Philosopher David Hume was considered to one of the most important figures in the age of Scottish enlightenment. In
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Hume discusses the weakness that humans have in their abilities to comprehend the world around them, what is referred to in the title as human understanding. This work, now commonly required reading in philosophy clas
Philosopher David Hume was considered to one of the most important figures in the age of Scottish enlightenment. In
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Hume discusses the weakness that humans have in their abilities to comprehend the world around them, what is referred to in the title as human understanding. This work, now commonly required reading in philosophy classes, exposed a broad audience to philosophy when it was first published. A great introduction to the philosophy of David Hume,
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
and the ideas within it are as intriguing today as when they were first written.
...more
Kindle Edition
,
148 pages
Published
March 5th 2015
by www.WealthOfNation.com
(first published 1748)
I had seen so many references to Hume's
Enquiry
that I almost thought I had read it; but, when I actually got around to opening the book, I found as usual that things were not quite as I had imagined. I was not surprised by his relentless scepticism, or by his insistence on basing all reasoning on empirical evidence. These qualities, after all, have become proverbial. I was, however, surprised to find that I hadn't correctly grasped the essence of his argument concerning the nature of knowledge.
I had seen so many references to Hume's
Enquiry
that I almost thought I had read it; but, when I actually got around to opening the book, I found as usual that things were not quite as I had imagined. I was not surprised by his relentless scepticism, or by his insistence on basing all reasoning on empirical evidence. These qualities, after all, have become proverbial. I was, however, surprised to find that I hadn't correctly grasped the essence of his argument concerning the nature of knowledge. In case you are as poorly informed as I was, let me summarise it here.
Hume's position is wonderfully simple. He asks what grounds we have for supposing that multiple repetitions of an experiment justify us in inferring a necessary law. If we note, on many occasions, that hot objects burn our hands when we touch them, what logical reason do we have for assuming that we should not touch the next candle flame we happen to see?
The answer is that we have no logical grounds at all for making such an inference. Of course, as a matter of observed fact, we do assume, after a small number of trials, that touching hot objects will hurt us. Hume says this is nothing to do with logic; we are simply designed in such a way that we cannot help being influenced by our experience to adopt such rules. As he points out, many other living creatures do the same. It is impossible to believe that a dog or a horse is performing any kind of logical deduction when they learn to avoid touching naked flames. They simply acquire the habit of behaving in this way. The most economical explanation of what we see is that human beings are doing the same thing.
A mountain of discussion has accumulated since Hume published his book, and it would be presumptuous of me to give my opinions when so many extremely clever people have already done so. I am, however, struck by something I have noticed in the course of my professional career. I have worked in Artificial Intelligence and related subjects since the early 80s, and during that period the field has suffered a profound change. In 1980, most AI research was related to logic. People assumed that the notion of intelligence was in some essential way based on the notion of deduction. Making machines intelligent was a question of making them capable of performing the right kinds of logical inferences. This tempting approach was, unfortunately, a resounding failure.
Somewhere towards the end of the last century, a different way of looking at things started to become fashionable, and quickly gained ground. Instead of thinking about logic, people began more and more to think about probability. They collected data and extracted various kinds of statistical regularities. The new AI systems made no attempt to think logically; their decisions were based on associations acquired from their experience. At first, the AI community was scornful, but it was soon found that "data-driven" systems worked quite well. They made stupid mistakes sometimes; but so did the logic-based systems, and the mechanical logicians tended to make more stupid mistakes. They could reason, but they had no common sense. Today, data-driven systems have taken over the field, and the approach has been shown to work well for many problems which had once been considered impossible challenges. Particularly striking successes have been notched up in machine translation, speech recognition, computer vision, and allied fields.
If David Hume came back today, I have no idea whether he'd be offered a chair at a philosophy department. But I'm fairly sure that Google would be interested in hiring him.
...more
Returning to an old friend! The first text I was given to study as a philosophy undergraduate, and what pleasure to revisit.
I'm not sure that Hume changed my thinking as a young man so much as brought the delight of recognition. The sweeping away of superstition, fantasy systems, spiritual mumbo jumbo and so on has never for me disabled a propensity towards reflection or deep attachment to a cleaner, less encumbered mystery. Kant, too, found his religious faith strengthened by such clarity.
I was
Returning to an old friend! The first text I was given to study as a philosophy undergraduate, and what pleasure to revisit.
I'm not sure that Hume changed my thinking as a young man so much as brought the delight of recognition. The sweeping away of superstition, fantasy systems, spiritual mumbo jumbo and so on has never for me disabled a propensity towards reflection or deep attachment to a cleaner, less encumbered mystery. Kant, too, found his religious faith strengthened by such clarity.
I was taught philosophy very much in the empiricist and positivist traditions, and whatever crude antagonisms to these have arisen among defenders of this or that faith, have found no difficulty whatsoever in reconciling particular modes of 'philosophical' thinking with poetic, aesthetic and, yes, spiritual modes. Indeed, reading Hume is its own reward for the pleasure of the text!
There is nothing but clarity and wisdom in Hume. One has to be one's own conclusion and wisdom in considering the place of closed systems (such as language, or in this case the various Hume-given patterns) and any approach to ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, 'reality', spirit etc. (the 'noumenal') but you'd be indeed in a deep dogmatic slumber if you didn't appreciate the concision of Hume as probably the greatest help of all in beginning philosophy today.
...more
I enjoyed the straightforward, no-nonsense style of this famous philosopher. Good though he is, however, his vision of life is that of pure empiricism - that all real knowledge is gained only through sense contact. In other words he appears to completely disregard a vital aspect of the human consciousness, i.e. the possibility of gaining knowledge through contemplating the mind itself, for instance through the practice of mindfulness and meditation. Furthermore he discounts the possibility of re
I enjoyed the straightforward, no-nonsense style of this famous philosopher. Good though he is, however, his vision of life is that of pure empiricism - that all real knowledge is gained only through sense contact. In other words he appears to completely disregard a vital aspect of the human consciousness, i.e. the possibility of gaining knowledge through contemplating the mind itself, for instance through the practice of mindfulness and meditation. Furthermore he discounts the possibility of recognizing causality, asserting that we only know that 'b' follows 'a'; we cannot know, he asserts, that 'b' is caused by 'a', or that in the presence of 'a', 'b' always arises, and in 'a's absence it does not. He thus demolishes the whole basis of modern science, together with the most basic formulation of the understanding of what it is to be a wise human being able to affirm the knowledge that flows from a healthy mind untramelled by scepticism.
...more
Ashvajit
ONE IS CORRECT in saying that the idea of 'causation' as it is called by the scientific community is anything but a necessary or an a priori idea, a '
ONE IS CORRECT in saying that the idea of 'causation' as it is called by the scientific community is anything but a necessary or an a priori idea, a 'given' amongst the multitude of mental events INCLUDING the phenomenon of mindfulness - full, perfect, self-reflexive consciousness, the awareness that sees, recognises and knows.
When all is said and done, the whole universe is nothing but the play of phenomena. Nevertheless, if we pay full attention to the conditions preceding the production and appearance of phenomena, we find that some of these phenomena follow invariably from certain other constellations of phenomena. This is what science reduces to what is misleadingly called causality.
Scientists are famous for their resorting to experiment, and in principle any experiment worthy of the name is falsifiable. If an experiment is successful, we say it has been verified. A proof of this is right before your eyes at this very moment:
If I type here, you may read what I type.
Doubt that for a moment, and the whole Internet (and with it Science) falls apart. Science, unfortunately, by saying too little about the nature of the observer-like mind, throws the emergent baby of full, perfect, self-reflexive consciousness out with the bathwater of a priori ideas. Of course we should not say more than what we observe concerning phenomena, but neither should we fail to see the connectedness between phenomena, or be reticent about bringing it to the attention of those who would cast doubt on 'causality' (though I would prefer to use the word 'conditionality'). It still seems to me therefore that Hume, for all his merits, missed the point.
...more
Oct 13, 2013 12:29PM
Bhante Sugatavmso-deepak
Dear Asvajeet, I would like to write a an email. But I am not sure which email you use now. 3 days I returnee from 10 days solitary and for the past t
Dear Asvajeet, I would like to write a an email. But I am not sure which email you use now. 3 days I returnee from 10 days solitary and for the past three days i am in meditation and reflection retreat with two other man, we short of made a little sangha among us, mostly meditating and spending time and reflection and sharing in evening. We have called it a new year retreat as the subject of reflection centers around looking back into this year and thinking and planing 2014.
I have written a letter to for bhante it's while I was in solitary. I would like to send it to you in case you are going to see him in near future I would like you to carry that with you for me, or hopefuly you can read it to him.
