화이트헤드는 흄에 의해 정리된 고전 경험론의 기본 이념을 수용하여, 경험에서 발견되지 않는 요소를 철학적 도식에 받아들여서는 안된다고 주장한다. 흄이 인과관계의 필연성을 의심한 것은 정당했다. 우리는 과거와 현재의 경험으로부터 미래의 경험을 연역할 어떤 실마리도 발견할 수 없기 때문이다. 따라서 우리는 지금의 이 우주를 우연적인 세계로 경험할 뿐이다. 그것이 머금고 있는 모든 질서 또한 마찬가지다. 그러나 다른 한편으로 화이트헤드는 고전 경험론의 세부적인 원리들에 대해서는 대체로 비판적인 입장을 취한다. 이런 비판적 시각은 흄의 인과관계 분석의 불충분성을 비판하는 데서 정점에 이르고 있다. 그는 지각경험을 다시 분석함으로써 흄이 간과해버린 1인칭 시점의 지각경험을 부각시킨다. 이것은 인과적 효과성의 지각으로, 명석 판명한 지각, 즉 현시적 직접성의 지각의 토대가 되는 일차적 근원적 경험이다. 인과적 효과성의 지각을 분석하고 설명하는 가운데 화이트헤드는 인과관계, 또는 인과적 힘을 결코 경험할 수 없다는 흄의 주장을 거부하고 인과관계의 실재성과 인식가능성을 논증한다. 무엇보다도 우리는 이 경험 양태를 통해 환경세계로부터 주어지는 인과적 힘을 경험한다. 흄은 경험의 이런 근원적 측면을 무시하고 경험을 오직 현시적 직접성의 양태로만 분석하였고, 그 결과 환경세계로부터 주어지는 힘에 대한 우리 자신의 경험이 인과관계를 예증하는 가장 기본적인 경험사건이 될 수 있다는 점을 깨닫지 못했다.
A. N. Whitehead accepts the basic principles of the early modern empiricism that Hume established, and he asserts that we should not endorse any element which could not be found within experience. Then, our present experience affords no intellectually satisfactory ground for presupposing that the general pattern of our present world will hold in the future. Hume was, thus, fully justified in placing the necessity of causal relation in doubt. The order of our world itself is contingent. But Whitehead criticizes some of the detail principles of the early modern empiricism. His attack against these principles reaches the peak in criticizing the inadequacy of the analysis of the causal relation that Hume exhibits. He analyses our immediate experience from the perspective of the first person, and discloses the perception in the mode of causal efficacy which Hume missed. This mode of perception, though vague, is more fundamental and primitive than the clear and distinct perception. And the latter perception, called the mode of presentational immediacy, is derived from the former, that is the causal perception. Based on the analysis and explanation of this causal perception, Whitehead denies Hume’s assertion that we can never experience the causal relation, and argues that the causation is real and able to be experienced. Above all, we perceive the causal power of the environmental world given through this immediate experience. Hume neglected this immediate aspect of our experience, and only concentrated on the mode of presentational immediacy. In result, he failed to understand that our immediate experience of the power of the environment itself illustrates the causal relation immanent in nature.
A. N. Whitehead accepts the basic principles of the early modern empiricism that Hume established, and he asserts that we should not endorse any element which could not be found within experience. Then, our present experience affords no intellectually satisfactory ground for presupposing that the general pattern of our present world will hold in the future. Hume was, thus, fully justified in placing the necessity of causal relation in doubt. The order of our world itself is contingent. But Whitehead criticizes some of the detail principles of the early modern empiricism. His attack against these principles reaches the peak in criticizing the inadequacy of the analysis of the causal relation that Hume exhibits. He analyses our immediate experience from the perspective of the first person, and discloses the perception in the mode of causal efficacy which Hume missed. This mode of perception, though vague, is more fundamental and primitive than the clear and distinct perception. And the latter perception, called the mode of presentational immediacy, is derived from the former, that is the causal perception. Based on the analysis and explanation of this causal perception, Whitehead denies Hume’s assertion that we can never experience the causal relation, and argues that the causation is real and able to be experienced. Above all, we perceive the causal power of the environmental world given through this immediate experience. Hume neglected this immediate aspect of our experience, and only concentrated on the mode of presentational immediacy. In result, he failed to understand that our immediate experience of the power of the environment itself illustrates the causal relation immanent in nature.