2026

The Problem of Causation: A Comparative Study of Hume, Rationalist Philosophers and Kant

Author(s): Babul Hossain

Abstract

The concept of causation has long been one of the central problems in philosophy. Philosophers have debated whether there exists a necessary connection between cause and effect or whether causality is merely the result of repeated observation and mental habit. In everyday life, people generally believe that every event has a cause, and this assumption plays a crucial role in scientific reasoning and practical life.
This paper examines the problem of causation through a comparative study of the views of empiricist and rationalist philosophers. The empiricist philosopher David Hume argued that we do not perceive any necessary power connecting cause and effect. According to him, causation is nothing more than a constant conjunction between events that leads the human mind to form a habit of expectation. In contrast, rationalist philosophers such as Descartes and Spinoza maintained that there is a necessary relationship between cause and effect which can be understood through reason.
Immanuel Kant attempted to reconcile these opposing views by arguing that causality is not derived from experience but is an a priori category of the human understanding that structures all experience. Through a comparative analysis of these philosophical perspectives, this paper evaluates their strengths and limitations and highlights the importance of causality in philosophy, science, and everyday life.