...more
Dec 30, 2013 04:29AM
Ashvajit
Hello Dear Deepak, my email address is ashvajit.dh@gmail.com
Dec 31, 2013 02:12PM
Bertrand Russell famously summarized Hume's contribution to philosophy, saying that he "developed to its logical conclusion the empiricist philosophy of Locke and Berkeley, and by making it self-consistent made it incredible." Hume is remarkable in that he does not shy away from conclusions that might seem unlikely or unreasonable. Ultimately, he concludes that we have no good reason to believe almost everything we believe about the world, but that this is not such a bad thing. Nature helps us t
Bertrand Russell famously summarized Hume's contribution to philosophy, saying that he "developed to its logical conclusion the empiricist philosophy of Locke and Berkeley, and by making it self-consistent made it incredible." Hume is remarkable in that he does not shy away from conclusions that might seem unlikely or unreasonable. Ultimately, he concludes that we have no good reason to believe almost everything we believe about the world, but that this is not such a bad thing. Nature helps us to get by where reason lets us down.
Hume is unquestionably an empiricist philosopher, and he strives to bring the rigor of scientific methodology to bear on philosophical reasoning. His distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact is absolutely crucial in this respect. Anything we can say about the world is a matter of fact, and thus can be justified only through experience and can be denied without contradiction. Relations of ideas can teach us about mathematical truths, but cannot, as some rationalist philosophers would have, teach us about the existence of our selves, an external world, or God.
If we are left with only matters of fact to get us by in the world, however, we find ourselves greatly limited. How can past experience teach me anything about the future? Even to infer without circularity that future experience will resemble past experience requires some principle that cannot be grounded in past experience. Without that principle, our ability to reason according to cause and effect, and thus the greater part of our ability to reason with matters of fact, is sharply curtailed.
We should be careful to note the tone Hume's skepticism takes here, however. Rather than conclude that we cannot know anything about future events or the external world, he concludes that we are not rationally justifiedin believing the things we do. Hume does not deny that we make certain inferences based on causal reasoning, and indeed insists that we would be unable to live if we didn't do so. His point is simply that we are mistaken if we think that these inferences are in any way justified by reason. That is, there are no grounds for certainty or proof of these inferences.
Hume is a naturalist because he suggests that nature, and not reason, leads us to believe the things we do. Habit has taught us that we are safe in making certain inferences and believing certain things, and so we don't normally worry about them too much. We cannot prove that there is a world external to our senses, but it seems to be a relatively safe assumption by which to live. Rather than try to justify our beliefs or identify the truth, Hume seeks simply to explain why we believe what we believe.
The Enquiry is decidedly a book about epistemology and not about metaphysics. That is, Hume is concerned about what and how we know, and not at all about what is actually the case. For instance, he does not deal with the question of whether there actually are necessary connections between events, he simply asserts that we cannot perceive them. Or perhaps more accurately, Hume argues that, because we cannot perceive necessary connections between events, the question of whether or not they actually exist is irrelevant and meaningless.
Hume is an ardent opponent of rationalist metaphysics, which seeks to answer questions such as whether or not God exists, what the nature or matter and soul is, or whether the soul is immortal. The mind, according to Hume, is not a truth-tracking device, and we misuse it if we think it can bring us to metaphysical conclusions. A Humean science of the mind can describe how the mind works and why it reaches the conclusions it does, but it cannot take us beyond the confines of our own, natural, reason.
Hume's stated method is scientific, of careful observation and inference from particular instances to general principles. The drive of scientific inquiry is to dig deeper and deeper so as to uncover a very few, very simple principles that govern all the complexities that we observe. Newton's genius gives us three very simple laws that can explain and predict all physical phenomena. Hume wishes to perform a similar feat for human understanding (the word "understanding" is used by Hume to describe most broadly the several faculties of human reason). The hope is that Hume will derive a similarly small and simple number of principles that can explain and predict the processes of human thought. His method will be to proceed from simple observation of how the mind works and how we use it in everyday life, and to infer from his observations increasingly general principles that govern our understanding until he reaches a bedrock of simplicity and clarity.
In this respect, Hume follows very much in the empiricist vein of philosophy and owes a large debt to “John Locke”. Locke moved against rationalist philosophy, best exemplified by “Descartes”, which relies heavily upon rational intuition. The empiricist tradition asserts that experience, and not reason, should serve as the basis of philosophical reasoning.
The motivation for Hume's project is made apparent in his complaint that the "accurate and abstract" metaphysics that he is pursuing is frequently looked down upon and disdained. The difficulty and counter-intuitive nature of these inquiries often lead to errors that may seem absurd and prejudicial to future generations. Even today, there is a great deal of debate as to whether there has been any real "progress" in philosophy: we may have refined our discussions and dismissed some bad ideas, but in essence we are still mulling over the same problems that concerned Plato and Aristotle. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that we are no nearer a satisfactory and final answer than the ancient Greeks. Hume hopes that scientific observation can uncover the principles that underlie our reasoning so that we can be more immediately aware of faulty logic and more easily guided along the correct path.
Ever since the scientific revolution of Newton, Galileo, and others, science has been held up as a paradigm of fruitful reasoning. In science, there is a carefully defined methodology that precisely details how we can test a theory and determine whether it is right or wrong. Though it is often difficult to determine the right answer, the scientific method usually prevents us from arriving at answers that are far from the mark. Philosophy lacks any such determinate method, and philosophers are continually taking up conflicting views. For instance, Hume's emphasis on observation goes directly against Descartes' rationalism, which disparages observation in favor of pure reason. Hume hopes that his empiricism will open the way for a carefully defined method that will not allow for such disparity amongst philosophers.
Hume also suggests that his work must be epistemically (epistemic: of, relating to, or involving knowledge; cognitive) prior to the new science that he so lauds. The scientific method is a product of careful reasoning, and is thus subject to the laws of human understanding. While science seems to be in far better shape than philosophy, it too can benefit from his work. In this way, Hume differs from his predecessor, Locke. Locke sees himself as laboring on behalf of the new science, clearing away some of the linguistic rubble that might lead to confusion. While Locke humbly sees himself as simply clearing a path for science, Hume believes that his own work must lay the groundwork upon which science can rest. If he can uncover the precise laws that govern our reasoning and inferences, this should help us draw the right conclusions in our scientific investigations.
Hume brings to bear three important distinctions. The first, and most important, is the distinction between ideas and impressions. This distinction is original to Hume and solves a number of difficulties encountered by Locke. A proper discussion of Hume's footnote would take us too far afield, but we should remark that Hume's criticism of Locke is exact and powerful. The distinction between impressions and ideas might seem quite obvious and of no great importance, but Hume is quite clever to identify the full importance of this distinction. An empirical philosophy asserts that all knowledge comes from experience. For Hume, this would suggest that all knowledge comes from impressions, and so ideas are set up as secondary to impressions.
The second distinction, between complex and simple impressions or ideas, helps draw out further the power of the first distinction. A simple impression might be seeing the color red, while a complex impression might be seeing the totality of what I see right now. A simple idea might be the memory of being angry while a complex idea might be the idea of a unicorn (composed of the idea of a horse and the idea of a horn). Complex ideas and impressions are compounded out of the simple ones.
With these first two distinctions, Hume is creating a hierarchy of mental phenomena. Since the complex is compounded out of the simple and ideas are derived from impressions, everything in our mind is based ultimately upon simple impressions. A complex idea is compounded out of several simple ideas, which are in turn derived from several corresponding simple impressions. Hume thus suggests that a term can only be meaningful if it can be connected with an idea that we can associate with some simple impressions. Hume, we should note, is silently implying that every term must be connected with some idea. In the eighteenth century the philosophy of language had not yet flourished, and it was not clear how difficult it might be to determine precisely how words, ideas, and reality link up. Hume's suggestion that all terms can be analyzed into simple impressions anticipates Russell, who argues that we can analyze all terms into simple demonstratives like "this" or "that." Hume's suggestion comprehends a picture of language according to which the words we use are a complex and opaque expression of a simpler underlying language which proper analysis can bring out.
The third distinction is the three laws of association. If the previous two distinctions give us a geography of the mind, describing its different faculties, this distinction gives us a dynamics of the mind, explaining its movement. According to Hume, any given thought is somehow related to adjacent thoughts just as any given movement in the physical world is somehow related to adjacent moving bodies. His three laws of association, then, might be seen as equivalent to Newton's three laws of motion. With them, Hume hopes to have described fully the dynamics of the mind.
There are a number of objections we might want to raise to Hume's distinctions and the way they are introduced, but we will touch on only a few briefly. First, we might ask how strictly we can distinguish between impressions. Hume argues that ideas can be vague, but that impressions are exact and that the boundaries between them are clearly defined. Is the boundary between the impression of a 57" stick and a 58" stick that clearly defined? There is some level of vagueness in our impressions that Hume does not acknowledge. We could also point out that while we are experienced in distinguishing colors, we are not so good with some other sensations. For instance, we often have trouble distinguishing between tastes.
Second, we might object to Hume's implicit philosophy of language. It seems closely linked to the idea that simple impressions are clearly defined and infallible. It is far from clear, however, why it should be desirable or possible to reduce all our language to simple impressions. What, we might ask, is the simple impression from which is derived the word "sake," for example?
