Please respond to the two-discussion provided. Please include your references and proper citations. Your response post should be 350-400 words minimum.


My first question is: Do our feelings really exist unless we act on them?

My answer to this question: When reading the Enquiry concerning Human understanding written by Hume, he emphasized how our thoughts are not as vivid as our sensations or the experiences we have. One of the examples he uses was how when someone is angry it is just a thought until they act on it. It is my assumption that we know love and can place a memory with the feeling if we have felt it before. But if it is something, we have never felt do we really understand the emotion. There are some children who are born not understanding what love feels like until they are older and experience it from others, at this point the emotion is still a little difficult to understand since they are older and are now grasping a new concept. Same as if you feel that you love someone but never express it. The feeling is simply in the mind because the person that you’re feeling it towards does not feel it. The thought behind this all stems from the idea that “human thought is unbounded, not confined within the limits of nature or reality” (Hume 2008). Our imagination can extend beyond all limits, they can be created from what we see in the movies or read in books, they are all unreal until the emotion is felt through a real-life experience that allows us to relate a situation to the emotion. In the readings from last week we talked about how we can’t take the word of someone else for how they perceive reality we have to rely on our own viewpoint. That idea can be linked to this one because although we see when watch movies the way someone feels when they are in a situation such as being happy because they have received a hug, or crying because they have lost a loved one, we don’t truly know what they feel until we have felt it ourselves. This can also be linked with the idea of empathy.  You can have sympathy for someone and imagine what hey are feelings as opposed to having empathy for someone where you truly understand what they feel because you have felt it once before too.


Hume, D. (2008). Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Retrieved December 7, 2018, from University/National University Online (NUO)/PHL – Philosophy (NUO)/PHL 100/Week-2/Hume1748 Enquiry.pdf.














My second question is:

What are David Hume’s arguments on impressions and ideas?

My answer is:

David Hume was a Scottish philosopher who believed that we use our senses to as way to perceive things. He believed that we only used compounding, transposing, augmenting, or diminishing as our senses. He also believed that impressions outweighed imagination because we can only infer through imagination. He argues that we have compound thoughts that are based off our senses. He uses an example of God, to suggest that he is an idea and says that ideas are linked to other ideas. He believes that we are limited in our ability to think because of our senses. He gives three values that he believes is related to his theory and they are resemblance, contiguity in time or place and cause and effect.

In section 4, Hume tries to explain his theory of relations of ideas and matters of fact. He states that relations of ideas are priori or definite and matters of facts are experiences. Hume suggests that we are able to infer things through the cause and effect method by using our experiences. We can think about our future by thinking about what has happened in the past. I believe that this is true because if you live in Washington state, you know you’re going to get rain. Although he states all of this, he admits to still being skeptical. He states that if someone was just put in the world, they would be lost because we as humans need to see things happen repetitiously in order to understand them.  He also uses a billiard ball and the human body to further prove his point of cause and effect. He states that even though we know how our body moves, we are still unclear of the volition and our movement. In the example of the billiards ball, he says that he can tell what is going to happen based on each event because he can infer how the ball will move based off prior practices. Finally, he examines the mind-mind relationship and is unable to find the causation of thoughts and begins to question God again and asks how can we understand him if we do not understand ourselves?