Debate #21 · 1739 / 1781

Kant and Hume

The "dogmatic slumber" interrupted

Metaphysics, epistemology

Venue: Hume, *Treatise of Human Nature* (1739) and *Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* (1748); Kant, *Critique of Pure Reason* (1781) and *Prolegomena* (1783).

The most consequential one-sided debate in modern philosophy.

Hume's analysis of causation in the *Treatise* (1739) and *Enquiry* (1748) argued that no logical or experiential evidence supports the claim that causes necessitate their effects; what we have is constant conjunction and habitual association. Generalising, Hume's skeptical empiricism dissolved induction, substantial selfhood, and rational theology. Kant, by his own famous account, was "awakened from his dogmatic slumber" by Hume around 1772 and produced the *Critique of Pure Reason* (1781) as his response. Kant accepted the negative force of Hume's analysis but argued that synthetic *a priori* judgements — including causal necessity — are the constitutive structures of any possible experience, not derived from it; the categories of the understanding apply necessarily to appearances. Hume died in 1776, never reading Kant; the debate is one-sided in fact and titanic in influence.

Historical Context

Kant met Hume only through German translation (Beattie's critique, the *Enquiry* in J. G. Sulzer's translation, 1755). Hume's broader skeptical thrust seemed to Kant to threaten the very possibility of metaphysics as a science.

Parties

David Hume
Skeptical empiricist

No idea is meaningful that does not derive from a corresponding impression; causation, induction, substantial self, and rational theology all fail this test. We are left with habits of association and modest natural beliefs.

Key arguments

  • Causation reduces to constant conjunction plus expectation; no necessity is perceivable in the connection.
  • Induction lacks rational justification; the uniformity of nature is itself an inductive inference, hence circular.
  • No impression corresponds to a substantial self; introspection reveals only bundles of perceptions.
  • Religious belief lacks the empirical-experiential anchor that meaningful concepts require.
Immanuel Kant
Transcendental idealist

Hume's analysis correctly refutes naive rationalist metaphysics but overshoots: causation, space, time, and other categorial structures are constitutive of any possible experience, not derived from it. Metaphysics survives, but as the systematic study of these constitutive structures.

Key arguments

  • Synthetic *a priori* judgements (e.g. "every event has a cause") are necessary conditions of experience, not contingent generalisations from it.
  • Categories of the understanding (causation, substance, etc.) apply necessarily to appearances; transcendental idealism distinguishes appearances from things-in-themselves.
  • Mathematics and natural science presuppose synthetic *a priori* structures that pure empiricism cannot account for.
  • The Copernican turn: rather than asking how concepts conform to objects, ask how objects conform to the constitutive structures of any possible cognition.

Dimensions Engaged

Observer

Observer · Knowledge Extent: what role does the structure of cognition play in constituting what can be known?

Time

Time · Ontological Status: is time a feature of the world or a form of intuition?

Space

Space · Ontological Status: same question for space.

Matter

Matter · Ontological Status: are causal relations real or projected?

Verdict in retrospect

Kant's response shaped the rest of Western philosophy. The transcendental framework was contested (Hegel internalised it, the British empiricists rejected it, the logical positivists reduced it). Modern philosophy of mind and science continues to negotiate Humean skepticism via Kantian-style transcendental arguments. The exchange is the founding move of modern epistemology.

Related Debates

Sharing parties or aligned schools.

Related Experiments

Experiments that share dimensions and/or aligned schools with this debate.

Other Personas Aligned With This Debate

Ranked by declared-influence weight in the schools either party is allied with. The named parties themselves are excluded — they're already listed above.

Works Most Aligned With This Debate

Ranked by declared-influence weight in the schools either party is allied with.

Related Films

Films engaging the same dimensions as this debate.

Related Contemporary Dilemmas

Dilemmas that engage the same dimensions as this debate.

Further reading

  • Hume, *Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* (1748)
  • Kant, *Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics* (1783)
  • Beck (ed.), *Kant's Response to Hume* (1989)
← Habermas–Gadamer on Hermeneutics and Critique Hegel and Schopenhauer →