Third, we might ask Hume to be clearer in his distinctions. For instance, are dream images impressions or ideas? Most likely they are ideas, since they consist of a mixture of imagination and memory. However, dreams are (arguably) phenomenally indistinguishable from waking experience: we cannot prove that we are dreaming from within a dream. Thus, all our impressions from within a dream are as real to us as we dream them as waking impressions are to us when we experience them.
...more
Hume discusses the distinction between impressions and ideas. By "impressions", he means sensations, while by "ideas", he means memories and imaginings. According to Hume, the difference between the two is that ideas are less vivacious than impressions. For example, the idea of the taste of an orange is far inferior to the impression (or sensation) of actually eating one. Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas. Hume's empiricism consist
Hume discusses the distinction between impressions and ideas. By "impressions", he means sensations, while by "ideas", he means memories and imaginings. According to Hume, the difference between the two is that ideas are less vivacious than impressions. For example, the idea of the taste of an orange is far inferior to the impression (or sensation) of actually eating one. Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas. Hume's empiricism consisted in the idea that it is our knowledge, and not our ability to conceive, that is restricted to what can be experienced. He also explains that the difference between belief and fiction is that the former produces a certain feeling of confidence which the latter doesn't.
When we reason a priori, and consider merely any object or cause, as it appears to the mind, independent of all observation, it never could suggest to us the notion of any distinct object, such as its effect; much less, show us the inseparable and inviolable connexion between them. A man must be very sagacious who could discover by reasoning that crystal is the effect of heat, and ice of cold, without being previously acquainted with the operation of these qualities.
If we reason a priori, anything may appear able to produce anything. The falling of a pebble may, for aught we know, extinguish the sun; or the wish of a man control the planets in their orbits. It is only experience, which teaches us the nature and bounds of cause and effect, and enables us to infer the existence of one object from that of another.
However, Hume admits that there is one objection to his account: the problem of "The Missing Shade of Blue". In this thought-experiment, he asks us to imagine a man who has experienced every shade of blue except for one. He predicts that this man will be able to divide the color of this particular shade of blue, despite the fact that he has never experienced it. This seems to pose a serious problem for the empirical account, though Hume brushes it aside as an exceptional case by stating that one may experience a novel idea that itself is derived from combinations of previous impressions.
Hume accepts that ideas may be either the product of mere sensation, or of the imagination working in conjunction with sensation. According to Hume, the creative faculty makes use of (at least) four mental operations which produce imaginings out of sense-impressions. These operations are compounding (or the addition of one idea onto another, such as a horn on a horse to create a unicorn); transposing (or the substitution of one part of a thing with the part from another, such as with the body of a man upon a horse to make a centaur); augmenting (as with the case of a giant, whose size has been augmented); and diminishing (as with Lilliputians, whose size has been diminished)
Hume discusses how the objects of inquiry are either "relations of ideas" or "matters of fact", which is roughly the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions. The former, he tells the reader, are proved by demonstration, while the latter are given through experience. But here arises a question, why do we suppose that multiple repetitions of an experiment justify us in a necessary law? He shows how a satisfying argument for the validity of experience can be based neither on demonstration (since "it implies no contradiction that the course of nature may change") nor experience (since that would be a circular argument). So there is no certainty of experience to ensure knowledge through cause and effect.
When it is asked, What is the nature of all our reasonings concerning matter of fact? the proper answer seems to be, that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect. When again it is asked, What is the foundation of all our reasonings and conclusions concerning that relation? it may be replied in one word, experience. But if we still carry on our sifting humor, and ask, What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience? this implies a new question, which may be of more difficult solution and explication.
All reasonings may be divided into two kinds, namely, demonstrative reasoning or that concerning relations of ideas, and moral reasoning, or that concerning matter of fact and existence. That there are no demonstrative arguments in the case seems evident; since it implies no contradiction that the course of nature may change, and that an object, seemingly like those which we have experienced, may be attended with different or contrary effects. May I not clearly and distinctly conceive that a body, falling from the clouds, and which, in all other respects, resembles snow, has yet the taste of salt or feeling of fire? Is there any more intelligible proposition than to affirm, that all the trees will Sourish in December and January, and decay in May and June? Now whatever is intelligible, and can be distinctly conceived, implies no contradiction, and can never be proved false by any demonstrative argument or abstract reasoning a priori.
If we be, therefore, engaged by arguments to put trust in past experience, and make it the standard of our future judgement, these arguments must be probable only, or such as regard matter of fact and real existence, according to the division above mentioned. But that there is no argument of this kind, must appear, if our explication of that species of reasoning be admitted as solid and satisfactory. We have said that all arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect, that our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience, and that all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past. To endeavour, therefore, the proof of this last supposition by probable arguments, or arguments regarding existence, must be evidently going in a circle, and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question.
For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance.
For Hume, we assume that experience tells us something about the world because of habit or custom due to our imagination, the observation of constant conjunction of certain impressions across many instances. This is also, presumably, the "principle" that organizes the connections between ideas. And this principle can be changed any time because there is no logical reason or empirical justification for it to be necessary.
The first time a man saw the communication of motion by impulse, as by the shock of two billiard balls, he could not pronounce that the one event was connected: but only that it was conjoined with the other. After he has observed several instances of this nature, he then pronounces them to be connected. What alteration has happened to give rise to this new idea of connexion? Nothing but that he now feels these events to be connected in his imagination, and can readily foretell the existence of one from the appearance of the other. When we say, therefore, that one object is connected with another, we mean only that they have acquired a connexion in our thought, and give rise to this inference, by which they become proofs of each other's existence: A conclusion which is somewhat extraordinary, but which seems founded on sufficient evidence. Nor will its evidence be weakened by any general diffidence of the understanding, or sceptical suspicion concerning every conclusion which is new and extraordinary. No conclusions can be more agreeable to scepticism than such as make discoveries concerning the weakness and narrow limits of human reason and capacity.
It seems evident that, if all the scenes of nature were continually shifted in such a manner that no two events bore any resemblance to each other, but every object was entirely new, without any similitude to whatever had been seen before, we should never, in that case, have attained the least idea of necessity, or of a connexion among these objects. We might say, upon such a supposition, that one object or event has followed another; not that one was produced by the other. The relation of cause and effect must be utterly unknown to mankind. Inference and reasoning concerning the operations of nature would, from that moment, be at an end; and the memory and senses remain the only canals, by which the knowledge of any real existence could possibly have access to the mind. Our idea, therefore, of necessity and causation arises entirely from the uniformity observable in the operations of nature, where similar objects are constantly conjoined together, and the mind is determined by custom to infer the one from the appearance of the other. These two circumstances form the whole of that necessity, which we ascribe to matter. Beyond the constant conjunction of similar objects, and the consequent inference from one to the other, we have no notion of any necessity or connexion.
Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. We should never know how to adjust means to ends, or to employ our natural powers in the production of any effect. There would be an end at once of all action, as well as of the chief part of speculation.
When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
On Miracles, is the last chapter in the Enquiry, Hume argues that as the evidence for a miracle is always limited, as miracles are single events, occurring at particular times and places, the evidence for the miracle will always be outweighed by the evidence against — the evidence for the law of which the miracle is supposed to be a transgression. There are, however, two ways in which this argument might be neutralised. First, if the number of witnesses of the miracle be greater than the number of witnesses of the operation of the law, and secondly, if a witness be 100% reliable (for then no amount of contrary testimony will be enough to outweigh that person's account). And both cases can't happen.
...more
A few years ago I had, for lack of a better term, an existential crisis. I was completely unsatisfied with the explanations for existence/purpose that I had been given by parents/teachers/friends. It terrified me that no one had ever written about this concerns (obviously people had, I was just never introduced to them). I felt like an idiot for allowing my mind to dwell on concepts such as the basis of human understanding.
It's nice, it's calming to know that extremely intelligent people, and ma
A few years ago I had, for lack of a better term, an existential crisis. I was completely unsatisfied with the explanations for existence/purpose that I had been given by parents/teachers/friends. It terrified me that no one had ever written about this concerns (obviously people had, I was just never introduced to them). I felt like an idiot for allowing my mind to dwell on concepts such as the basis of human understanding.
It's nice, it's calming to know that extremely intelligent people, and many of them, have been concerned with the basis of human knowledge - and a few of them were as skeptical as I was.
Hume is a beautiful person. He allows us to move past complete skepticism without the need to blindly ignore the fact that complete skepticism is a genuine concern. And he did this hundreds of years ago, under the pressures of being called an 'atheist' and other bad things that could ruin his reputation and his life. I was afraid to explore these concepts in the 21st century for fear of being called weird and depressing.
...more
Hume eviscerates the belief that we can understand anything about the world on a rational and certain basis. At his most optimistic, Hume argues that all knowledge beyond direct observation is probable rather than certain. This was an important chastenment of Enlightenment rationalism, and is generally accepted today.
