The legacy of David Hume

  • Thread starter Thread starter Latias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Latias

Guest
David Chalmers, co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness at New York University, once undertook something odd for a philosopher: He conducted an international poll. In November 2009, he and his then-PhD advisee, David Bourget, asked over 2,500 of their colleagues—professors and graduate students alike—among other things, with which dead thinker they most identified.
Click to expand...
The results, published in 2013, showed that philosophers’ favorite was, overwhelmingly, David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher infamous, and now famous, for being skeptical not just about the claims of religion, but also the existence of the self, a subject that’s still scientifically unsettled.
Click to expand...
nautil.us/blog/why-david-hume-is-so-hot-right-now

As a young college student, I have to admit that David Hume was my favorite philosopher. Why do people professionally interested in philosophy, such as graduate students and professors, identify the most with David Hume? The article explains that people currently identify with Hume because he was skeptic of religious claims, and that he has been bolstered the theories of Darwinian evolution and cosmology after his death.

Hume was not interested in theological questions, most likely because such questions could not be framed within Hume’s fork, the dichotomy of “relations of ideas” to “matters of fact”: the former are usually definitions and the implications from those definitions, while the latter is knowledge that can be derived from human experience. Since theological questions involve entities that are practically inaccessible to human senses and scientific instruments, such issues cannot be investigated empirically, and one cannot arrive at any meaningful insight on them
**And though a philosopher may live remote from business, the genius of philosophy, if carefully cultivated by several, must gradually diffuse itself throughout the whole society, and bestow a similar correctness on every art and calling. **The politician will acquire greater foresight and subtlety, in the subdividing and balancing of power; the lawyer more method and finer principles in his reasonings; and the general more regularity in his discipline, and more caution in his plans and operations. The stability of modern governments above the ancient, and the accuracy of modern philosophy, have improved, and probably will still improve, by similar gradations.
Click to expand...
ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/humed/enquiry/chap1.htm

Has not Hume achieved this? Does the esteem that Hume possesses among philosophers reflect some defect in the consciousness of the West according to some more conservative Catholics.
 
Latias said:
nautil.us/blog/why-david-hume-is-so-hot-right-now

As a young college student, I have to admit that David Hume was my favorite philosopher. Why do people professionally interested in philosophy, such as graduate students and professors, identify the most with David Hume? The article explains that people currently identify with Hume because he was skeptic of religious claims, and that he has been bolstered the theories of Darwinian evolution and cosmology after his death.

Hume was not interested in theological questions, most likely because such questions could not be framed within Hume’s fork, the dichotomy of “relations of ideas” to “matters of fact”: the former are usually definitions and the implications from those definitions, while the latter is knowledge that can be derived from human experience. Since theological questions involve entities that are practically inaccessible to human senses and scientific instruments, such issues cannot be investigated empirically, and one cannot arrive at any meaningful insight on them

ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/humed/enquiry/chap1.htm

Has not Hume achieved this? Does the esteem that Hume possesses among philosophers reflect some defect in the consciousness of the West according to some more conservative Catholics.
Click to expand...
The defect exists in Hume’s doubt about whether the self exists which undermines our belief that we are rational beings. Thought is reduced, in his words, to “a little agitation of the brain” which implies that all our conclusions are determined by physical events over which we have no control. In other words it leads to total scepticism which is obviously self-contradictory…
 
Latias said:
involve entities that are practically inaccessible to human senses and scientific instruments
Click to expand...
How about digits of pi?

A so-called “scientific calculator” (designed to facilitate mathematical calculation in such areas as physics and engineering) might be classified as a “non-scientific” instrument if science itself is said to focus exclusively on the physical, while the calculator allows one to probe the digits of pi as far as one likes. Perhaps the calculator can print (directly to paper coming from a roll of paper as in a traditional electronic adding machine) both the location number keyed in by the user, and the digits (computed by the calculator) at that location number.

Of course, you can read digits of pi printed on the paper by the calculator, and in that sense those digits become accessible to human senses. However, there seems to be great controversy about the very concept of an infinite sequence of digits, and few indeed acknowledge that there may be a part of reality that is completely objective, even though it may be non-physical.

