dual role in opening up the field and destroying the foundation. It has made great contributions and dealt a heavy blow to western philosophy, so that everyone who understands Hume's problem can't help but feel shocked from the heart.

It is both profound and difficult to deal with, and it has not been fully answered until today. In fact, this is the charm of Hume's problem.

03. Hume fork

The proposition of Hume's problem depends on the classification of knowledge. In Hume's view, the objects of human cognition can be divided into two categories: one is "the relationship between ideas"; One kind is "fact".

Accordingly, all human knowledge is divided into two categories: one is intuitive and logical knowledge, including intuitive, mathematical and logical deduction knowledge, which is about the relationship between ideas; The other is knowledge that requires experience to make judgments, characterized by empirical reasoning, including knowledge about the existence and essence of reality, which is knowledge about facts.

It should be noted that Hume's distinction between two kinds of knowledge is not based on their sources.

04. Hume fork

In the final analysis, the ultimate source of all knowledge is sensory experience, whether it is knowledge about conceptual relationships or knowledge about facts; In the end, it all boils down to sensory experience, and there is no difference at this point.

The difference between them lies in the different characteristics of the two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge about the relationship between ideas is inherent and inevitable, and the relationship between them can only be judged by comparing the concepts themselves.

05. Hume fork

As long as the concept itself remains unchanged, their relationship will remain unchanged; Once the relationship is established, there will be no doubt. Taking mathematical knowledge as an example, mathematical knowledge has objectivity, inevitability and certainty. The reason why it can be objective, inevitable and certain is that the form of mathematical knowledge ensures logical inevitability, and its logical inevitability ensures objective inevitability. The proposition that the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides is to express a relationship between these graphs.

Another example: the proposition "three times five equals thirty divided by two" is to express a relationship between these days. This proposition can only be found through the function of thought, not based on anything that exists somewhere in the universe. Even though there are no circles and triangles in nature, the truth proved by Euclid remains reliable and self-evident. "

The characteristic of mathematical research is to show the logical relationship from a purely formal level, and its objectivity comes from the stipulation of logic.

06. Hume fork

In contrast, knowledge about facts does not have the almost perfect quality of the former knowledge.

It can't judge whether it is true or not by itself, but only by the actual state of external objects to judge their original knowledge. So this kind of knowledge is probabilistic, empirical and uncertain, that is, the stipulation of the object.

For example, the truth of the judgment that "the sun will rise tomorrow" is guaranteed by the fact that people see "the sun rises" every day and the relationship between yesterday's sun, today's sun and tomorrow's sun.

People need to go beyond the sensory experience of conceptual relationship to make judgments, and the objective existence of objects in experience stipulates the objective content of this knowledge.