David that our mind is not meant to

David Hume wanted to explain our understanding of the world. He wanted to do this instead of trying to prove our beliefs or  justify our beliefs. He does not choose to discuss the presence of crucial connections between events but he does say that we cannot know what those connections are. What Hume really wants is a mitigated skepticism. Although we don’t have a good reason to believe all that we do believe about the world, human nature helps us function in all the ways that reason cannot. Though, we have limit ourselves. We will do that by accepting that our sole source of true information. Our past experience cannot always  teach us about the future. So it becomes hard to function on a practical level. If we were to eliminate causation, it would make it absolutely impossible for us to function. It is not worth arguing whether we know the connection between two events. Hume doesn’t that think we should use our energy and time questioning what the soul really is, whether God exists, or whether the soul is immortal. Hume says that our mind is not meant to help us define truths and discover truths. He believes that we won’t ever be able to have a rational and definite conclusion about abstract things. Skepticism is the idea that certain knowledge is impossible. Hume said that “proposition of the mind are discoverable by the mere proposition of thought without dependence on whatever is anywhere existent in the universe”. I think he is saying that if something is a relationship of ideas, then it will be true no matter what the world is like. So in order to know that it is true, we do not need to go and gather evidence about what the world is like. If anything is required to know that a relation of ideas is true it is just understanding. This is what Hume called the mere operation of thought. Hume called things that were a fact, matters of fact. Hume is concerned with the idea of the self. He is not only concerned about who the self is but our idea of the self. Hume says that we cannot have an idea of the self unless we have an impression of the self. He has a distinction between the self, our impressions, and our idea of the self. He says ” There are some philosophers who imagine we are in every moment  intimately conscious of what we call our self. That we feel it’s existence and continuance in existence and are certain beyond the evidence.” I believe that what he means by the quote is that we actually think about the self and have a simple idea about what the self is. We do not really think of it as too complicated and we imagine that we have a good idea of the self. He believed that the other philosophers were wrong about the self. He believes that if you have an idea of the self that you are wrong. I believe that he is right because we cannot have an idea of something without having an impression first. The nature of the self does exist. I believe to some degree that it is true that we can only know the full operations of our own mind. Our own mind is the only mind that we can control and are able to know everything about. Although we can only know 100 percent of what the operations are of our own mind, we can have an idea of what the operations are in somebody else’s mind. For example, I believe that we somewhat no and have a feeling about somebody else’s mind is thinking or wanting. Although it may not be correct all the time, sometimes it is true. I believe that this is evidence that we can know operations of somebody else’s mind.