1. Hume’s conclusion (Section IV, Part II) 1. All of our arguments concerning existence (matters of fact) are founded on the relation of cause and effect. 2. All of our knowledge of cause and effect is founded on experience (i.e., not on reason). 3. Yet, all of our conclusions from experience are founded on the supposition that the future will conform to the past. Do #1 and #2 provide support for #3?

2. The principle of ‘nature’s uniformity’? Trees bloom in May Trees bloom in December We expect the first, but the second is possible. The basis for our expectation is experience. Experience is nothing more or less than custom. Custom is nothing more or less than ‘a habit of the mind’. Knowledge = Habit?

3. Kant awakens from his “dogmatic slumber” to disprove Hume Analytic/Synthetic Distinction (applied to how we make judgments) Analytic Judgments -All bachelors are unmarried men -Every square has four sides (the predicate is “contained” in the subject) Synthetic Judgments -All of my friend live in Centennial -Nate is a graduating senior

4. A posteriori/A priori judgments For Kant, all analytic judgments are a priori (they do not rely on experience to be determined as T) Synthetic judgments are a posteriori (they do rely on experience to be determined as T, and they could be F without implying a contradiction) For Kant, there are no analytic a posteriori judgments, but for science and metaphysics to be possible there must be synthetic a priori judgments. How are these possible?