But Hume's argument seems to go much farther, and the more optimistic later sections are the result of his either not recognizing the strength of his earlier arguments or deliberatl
Hume eviscerates the belief that we can understand anything about the world on a rational and certain basis. At his most optimistic, Hume argues that all knowledge beyond direct observation is probable rather than certain. This was an important chastenment of Enlightenment rationalism, and is generally accepted today.
But Hume's argument seems to go much farther, and the more optimistic later sections are the result of his either not recognizing the strength of his earlier arguments or deliberatly obscuring it. In the critical section, "Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding," Hume demonstrates there is no rational reason to expect future events to follow the same pattern as those in the past. To have confidence in induction, and thus science and most philosophy, is therefore a matter of faith rather than reason. There is no rational way to understand the world.
In subsequent sections, Hume presents an argument for why we believe in causation and induction. It is because, he says, observing one event invariably follow another creates in our minds the expectation that it will always be so. But, as he demonstrated earlier, there is no rational basis for this belief. Oddly, in the final sections Hume proceeds as if this belief is justified, and offers critiques of miraculous and natural religion.
...more
Hume's
Enquiry
is a landmark document in epistemology, the study of what distinguishes justified beliefs from unjustified ones. It's about sixty pages, and is a rewriting of the first part of his more monolithic
Treatise of Human Nature
(1737), which he started writing at about my age (23!) and published three years later.
In short, the book aligns very well with the thinking of modern secular humanism -- and parts of it cover very similar ideas to what you'd find in contemporary skeptic and athe
Hume's
Enquiry
is a landmark document in epistemology, the study of what distinguishes justified beliefs from unjustified ones. It's about sixty pages, and is a rewriting of the first part of his more monolithic
Treatise of Human Nature
(1737), which he started writing at about my age (23!) and published three years later.
In short, the book aligns very well with the thinking of modern secular humanism -- and parts of it cover very similar ideas to what you'd find in contemporary skeptic and atheist literatures (Michael Shermer comes to mind).
With few exceptions, one does not approach a canonical work of philosophy without his reasons -- some particular interest or motivation. Philosophy is dense, and not for the faint of heart. Hume is aware of this, and seems almost as frustrated as I am at philosophers' general incompetence at actual
communication
. "Be a philosopher;" he writes, "but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man," and that only a subset of people can "reap pleasure from what, to the generality of mankind, may seem burdensome and laborious." A whole chapter is dedicated to the importance of backing up abstract ideas with concrete examples.
Compared to the likes of, say, Locke or Kant, then, Hume is a delight -- but it still takes some effort, especially if you're not used to reading books of "substance."
I was introduced to Hume at 16 through a paperback introduction to philosophy I picked up while hosteling in London (
Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy
). Ready and eager to embark on a freethinking search for truth myself, I find natural allies in the efforts of Descartes and Hume to lay bias aside and put their back into the mill of
reason
, thereby sifting the truth out of the cacophony of dissident voices in the world. Firmly convinced that "we see through a glass darkly," and that the rest of the world's voices deserved my respectful ear, I wanted to peer outside the conservative Christian bubble that had formed my every thought and act, and thereby discover the truth (hopefully Christianity), and more importantly develop
confidence
in it.
I was shocked and abhorred to discover that the philosophers asked me to seriously consider, before addressing any of the Great Questions that are popularly debated, whether my senses are reliable.
I was not prepared for this kind of "Cartesian doubt." Are my senses reliable? Of course they are! I seem to remember wondering, when I was about six years old, whether other people saw orange the same way I do -- or perhaps they felt slightly different qualia. In any event, I certainly decided it did not matter. But in asking the question "how do we know," however, one must start with the basics!
Hume has no intention of overturning common sense -- he makes that clear from the beginning. But, having established soundly that correlation does not ever imply causation, he cannot provide a rebuttal of Pyrrhonism (total skepticism as founded by the Greek Pyrrho) -- save to point out that such extreme doubt never did anybody any good.
Many of his points abut Pyrrhonism could apply unchanged to postmodernism, and thus maintain a good deal of currency.
Hume's chief concern is to establish the virtue of an "academic" approach to knowledge, which is not as hyperbolic as Pyrrhonism, but is tempered and humble in its aspirations. It is the happy medium, one could say, between the "dogmatical reasoner" who is one-sided and passionate in his opinions and has a poor appreciation for existing counterarguments or respect for opponents; and the extreme skeptic who reserves judgment on any and all issues, declaring man's reason wholly suspect and completely untrustworthy. "In general," he writes, "there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty, which, in all kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a just reasoner."
Along the way he steps on many religious toes. He says that the debate over free will is just a matter of semantics -- and nobody really believes in a will that isn't bound by the laws of cause and effects. He suggests that it's more reasonable to take the universe's imperfection at face value, and conclude that God too is imperfect -- as opposed to constructing elaborate defenses of His honor that are wholly speculative. He devotes a chapter to miracles, and decides that there is no case in which the testimony of others can be held so trustworthy as to overcome our faith in the complete hegemony of natural law. Ultimately he says that there is no rational case for Christianity whatsoever, and that belief in God as commonly understood can be based upon faith and nothing else.
I was somewhat dissatisfied with Hume's infidelity. Prophecy he dismisses in just half a paragraph, contending that his discussion of miracles had covered it. Prophecy was a huge part of my upbringing, being one of the first resorts of those who wanted to show the Bible to be trustworthy. Furthermore he makes little reference to personal experience with the divine, considering primarily when one should and should not believe the testimony of
others
.
On the topic of questioning human testimony, however, he did an excellent job. The diversity of the world's religions, the readiness with which the masses believe and retell miraculous stories, and our innate desire to embrace wonders despite our rationality are the foundation of my own apostasy. His delivery of the case was beautiful. My only qualm was that he seemed to lay emphasis on deceit and self-aggrandizement as the origin point of many such myths -- while I consider it likely that good, honest men are the source of most of our delusions.
The first few chapters will be tedious to most readers, since they are quite elementally
philosophical
. If you find your motivation to wade through the text is waining, skipping straight to the chapter on miracles probably wouldn't be a sin. I found the beginning very intriguing as a computer scientist, mostly because the tedious foundations of epistemology, by attempting to precisely define the "secret springs and principles" that define human reasoning, preempt the efforts of Artificial Intelligence to automate reasoning. Writers like Hume, and later Wittgenstein, were groping about in a land that is now pristinely codified in the language of statistical learning (a.k.a. machine learning).
And in all, I highly recommend Hume, to believers and nonbelievers alike. Even if you do not find his arguments against belief compelling, the principle of "academic" and skeptical philosophy should be useful for anyone who pretends to honesty and clarity in their opinions. The world has a dearth of carefulness in reasoning, which in my opinion is closely associated with the widespread paucity of love and sympathy. Hume's observations can only help that lack.
Topics covered
:
Foundations of Intelligent Thought
Importance of Evidence
Correlation does not imply causation
Fallibility of Human Reason
Skepticism
Probability
The Soul
Free Will
Theodicy
Miracles
Natural Theology
Intelligent Design
Myths
Ethics without God
God as a Projection of Man
Impossibility of True Cartesian Doubt
Cranks
...more
This is David Hume's summary of his central doctrines and themes of his empiricist philosophy. It was a revision of an earlier effort,
A Treatise of Human Nature
, published anonymously in London in 1739–40. Hume was disappointed with the reception of the Treatise, which "fell stillborn from the press," as he put it, and so he tried again to disseminate a more developed version of his ideas to the public by writing a shorter and more polemical work.
The end product of his labours was the Enquiry w
This is David Hume's summary of his central doctrines and themes of his empiricist philosophy. It was a revision of an earlier effort,
A Treatise of Human Nature
, published anonymously in London in 1739–40. Hume was disappointed with the reception of the Treatise, which "fell stillborn from the press," as he put it, and so he tried again to disseminate a more developed version of his ideas to the public by writing a shorter and more polemical work.
The end product of his labours was the Enquiry which dispensed with much of the material from the Treatise, in favor of clarifying and emphasizing its most important aspects. For example, Hume's views on personal identity, do not appear. However, more vital propositions, such as Hume's argument for the role of habit in a theory of knowledge, are retained.
This book has been highly influential both in the years that immediately followed up until today. Immanuel Kant pointed to it as the book which woke him from his self-described "dogmatic slumber" The Enquiry is widely regarded as a classic in modern philosophical literature in part because David Hume is one of the greatest prose stylists of the English language.
...more
It's a bit pointless to try to comment on this book, especially considering how much scholarship there is on Hume and how widely studied he still is by the intellectually curious and in Philosophy departments. He is an amazingly advanced thinker for the time, and is still important today, partly because although he doesn't seem to like Spinoza or any of the Rationalists, most of the basis for contemporary psychology, cognitive science and neuroscience is found in these two great philosophers' wr
It's a bit pointless to try to comment on this book, especially considering how much scholarship there is on Hume and how widely studied he still is by the intellectually curious and in Philosophy departments. He is an amazingly advanced thinker for the time, and is still important today, partly because although he doesn't seem to like Spinoza or any of the Rationalists, most of the basis for contemporary psychology, cognitive science and neuroscience is found in these two great philosophers' writing.
