Academic Writing on David Hume

Looking for someone to answer 4 questions I have with at least 1-3 paragraphs per answer. Some of the questions are on David Hume. 1. We constantly engage in what Hume calls “probable reasoning” or “reasoning about matters of fact.” We do this in science and throughout daily life. Such reasoning, he argues, is based on past experience. But Hume shows us a problem with this. The problem is that this form of reasoning is not rationally justified. In other words, it is impossible to give a good argument for why past experience is a reliable guide to the future. Please explain Hume’s concept of “probable reasoning” (using the correct terminology). Illustrate the basic idea with a concrete example of your own. Then explain why such reasoning is not rationally justified. Next, explain why we do it anyway. If not rational argument, then what drives us to treat the past as a guide to the future? Finally, say whether Hume thinks we should stop doing this because it’s not rationally justified. That is, according to Hume, would it be a good idea to stop reasoning about matters of fact? (Note: Hume does not directly address this question in the book. But he says a lot that indirectly address it. This part of the prompt asks you think hard about the latter and formulate a direct response on Hume’s behalf. It requires a decent understanding of the larger point he is trying to make about “understanding” in Sections 4-5 from his Enquiry. 2. Many people – including many philosophers – believe that human beings differ in kind from other animals. One traditional account of the difference says that human beings are rational animals, while the rest of the animals are non-rational. We use our reason to navigate the world, but other animals operate solely on instinct. Where does David Hume stand on this question? Both human beings and other animals learn from the past. Is there a sharp difference between the way we do this and the way non-human animals do it? Please justify your answer by explaining his line of thought from section 9 of the Enquiry. (Note: section 9 rests on sections 4-5, so you’ll need to draw on the relevant parts from those sections as well.) 3. Some people think that judgments about art and beauty are entirely subjective. You like Taylor Swift’s music, for example, and I don’t. There’s no point in arguing about this, since there is no objective standard we could use to settle our dispute. In a way, we’re both right about her music. (De gustibus non est disputandum.) Hume disagrees. There are universal standards. According to Hume, these standards are provided by the “agreed verdict” of the true judges or critics. In your own words, please restate his main claim here. What is he saying? (Make sure you’ve read his words about this carefully.) Then explain his position in detail. What are the marks of the true critic? Be specific. Also try to illustrate one or two of Hume’s abstract points with concrete examples that will help your reader understand his position. 4. Pick a work of art (a particular song, painting, movie, novel…) you think is really good, maybe even great. Then imagine you’re having a conversation with a friend who thinks it is terrible. Write a brief description of how you would try to show your friend that he or she is wrong about this work of art. What would you say to try to convince your friend? What kind of considerations would you point to? What would you try to get the other person to think about or notice? Your response to this prompt should demonstrate agood understanding of what Hume has to say on this topic in “On the Standard of Taste.” You must engage your friend as a good or true critic would.