How did Kant's perspective on causality differ from that of Hume as discussed in the chapter?

Kant's perspective on causality differed from Hume's in that Kant believed the mind inherently thinks in terms of cause and effect, viewing it as an innate property. In contrast, Hume argued that causality is based on experience and regularity, and we can never be absolutely certain of it.

Immanuel Kant and David Hume had differing views on causality. Hume, an empiricist, argued that causality is based on the observation of regularities; we associate cause and effect because we see events occur together consistently. He believed that we can never be absolutely certain about the causes of events, as our understanding is limited to our experiences. In contrast, Kant, a rationalist, contended that the mind naturally organizes experiences in terms of cause and effect, considering it an innate property of the mind. For Kant, causality, like space and time, is a fundamental framework that the mind uses to interpret experiences, rather than something learned from experience.