The problem of induction is forcefully and eloquently articulated here, and Hume's mostly convincing on everything he writes about. There are some odd things in this book you rarely hear about, and Hume's discussion of religion is nuanced in a way that doesn't seem to register with most, at least not in my intellectual circles.
...more
What I like about Hume is the skepticism and empiricism. What I don't like about Hume is the doubting of causality. Too bad this is pretty much thought of as the Hume thing.
Hume was a very, very necessary step in the evolution of philosophy. He overcame the irrational rationalism of Descartes and Berkeley, and paved the way for German idealism, which of course led to Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, etc. And really, I find Hume's brand of Enlightenment thought so much more palatable than Kant's or
What I like about Hume is the skepticism and empiricism. What I don't like about Hume is the doubting of causality. Too bad this is pretty much thought of as the Hume thing.
Hume was a very, very necessary step in the evolution of philosophy. He overcame the irrational rationalism of Descartes and Berkeley, and paved the way for German idealism, which of course led to Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, etc. And really, I find Hume's brand of Enlightenment thought so much more palatable than Kant's or Hegel's.
And, other than the causality thing, it's really a very well-reasoned epistemology by my book-- most human knowledge among most humans is ultimately derived from habit and impulse rather than rational decision-making and inquiry. i can only imagine how refreshing this must have been when it was first published.
...more
This book is perhaps the most sophisticated book on philosophy that has ever been published. In its core it touches on psychology, physics, and the physiology of the brain, biological claims to survival, and then some. This book portrays the science of philosophy.
As I go through my career, references to Hume come up in my thoughts. As I read psychology books, physics books, and such, references to Hume come up in my thoughts. Connections to Hume are everywhere. No other author has been so much o
This book is perhaps the most sophisticated book on philosophy that has ever been published. In its core it touches on psychology, physics, and the physiology of the brain, biological claims to survival, and then some. This book portrays the science of philosophy.
As I go through my career, references to Hume come up in my thoughts. As I read psychology books, physics books, and such, references to Hume come up in my thoughts. Connections to Hume are everywhere. No other author has been so much on the forefront of the mind than David Hume and his genius explanation of being.
We are survivors in a world that demands we find connections in order to survive and keep our understanding of the world. The conclusions that we draw, our reality is a manifestation of our search for order and making sense from our experience and what we trust. Our experience is basically all that we are and all that we will ever be. Everything is given to trust and what we trust is what we choose to in our search for meaning. What is given to us in our senses is everything we have ever been or can be. As I teach my students in math and life; we are pattern making machines. Hume is the epitomy of this. You come away from An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding realizing both lonliness and feelings of oneness with others.
This is Hume in a nutshell.
Must read for anyone who is alive and experiences any facet of their senses; i.e., everyone.
...more
After his three-volume Treatise of Human Nature dropped like a rock to the bottom of the pool of British philosophic writing, Hume set out to write a briefer, more accessible version -- the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. One of the early points it makes is that most endeavors to write about the nature of thought are hopeless and nearly impossible to understand. With that disclaimer, Hume sets out to contradict himself by writing lucidly about, while candidly acknowledging the severe lim
After his three-volume Treatise of Human Nature dropped like a rock to the bottom of the pool of British philosophic writing, Hume set out to write a briefer, more accessible version -- the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. One of the early points it makes is that most endeavors to write about the nature of thought are hopeless and nearly impossible to understand. With that disclaimer, Hume sets out to contradict himself by writing lucidly about, while candidly acknowledging the severe limits of, this topic. He uses logic to show that most human understanding falls into two categories: a very small group of innate truths deducible by logic, like every triangle has three sides, and a much larger group -- nearly everything we "know" -- which is based on reality-based observation. This latter group always has, at a fundamental level, an element of probabilistic assumption: Things customarily happened this way before, so they probably will again. Thus almost everything we (think we) know about the world is based on empirical experience, not pure logic. So . . .how did he figure this all out?
...more
I decided to read this book because a quote from it has long been one of the foundations of my thinking: "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." That being said, I can't say that I completely followed Hume's reasoning - I have only dabbled in philosophy, and I'm not used to reading such densely-argued writing. The
Enquiry
is probably a book I should read again in order to gain a better grasp, but I can't see that happening anytime soon. I was able to appreciate Hume's emphasis on re
I decided to read this book because a quote from it has long been one of the foundations of my thinking: "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." That being said, I can't say that I completely followed Hume's reasoning - I have only dabbled in philosophy, and I'm not used to reading such densely-argued writing. The
Enquiry
is probably a book I should read again in order to gain a better grasp, but I can't see that happening anytime soon. I was able to appreciate Hume's emphasis on reason and evidence as the only sound bases for belief, though, even if many of the details of his thinking eluded me.
As someone who is married to a (non-clinical) psychologist, I found Hume's introductory passages interesting. It had not previously occurred to me that, before psychology was established as a field of study, philosophy was considered the science of the mind.
Speaking of my scientist wife, she really enjoyed this quote: "The sweetest and most inoffensive path of life leads through the avenues of science and learning; and whoever can either remove any obstructions in this way, or open up any new prospect, ought so far to be esteemed a benefactor to mankind."
It is rare that I read an entire book twice in a row, but I made an exception for Hume's
Enquiry
. Yes, he’s
that
good. – I wasn’t quite as happy with the Kindle version of this book though, since there are no direct links in the text to Hume's own notes - which doesn’t exactly allow for a smooth reading experience.
The Oxford World’s Classics edition includes the Abstract of the
Treatise of Human Nature
, the essay
Of the Immortality of the Soul
, excerpts from letters and from the
Dialogues conce
It is rare that I read an entire book twice in a row, but I made an exception for Hume's
Enquiry
. Yes, he’s
that
good. – I wasn’t quite as happy with the Kindle version of this book though, since there are no direct links in the text to Hume's own notes - which doesn’t exactly allow for a smooth reading experience.
The Oxford World’s Classics edition includes the Abstract of the
Treatise of Human Nature
, the essay
Of the Immortality of the Soul
, excerpts from letters and from the
Dialogues concerning Natural Religion
, as well as Hume's short autobiography,
My Own Life
.
...more
Somwhere in this book Hume reminds us to
"Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man"
- it is a kind of thing you would say
to
a philospher rather than hear from same. Hume does maintain on this principle and while he is not afraid of going into abstract reasonings and doubts for mere pleasure of doing so; he is always willing, rather he insists we keep coming back to our daily life to check validity of our conclusions.
He goes on to prove that all our knowledge is derived
Somwhere in this book Hume reminds us to
"Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man"
- it is a kind of thing you would say
to
a philospher rather than hear from same. Hume does maintain on this principle and while he is not afraid of going into abstract reasonings and doubts for mere pleasure of doing so; he is always willing, rather he insists we keep coming back to our daily life to check validity of our conclusions.
He goes on to prove that all our knowledge is derived from experience and that no associations among experienced elements (for example, cause and effect) can thus be
surely
derived on different elements. Then he says it is done by all animals on impulse and life will not be possible otherwise. He is not blind to fact that we, in daily life, propotion our faith in these associations to probability.
He presents a wonderful arguement against miracles continuing on same line of reasoning. He argues that all miracles seemed to have happened in long past and always in most barbarian circumstances. It is more probable (and thus easier to believe) that a testinomy telling us of occurance of a highly improbable, almost impossible event (which all miracles are by very defination) should be false (innocently or otherwise)
He is greatly economical with words and conjust a lot in those hundred odd pages. The language is beautiful and thoughts contained them of great value. Despite the wisdom, he is humble, like Socrats, and desires to be told where he is in error. In fact, a couple of times he mentions the possibility that there may be some points he hadn't considered in some particular subject. Neither does he prerend to have established a perfect system of thought.
...more
Hume is about as level-headed as they come. He is not interested in proving things, he just wants to be honest about what we can even attempt to understand. Some things can be understood intuitively or demonstratively. Like geometry, algebra or anything else discoverable by thought alone. Then there are some things that are matters of fact. The sun rises in the morning. It rained yesterday. Hume cares mostly about how we can know these matters of fact. Because it is these matters of fact which a
Hume is about as level-headed as they come. He is not interested in proving things, he just wants to be honest about what we can even attempt to understand. Some things can be understood intuitively or demonstratively. Like geometry, algebra or anything else discoverable by thought alone. Then there are some things that are matters of fact. The sun rises in the morning. It rained yesterday. Hume cares mostly about how we can know these matters of fact. Because it is these matters of fact which affect us on a daily basis.
Through our senses we experience the world. As we gain experience, we learn to expect certain things. Therefore, we use induction to come to tentative conclusions. For example, the sun has risen every morning which I can remember, therefore it will rise tomorrow. There is no mental process which makes it so. We know this solely from cataloguing our experience with the world. It is a rational process, but one not based in any
a priori
truth. It is based on experience.
