Hume’s lack of proof, provides the premise for Kant’s Proof

In further trying to affirm his work on transcendental philosophy, Kant “reiterates” the notion how one “can dispose thoroughly of the Humean doubt” (p.62). Hume’s doubt, skepticism, or uncertainty in regard to the concept of causality implies that through reason, and reason alone, an individual can not conclude that one event (cause) brings about another event (effect). Instead Hume asserts that the concept of causality is no more than an occurrence of unconnected events, transpiring within their own distinct times. It is only through habit that the mind perceives, and believes that cause and effect have a causal connection. For example in pool, we assume that by hitting the white ball (cause) at the black ball, it will consequently bring the effect of the black ball going into a specified direction (effect).

Kant praises Hume for hinting on the impossibility of there being an existing connection between cause and effect. Although, just as quickly, Kant turns around and reduces Hume’s work as nothing short of worthless because Hume did not proceed in searching for answers explaining why reason itself, cannot determine a relationship within the concept of causality (par. 10-11)? The question that arose while reading the section § 27 of Prolegomena, is why Kant insisted on reverting to undermining Hume when he (Kant) has already spoken and undermined Hume’s claims and skepticisms in the Preface of the Prolegomena? The answer to this question thereby, becomes the premise of this exposition: to assert that no matter how much a proposition is able legitimize itself within the underlying principles of metaphysics which give breadth to pure reason; in order to expand on existing propositions, one must revert to old ones, including those that could not withstand the critique of reason.

Kant examines Hume’s skepticism and empiricist stance, on cause and effect, concluding that Hume’s claim are insufficient due to its lack of thoroughness. Instead, Kant builds off of that insufficiency, and navigates avenues unknown, that Hume did not bother to travel or find. In the process, and to the end result, Kant ultimately proves “wrong” the belief that empirical propositions form the basis of our innate knowledge. In opposition and in contrast to Hume’s empirical propositions, Kant not only proves a priori synthetic propositions possible, but also, a priori synthetic propositions represent the foundation of metaphysics, as underlying principles that allow for pure reason. In turn this allows the mind access to conceptualize what is beyond humans externally, in the form transcendental philosophy.

In order to by expand on knowledge within the ever-expanding sphere of metaphysics, one must continue to implore and confront new possibilities which arise and are ever- constant. Kant reverts to Hume’s claim of no causality between cause and affect, to add another aspect, the concept of subsistence. By adding this aspect, Kant aims to once and for all do away with Hume’s claim by first drawing it to light to it, and then rejecting it into oblivion. Through a priori synthetic propositions, Kant asserts that it “is” possible to conceive a connection between cause and effect. Kant states, in accordance with Hume’s claim of no relationship between cause and effect, that there is “little insight into the concept of subsistence, i.e., of the necessity that a subject, which itself cannot predicate of any other thing, should underlie the existence of things…” (p.62). In other words, every object or existent thing stands within its own state, and with its own governing principles. It is through a priori synthetic propositions allowed to us by intuition which is given to us through the natural operation of our mental faculties. Thus, with the combining of our sensory intuitions and understanding, we are able to demark an individual object, through isolation of its various representations or appearances. Only then, is the mind capable of articulating a concept of a particular object, though it must be accompanied with experience (par. 62).