
Mohamed R. answered 09/15/21
Bachelor degree in English with experience in philosophy tutoring.
Ancient philosophers such as Plato distinguishes between knowledge and belief in the sense that knowledge is justified whereas belief is not justified. Descartes in the seventeenth century follows the same idea, considering that true knowledge is the one that is logically demonstrated through logical and well-constructed proofs.
David Hume is not satisfied with such notion. Instead, he states that all we have is beliefs. In that sense Hume is skeptical about all knowledge. In that context he explains the causal connections and other metaphysical and epistemological matters. He insists that we do not really know the causal connections in the empirical world. All we know is constant conjunctions (beliefs) of regularities that we have been accustomed to. For instance, we are accustomed to see nights followed by days even though we ignore any causal connections between nights and days.
Hume's view of causal connections also shapes his perspective on language and ethics. Indeed, he distinguishes between factual statements and analytic ones. The factual statements are beliefs whereas the analytic statements are relations of ideas, which include mathematical statements, tautologies and definitions. He also grounds his ethical view on psychological beliefs. He further explains such notion, pointing that ethical statements cannot be derived from factual statements. In that sense what is right or wrong is what we approve or disapprove to be so.
Emmanuel Kant reiterates and shapes Hume's idea about knowledge and belief in a different context. Kant also distinguishes between analytic and synthetic statements. However, he adds that our knowledge is limited to what appears to us (phenomena). In this regard, we have no knowledge of things as they really are (noumena).
Hume and Kant views on knowledge and belief, causal connections, language, morality/ethics have been evolved in what is currently known as "cognitive psychology."