Hume accepts, without trying to explain why, that we can only make rational inferences based on our experiences. We don’t even know for sure if our experiences are accurate, but it’s the best we can do. He’s applying the scientific method to human nature. We work from a hypothesis on what we should do and how we should behave and wait until it’s disproven. Hume is not promoting metaphysics, he’s just looking for a clear understanding of how we can operate within the world we experience. He’s probably one of the first documented agnostics.
Widely held to be the last in the triumvirate of British empiricists (along with Locke and Berkeley), he synthesizes their position in clear and precise language. Though in many ways the Enlightenment philosophers broke with the Aristotelian scientific and metaphysical tradition, I can’t help seeing some parallels between Hume’s
Enquiry
and the underlying purpose of Aristotle’s
Nichomachean Ethics.
Neither really try to explain the world, they just help us fumble along within it. Sometimes it’s nice to hear someone else say that nobody really knows anything, so let’s stop pretending.
The edition I read contained an introduction and footnotes by Antony Flew, three letters from Hume, a letter by Adam Smith written after Hume died, Hume’s autobiographical fragment “My Own Life,” an abstract from his Treatise on human nature, and an excerpt from it concerning causes. The main text: it’s brilliant! Hume lays out his arguments craftily and clearly, and the result is an explosion of the reader’s preconceptions about the mind and, most dazzling of all, religion. Hume maintains that
The edition I read contained an introduction and footnotes by Antony Flew, three letters from Hume, a letter by Adam Smith written after Hume died, Hume’s autobiographical fragment “My Own Life,” an abstract from his Treatise on human nature, and an excerpt from it concerning causes. The main text: it’s brilliant! Hume lays out his arguments craftily and clearly, and the result is an explosion of the reader’s preconceptions about the mind and, most dazzling of all, religion. Hume maintains that we can know nothing but from experience; that cause and effect can only be deduced through the habit of observation; and that we are governed by both liberty and necessity. Armed with these principles, he destroys religion, showing anything we could possibly think about God is pure fantasy, miracles are ludicrous by definition, there is no reason to believe in heaven and even if God exists he is logically the author of evil. A work of true genius; he was way ahead of his time. He died like Timothy Leary, too.
...more
Qu’ai je découvert dans cet ouvrage de Hume que je n’ai pas lu dans l’ouvrage éponyme de Locke ? Juste quelques détails, mais qui ont leur prix. Hume embrasse les mêmes thèmes que son compatriote, mais en les survolant par allusion, avec plus de grâce et d’aisance, sans doute, mais aussi bien moins de rigueur et de scrupules. Où sont passés cette inquiétude de définir précisément chaque terme, de construire l’ouvrage suivant un plan, de prévenir chaque objection, de détruire toute ombre de doute
Qu’ai je découvert dans cet ouvrage de Hume que je n’ai pas lu dans l’ouvrage éponyme de Locke ? Juste quelques détails, mais qui ont leur prix. Hume embrasse les mêmes thèmes que son compatriote, mais en les survolant par allusion, avec plus de grâce et d’aisance, sans doute, mais aussi bien moins de rigueur et de scrupules. Où sont passés cette inquiétude de définir précisément chaque terme, de construire l’ouvrage suivant un plan, de prévenir chaque objection, de détruire toute ombre de doute ? D’abord, c’est avec le ton aisé de conversation que l’on avance sur la même matière, mais en l’ayant débarrassée des parties les plus fastidieuses des démonstrations et controverses. J’hésite autant à lui en faire un mérite ou un reproche, mais à tout prendre, j’estime plus la manière de son prédécesseur. D’un autre coté, pourquoi remuer une querelle déjà vidée? Ensuite, Hume ne manque pas de finesse, par exemple lorsqu’il fait intervenir un personnage imaginaire, comme Platon dans son Hippias Majeur, pour avancer des paradoxes sur la vie future et la religion. C’est une audace que ne pouvaient pas se permettre Locke – mais qui en tiendrait rigueur à l’auteur de l’immortel traité sur la tolérance ? Il ne fut sans doute pas étranger à ce que cette audace puisse enfin tranquillement voir le jour -. On reconnaît et apprécie aussi les vivifiantes influences d'Épicure et surtout de Lucien qui manquaient un peu chez son compatriote du XVIIème, et qui se marient très bien avec les idées de ce courant Anglais que l’on nomme Empirisme, et qui fut adopté avec enthousiasme de ce coté de la Manche.
...more
This intro to an essay I wrote on this book pretty much sums it up:
David Hume delves into all doctrines of life in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, unearthing the fallibility of all human-made dogmas. His stance lends no credence to the predictability of the future, and instead infringes upon the reliability of any human experience outside of the experience itself. Hume sees every cause and effect as an isolated happenstance, and even with similarities in experiences, places no stoc
This intro to an essay I wrote on this book pretty much sums it up:
David Hume delves into all doctrines of life in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, unearthing the fallibility of all human-made dogmas. His stance lends no credence to the predictability of the future, and instead infringes upon the reliability of any human experience outside of the experience itself. Hume sees every cause and effect as an isolated happenstance, and even with similarities in experiences, places no stock in these incidents building upon person’s knowledge of the world. In fact, Hume states that the current state of human knowledge is so limited that nothing we claim to know is solidified, but it is in human nature to simplify and catalog the world in terms that are relatable and relevant to past experience. Human senses can rarely decipher all of the minute elements leading to an effect, and therefore can only create speculative matters of fact, lest life in a world of random happenings. However, not until humans can understand the inner workings of the intricate world in which we inhabit, can they endeavor to know anything for certain.
Hume’s standpoint on actions and their results may seem at first to give support for unaccountability in the effects of an action, but upon further inspection challenges the reader and all humans to endeavor always for accountability in their actions. He states that “the experimental reasoning itself, which we possess in common with beasts, and on which the whole conduct of life depends, is nothing but a species of instinct or mechanical power, that acts in us unknown to ourselves; and in its chief operations, is not directed by any such relations or comparisons of ideas, as are the proper objects of our intellectual faculties” (72). Humans, born with higher brain capacities than animals, should act in a more premeditated and thoughtful way, but if a human does not act up to these moral expectations, it is a failing of circumstances out of their control and not any failing of the person. Behind this statement lies a challenge for all humans to live up to their utmost ability to act in a way which reflects their true nature. Although this statement absolves any animal unable to reach this zenith of awareness of accountability in their actions, it challenges every human reader to allay their ignorance, and pull themselves above the instinctual reactions of animals, and instead always endeavor for a holistic knowledge instead of a blind trajectory.
Hume concedes free will in all living organisms in a certain situation, claiming all living things, animals and humans alike, have the ability to react in a certain way which is original to them in every situation. These differences in reactions are due to the customs that organism has learned to emulate from experience, and as each animal and human have different experiences, each has different reactions to arising situations. These differences, however, do not deviate from the norms which govern all living things. Travelers to far-off lands bring back no accounts of men behaving and existing in society in vastly different ways from others. The same basic needs drive all creatures, perhaps with differing strength, and “our idea of necessity and causation arises entirely from the uniformity, observable in the operations of nature” (54-55). Hume asserts the uniformity of the drives behind all human and animal actions, but grants that these uniformities should not “be carried to such a length, as that all men in the same circumstances, will always act out precisely in the same manner, without making any allowance for the diversity of characters, prejudices and opinions” (57). This explains why animalistic behavior is substantially more uniform than human action, as a person’s thoughts and ideas cloud their steadfast trajectory in fulfilling their needs as a living organism, while an animal’s lack of rational thought leads to their uniform and primal actions.
...more
When I made the final decision to pursue a PhD in Instructional Technology, I read this book in the months before starting as a way of plunging into the study of education. I don't think I could have chosen any better- excellent!
My book notes:
Section 1: On the different species of philosophy
In this section Hume distinguishes philosophy for the sake of philosophy from applied philosophy. He wishes to argue for a more scientific approach to exploring "human understanding."
p. 2 If they can discover
When I made the final decision to pursue a PhD in Instructional Technology, I read this book in the months before starting as a way of plunging into the study of education. I don't think I could have chosen any better- excellent!
My book notes:
Section 1: On the different species of philosophy
In this section Hume distinguishes philosophy for the sake of philosophy from applied philosophy. He wishes to argue for a more scientific approach to exploring "human understanding."
p. 2 If they can discover some hidden truths which may contribute to the instruction of posterity.
p. 5 defines metaphysics as the "absolute rejection of all profound reasonings
p. 6 of any art or profession: "a spirit of accuracy carries all of them nearer their perfection, renders them more subservient to the interests of society"
p. 8 the mind is endowed with several powers and faculties, that these powers are distinct from each other, that what is really distinct to the immediate perception may be distinguished by reflexion: and consequently, that there is a truth and falsehood, which lie not beyond the compass of human understanding. There are many obvious distinctions of this kind, such as those between the will and understanding, the imagination and passions, which fall within the comprehension of every human creature; and the finer and more philosophical distinctions are no less real and certain, though more difficult to be comprehended.
