David Hume. A summary of his arguments
	See Perry & Bratman, pages 176-90
 

Empiricism defined. 
	Contents of mind = impressions + ideas
		the later copies of former

For Descartes an idea= whatever is in the mind
	For Hume, an idea = subset of those ideas, copies of impressions

Why do we believe in physical objects, and in cause and effect?
Not because of experience

Nor does experience show us the self
No such thing is perceived.

Things continue to exist, sensations do not: why this difference? 

 Things are only perceptions.
	Everything is idea, or impression. (What we called idealism)

Why we believe in continued existence of things. 
Only Imagination	, not reason justifies this belief: for no argument could
show this.

Successive impressions of physical things are nearly the same so we infer
external existence of the things themselves. 
	A double inference: the existence of things
		and, of their continued existence (i.e. substance)

 We feign a connection. the interrupted impressions joined together
	By custom only

The 'vulgar', (and all of us in unphilosophical moods) think differently

  
Not only do we believe in continued existence of external things, 
But also in their external existence
	but everything experienced is internal. 

So why this belief??
	What experience could justify it?

Perceptions have neither continued nor external existence

 We know this all when we reflect, but when we relax common sense views return

 Double existence, ideas and objects. This the worst view philosophically,
according to Hume
		i.e. the least plausible argument.
	But it is common sense.


Hume doesn't draw any dramatic practical conclusions from his analysis.
We identify the gap between what philosophy can prove, and what we believe in
everyday life
And then we go on living as before