Comparison of the Epistemology of David Hume and Immanuel Kant

Epistemology a branch of philosophy which is concerned with the theory of knowledge. It asks questions about what knowledge is, how you get it and theorizing what is known. Hume and Kant are tow major philosophers from the school of epistemology.

David Hume separated knowledge into two categories. Analytic knowledge is truth which is contingent on it’s definition. For instance, ‘a circle is round.’ This is assumed because if it were not round, it would not be a circle. Synthetic knowledge is more arguable because two thoughts are synthesized into one thought. For instance, ‘the ball is a circle.’ Circle is synthesized with ball. You cannot simply assume that because it is a ball it is a circle. A ball could be oblong like a football or flat, so through this statement you are actually obtaining knowledge about the ball.

Immanuel Kant also separated knowledge into two categories, although different ones. Priori knowledge is knowledge that is derived apart from experiences. For example, ‘a circle is round.’ This knowledge exists before it is experienced because a circle is round no matter what. Posteriori knowledge is derived from experience. For example, ‘the ball is a circle.’ This requires experience in order to have the knowledge, because without seeing the ball for yourself you cannot really know what shape it is.

It seems that there is only a semantic difference between Hume and Kant based on the above definitions, however there are differences. The major difference between Hume and Kant is that Hume was against the metaphysical approach all together. He believed the epistemological approach to contradict metaphysics. Kant, on the other hand, found more of a middle ground between metaphysics and epistemology. He found epistemology to be a reformation of metaphysics and so he didn’t abandon physical reality for abstract thought as Hume did.