Section 2: Of the origin of ideas
In this section, Hume distinguishes thoughts and ideas from sensory impressions.
p. 13 the less forcible and lively are commonly denominated Thoughts or Ideas--- impression- all our more lively perceptions, when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will. And impressions are distinguished from ideas, which are less lively perceptions, of which we are conscious, when we reflect on any of those sensations or movements above mentioned.
p. 13-14 creative power of the mind amounts to no more than the faculty compounding, transposing, augmenting, or diminishing the materials afforded us by the sense and experience.
p. 16 When we entertain, therefore, any suspicion that a philosophical term is employed without any meaning or idea (as is but too frequent), we need but enquire, from what impression is that supposed idea derived? And if it be impossible to assign any, this will serve to confirm our suspicion."
Section 3 Of the association of ideas
In this brief section, Hume proposes three categories for defining association between ideas: resemblance, contiguity in time or place and cause or effect-- three principles of connexion
p. 18 But that this enumeration is complete and that there are no other principles of association except these, may be difficult to prove to the satisfaction of the reader, or even to a man's own satisfaction. All we can do, in such cases, is to run over several instances, and examine carefully the principle which binds the different thoughts to each other, never stopping till we render the principal as general as possible
Section 4 Sceptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding
Part 1
Relations of ideas: geometry, algebra, arithmetic
Propositions of this type are discoverable by the mere operation of thoughts, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe
Matters of Fact
p. 20 All reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of cause and effect- near or remote, direct or collateral
What is the nature of that evidence which assures us of any real existence and matter of fact, beyond the present testimony of our senses, or the records of our memory?
p. 20 causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason but by experience
p. 24 the utmost effect of human reason is to reduce the principles, productive of natural phenomena, to a greater simplicity, and to resolve the many particular effects into a few general causes, by means of reasonings from analogy, experience and observation
Part 2
What is the nature of all our reasonings concerning matter of fact?
-founded on the relation of cause and effect
What is the foundation of all our reasonings and conclusions concering that relation?
-experience
What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience?
-all influences from experience suppose that the future will resemble the past and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities
Section 5 Sceptical solution of these doubts
Part 1
p. 36 Reason is incapable of such variation. The conclusions which it draws from considering one circle are the same which it would form upon surveying all the circles in the universe.
All inferences from experience are effects of custom, not of reasoning.
Part 2
Belief
p. 39 nothing but a more vivid, lively, forcible, firm, steady conception of an object, than what the imagination alone is ever able to attain
p. 41 customary conjunction of the object with something present ot the memory or senses
p. 42 Sensible objects have always a greater influence on the fancy than any other; and this influence they readily convey to those ideas to they are related, and which they resemble.
Section 6 Of probability
p. 47 There are some causes, which are entirely uniform and constant in producing a particular effect; and no instance has ever yet been found of any failure or irregularity in their operation... but there are other causes which have been found more irregular and uncertain
p. 48 Though we give the preference to that which has been found most usual, and believe that this effect will exist, we must not overlook the other effects, we must not overlook the other effects, but must assign to each of them a particular weight and authority, in proposition as we have found it to be more or less frequent.
Section 7 Of the idea of necessary connexion
p. 50 There are no ideas, which occur in metaphysics, more obscure and uncertain than those of power, force, energy or necessary connexion, of which it is every moment necessary for us to treat in all our disquisitions.
p. 51 all our ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions, or, in other words, that it is impossible for us to think of anything, which we have not antecedntly felt, either by our external or internal senses
p. 52 external objects are they appear to the sense, give us no idea of power or necessary connexion
p. 62 one object connected with another -- they have acquired a connexion in our thought and give rise to this influence, by which they become proof of each other's existence
Section 8 Of liberty & necessity
Part 1
p. 66 the economy of the intellectual system or region of spirits
p. 67 Beyond the constant conjunction of similar objects, and the consequent influence from one to the other, we have no notion of any necessity or connexion
p. 74 It seems almost impossible, therefore, to engage either in science or action of any kind without acknowledging the doctrine of necessity, and this inference from motive to voluntary actions, from characters to conduct.
p. 76 particular objects are constantly conjoined together, and that the mind is carried, by a customary transition, from the appearnce of one to the belief of the other.
p. 78 By liberty... we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will
p. 79 There is no method of reasoning more common, and yet none more blameable, than in philosophical disputes, to endeavor the refutation of any hypothesis, by a pretence of its dangerous consequences to religion or morality.
"The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation." p. 11
"To me, there appear to be only three principles of connection among ideas, namely, Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect." p. 15
"If I ask you why you believe in any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, wh
"The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation." p. 11
"To me, there appear to be only three principles of connection among ideas, namely, Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect." p. 15
"If I ask you why you believe in any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation." 27
"The isosceles and scalenum are distinguished by boundaries more exact than vice and virtue, right and wrong." p. 35
"The scenes of the universe are continually shifting, and one object follows another in an uninterrupted succession; but the power of force, which actuates the whole machine, is entirely concealed from us, and never discovers itself in any of the sensible qualities of the body [solidity, extension, motion]. p. 36
"The wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence." p. 62
"The reason why we place any credit in witnesses and historians is not derived from any connection, which we perceive a priori, between testimony and reality, but because we are accustomed to find a conformity between them." p. 63
"The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worth of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient evidence to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.' p. 65
"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle if the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion." p. 65-66
"When we infer any particular cause from an effect, we must proportion the one to the other, and can never be allowed to ascribe to the cause any qualities, but which are exactly sufficient to produce the effect. A body of 10 ounces raised in any scale may serve as a proof, that the counterbalancing weight exceeds 10 ounces, but can never afford a reason that it exceeds a hundred" p. 78. Argument-From-Design Killer.
"All the philosophy, therefore, in the world, and all the religion, which is nothing but a species of philosophy, will never be able to carry us beyond the usual course of experience, or give us measures of conduct and behavior different from those which are furnished by reflections on common life." p. 83. Empiricism in a nutshell, or rather anti-rationalist?
"We have sought in vain for an idea of power or necessary connection. Some events seem conjoined but never connected. We have no idea of connection or power. And such ideas are absolutely without any meaning, either by philosophers or by any in common life. Because of our mind expecting an effect due to the custom of our experience, we project onto a cause a power that is not there. We project onto two events a connection which we feel in the mind and from which we form the idea of power or nece
"We have sought in vain for an idea of power or necessary connection. Some events seem conjoined but never connected. We have no idea of connection or power. And such ideas are absolutely without any meaning, either by philosophers or by any in common life. Because of our mind expecting an effect due to the custom of our experience, we project onto a cause a power that is not there. We project onto two events a connection which we feel in the mind and from which we form the idea of power or necessary connection. There is no other area in our understanding in which there is such ignorance than this of cause and effect. All science can do is to teach us how to regulate future events by their causes. And a cause is nothing other than an object, followed by another, where all similar objects to the first are followed by objects similar to the second. Or: if the first object had not been, the second never would have existed. And because a cause always conveys to the mind the idea of the effect, there is another definition of cause: an object followed by another whose appearance always conveys the thought of that other. What do we mean when we say that the vibration of this string is the cause of this particular sound? We can have no further idea of the relation than by these definitions. Beyond these we have no idea of the relationship between the vibration of a string and a sound."
I'm not sure there is anything in philosophy that has hit home harder for me than this point. It has made so many ideas easier to swallow, especially when I look towards say modern physics, and I have found it hard to gather the energy to even try to look beyond it; I should probably break the previously mentioned habit.
...more
I was really impressed with this book and enjoyed it far more than I expected I would. Hume's prose is exceptional and his use of examples, such as the billard balls and candles which come up in a few places, is of massive assistance in elucidating his notion of human reason, epistemology, belief, and skepticism. Sections IV and V, where he develops the idea he is most famous for (that causation is founded upon belief and conjunction, not reason and connection), are absolutely stunning, some of
I was really impressed with this book and enjoyed it far more than I expected I would. Hume's prose is exceptional and his use of examples, such as the billard balls and candles which come up in a few places, is of massive assistance in elucidating his notion of human reason, epistemology, belief, and skepticism. Sections IV and V, where he develops the idea he is most famous for (that causation is founded upon belief and conjunction, not reason and connection), are absolutely stunning, some of the best philosophy I have ever read. "An Inquiry" is great for those interested in the generic, huge questions of philosophy and an excellent starting point for a critical thinking 101 course. It is also useful in the light of Quentin Meillassoux's "After Finitude," which I read recently and speaks intimately to the issues that Hume raises herein. I must admit, without my utilitarian leanings and the proofs contained in Meillassoux's work, Hume's skepticism would shaken the very roots of my understanding.
The book, however, does have its drawbacks. After Hume deconstructs the relationship between cause and effect, his work quickly becomes repetitive. He uses the same method again and again without particularly convincing or inspiring results (see the diminutive section VI, "Of Probability," or the more thorough but equally questionable "Of the Reason of Animals," Section IX). Further, he is prone to ill-founded schematization of the sort Nietzsche so rightly critiques, such as dividing all knowledge into impressions and the more abstract ideas/thoughts, or positing that resemblance, contiguity, or causation define the entire field of association. While the way he lays these schemas out is all quite reasonable, there are plenty of problematic examples (where do dreams/hallucinations fit in the impression/idea dichotomy? Psychoanalysis in general is a massive problem for Hume's reasoning, as is poststructuralism) and he is suspiciously selective in applying such scrutiny to causation and not the other categories of relation: isn't the notion of resemblance just as prone to deconstruction? It is easy enough to find flaws in the logic that structures resemblances (see Nietzsche again, Baudrillard, or--most importantly--Deleuze) which have troubling implications for the way Hume resolves causation, essentially recasting it in terms of conjunction and resemblance.
Finally, Hume's occasional handling of mathematics baffles me and I feel as if I am either missing something or the context of his day is more alien than anticipated. His contention that it is impossible to define the notion of equivalence is laughable, and reducing all mathematics to the manipulation of quantity and number is equally dubious (though certainly not as much so then as it is now). Developments such as set theory, so important to the work of contemporary thinkers Badiou and Meillassoux, render his conclusions false.
...more
In my opinion, this is maybe the most important book of philosophy written before the 20th century. This is the second time I've read it (once when I was about 16), and it's had a pretty drastic effect on my worldview; more than I realized until I went back, and saw how some of these same arguments were still effecting things I think now. Hume's philosophy isn't exactly an end in itself, but it provides an epistemological standard that, essentially, all knowledge has to meet or it isn't knowledg
In my opinion, this is maybe the most important book of philosophy written before the 20th century. This is the second time I've read it (once when I was about 16), and it's had a pretty drastic effect on my worldview; more than I realized until I went back, and saw how some of these same arguments were still effecting things I think now. Hume's philosophy isn't exactly an end in itself, but it provides an epistemological standard that, essentially, all knowledge has to meet or it isn't knowledge at all. It's rare to see an opinion that wasn't hundreds of years ahead of its time, though a lot of what Hume did then is implicit in contemporary science now. I also have to give him credit for being, after Hobbes--who was an asshole--the first major athiest in Western philosophy. Philosophy from around this time doesn't usually age well, but Hume is an exception, I think. There's a lot here to be expanded on, but very little that should be abandoned.
...more
بشكل ما، ومن جهة معينة للنظر، لا نبالغ إذا اعتقدنا أن تاريخ الفلسفة، من نظرية معرفة وميتافيزيقا بشكل أكثر تحديدًا، يمكن أن ينقسم حول هذا النص إلى ما قبله وما بعده. فعلاوة على ما يشتهر به من أنه صاغ بشكل واضح ما عُرف بعد ذلك تحت مسمى "مشكلة الاستقراء"، يبلغ هذا النص بالأساسوية في المعرفة منتهى أزمتها، كما أنه لا يتوانى عن إعمال معوله في التصورات الأساسية للميتافيزيقا والفيزياء لذلك الوقت بجسارة لا تعوزها الدقة. وعلى مدار القرنين ونصف القرن التاليين، ستعمل الفلسفة الغربية على تلافي تلك الأزمات: أز
بشكل ما، ومن جهة معينة للنظر، لا نبالغ إذا اعتقدنا أن تاريخ الفلسفة، من نظرية معرفة وميتافيزيقا بشكل أكثر تحديدًا، يمكن أن ينقسم حول هذا النص إلى ما قبله وما بعده. فعلاوة على ما يشتهر به من أنه صاغ بشكل واضح ما عُرف بعد ذلك تحت مسمى "مشكلة الاستقراء"، يبلغ هذا النص بالأساسوية في المعرفة منتهى أزمتها، كما أنه لا يتوانى عن إعمال معوله في التصورات الأساسية للميتافيزيقا والفيزياء لذلك الوقت بجسارة لا تعوزها الدقة. وعلى مدار القرنين ونصف القرن التاليين، ستعمل الفلسفة الغربية على تلافي تلك الأزمات: أزمة الأساسوية من خلال ما سيُعرف بأطروحة ديهم-كواين في نظرية المعرفة والتي ستمهد للاتساقوية، وانعدام الجوهر كموضوع يمكن الولوج إليه معرفيًا من خلال نظرة تأويلية للعلوم، التي أضحت تبني فروضًا فوق الظواهر بدلًا من أن تبحث فيما وراءها. إن تأثير هذا النص، الذي امتد ارتكازًا على عدد هائل من بؤر الخطاب عديدة ومتباينة ككانط ونيتشة وبوبر، على مجمل الفكر البشري بعده لهو مما لا يمكن حصره.
...more
I actually did not enjoy this as much as I'd hoped. I don't even know if I can explain it... Hume's insights into the human psyche are still powerful and relevant. His writing style, though ornamented, bears a gentle glow of benevolence that is hard to dislike (well, benevolent, that is, until the very last line--
hooboy
). Yet, when I finished reading the Enquiry, I couldn't help but feel slightly underwhelmed? Maybe my previous familiarity with the problem of induction/causation dulled me to its
I actually did not enjoy this as much as I'd hoped. I don't even know if I can explain it... Hume's insights into the human psyche are still powerful and relevant. His writing style, though ornamented, bears a gentle glow of benevolence that is hard to dislike (well, benevolent, that is, until the very last line--
hooboy
). Yet, when I finished reading the Enquiry, I couldn't help but feel slightly underwhelmed? Maybe my previous familiarity with the problem of induction/causation dulled me to its novelty here. Or maybe I've become less of a skeptic than I once thought I was. In any case, a great work, deserving of its reputation, and perhaps one I'll have to return to later when I'm properly ready for it.
...more
Despite not really being able to see the actual applicability of Humean philosophy, it is so very refreshing to read such clarity in a philosophical text. He writes with precision and, although still being tough to manage at times, ultimately this renders his meaning crystal clear.
His tight epistemological approach gives his arguments depth and precision, which is monumentally handy for the inexperienced philosopher (as I myself was upon first reading, and still am to an extent). I was taught t
Despite not really being able to see the actual applicability of Humean philosophy, it is so very refreshing to read such clarity in a philosophical text. He writes with precision and, although still being tough to manage at times, ultimately this renders his meaning crystal clear.
His tight epistemological approach gives his arguments depth and precision, which is monumentally handy for the inexperienced philosopher (as I myself was upon first reading, and still am to an extent). I was taught this as an A2 text by a devout believer in Humean philosophy, and so I might be slightly biased, but I still believe this to be one of the clearest texts I have ever read.
...more
David Hume (/ˈhjuːm/; 7 May 1711 NS (26 April 1711 OS) – 25 August 1776) was a Scottish historian, philosopher, economist, diplomat and essayist known today especially for his radical philosophical empiricism and scepticism.
In light of Hume's central role in the Scottish Enlightenment, and in the history of Western philosophy, Bryan Magee judged him as a philosopher "widely regarded as the greates
David Hume (/ˈhjuːm/; 7 May 1711 NS (26 April 1711 OS) – 25 August 1776) was a Scottish historian, philosopher, economist, diplomat and essayist known today especially for his radical philosophical empiricism and scepticism.
In light of Hume's central role in the Scottish Enlightenment, and in the history of Western philosophy, Bryan Magee judged him as a philosopher "widely regarded as the greatest who has ever written in the English language." While Hume failed in his attempts to start a university career, he took part in various diplomatic and military missions of the time. He wrote The History of England which became a bestseller, and it became the standard history of England in its day.
His empirical approach places him with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others at the time as a British Empiricist.
Beginning with his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume strove to create a total naturalistic "science of man" that examined the psychological basis of human nature. In opposition to the rationalists who preceded him, most notably René Descartes, he concluded that desire rather than reason governed human behaviour. He also argued against the existence of innate ideas, concluding that humans have knowledge only of things they directly experience. He argued that inductive reasoning and therefore causality cannot be justified rationally. Our assumptions in favour of these result from custom and constant conjunction rather than logic. He concluded that humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self.
Hume's compatibilist theory of free will proved extremely influential on subsequent moral philosophy. He was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on feelings rather than abstract moral principles, and expounded the is–ought problem.
Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent western philosophy, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive philosophy, theology and other movements and thinkers. In addition, according to philosopher Jerry Fodor, Hume's Treatise is "the founding document of cognitive science". Hume engaged with contemporary intellectual luminaries such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, James Boswell, and Adam Smith (who acknowledged Hume's influence on his economics and political philosophy). Immanuel Kant credited Hume with awakening him from "dogmatic slumbers".
...more
“In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence.
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence
.”
—
101 likes
“Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.”
—
52 likes