I have not forgotten your contribution on a thread focusing specifically on past opinions about the meaningfulness of the question of whether or not a string of consecutive digits 0123456789 appears in the decimal expansion of pi …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14107823&postcount=5

I am hoping that you will have more to say about these various inter-related topics. For example, what do you think is the connection between objectivity and the physical?

I already asked somebody that question in a completely different thread …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14105613&postcount=28
 
Latias said:
Does the esteem that Hume possesses among philosophers reflect some defect in the consciousness of the West according to some more conservative Catholics.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, but I don’t see how a materialistic view of reality explains consciousness and self awareness.
 
PseuTonym said:
For example, what do you think is the connection between objectivity and the physical?
Click to expand...
The physical can be more general than the objective. Hillary is physical, but some of her statements are not objective.
“I remember landing under sniper fire,” Clinton said during a George Washington University campaign event on March 17, 2008. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
This is not objective because a video shows the contrary. But Hillary and sniper fire are physical.
 
To me personally, the idea of not deriving an ought from an is was one of the most earth-shattering things I learned studying philosophy. I still don’t think the philosophical world has fully come to grips with it, except for a few idiosyncratic thinkers. The atheistic mainstream certainly hasn’t.
 
StudentMI said:
To me personally, the idea of not deriving an ought from an is was one of the most earth-shattering things I learned studying philosophy. I still don’t think the philosophical world has fully come to grips with it, except for a few idiosyncratic thinkers. The atheistic mainstream certainly hasn’t.
Click to expand...
What do you think about Hume’s moral sentimentalism? I have embraced that meta-ethics.

I find Hume’s faith in human benevolence very encouraging, since it reflects that Hume’s critique of morality does not lead to nihilism, but rather an embrace of the positive aspects of human life. In contrast, my experiences with religious conservatives made me come to the realization that they do not value benevolence and sympathy, but rather religious piety and a puritanical adherence to religious morality. Hume’s perspective has been refreshing and liberating to me. It lead me to concur with Hume that natural human sentiments are sufficient for the human virtues and deeds that we properly regard with approbation.
 
StudentMI said:
To me personally, the idea of not deriving an ought from an is was one of the most earth-shattering things I learned studying philosophy. I still don’t think the philosophical world has fully come to grips with it, except for a few idiosyncratic thinkers. The atheistic mainstream certainly hasn’t.
Click to expand...
***Do you want to cross the road safely?
… analyzing … table lookup … goal sets context … seeking guidance in pursuing goal … consider detecting metal … metal keys … anybody nearby in possession of keys for ignition of motor vehicle to be potentially handcuffed and transported to Syria for interrogation to determine whether or not they in any way cheated on the driving tests that allowed them to receive a driver’s license …

… distinction necessary between tough questioning and torture … concept of side-effects analogous to situation arising in computer language for source code … language having global variables and no facility for local variables … attempt to declare a function and specific algorithm for evaluating the function may – if done via a general procedure rather than via a function …

… evasion of testing procedure and false pretenses in obtaining license without adequate competence creates hazard to be minimized … contemporary medical technology not even adequate to provide normal walking gait for human being whose leg and knee bones have been shattered … minimization of hazard to be PRIOR to crossing of road …

… muffler technology and road smoothness are such that a rapidly approaching and massive vehicle … whose driver may be competent when sober but currently intoxicated due to alcoholic beverage consumed without consultation with a guardian or chaperone … obtained without a prescription from a doctor … may attract less attention than a noisy, slow-moving, distracting vehicle moving in the other direction …

You ought to look both ways before crossing.

What? Where did that come from. Hume would say that it wasn’t derived. Tell the children. Teach them. Enlighten them.
 
StudentMI said:
To me personally, the idea of not deriving an ought from an is was one of the most earth-shattering things I learned studying philosophy. I still don’t think the philosophical world has fully come to grips with it, except for a few idiosyncratic thinkers. The atheistic mainstream certainly hasn’t.
Click to expand...
There is at least one exception to that assumption. Having the power of reason implies that we ought to be reasonable. To think otherwise is to be unreasonable and self-contradictory - although it doesn’t alter the fact that we have the right to be unreasonable when it is the lesser of two evils. 🙂
 
Latias said:
What do you think about Hume’s moral sentimentalism? I have embraced that meta-ethics.

I find Hume’s faith in human benevolence very encouraging, since it reflects that Hume’s critique of morality does not lead to nihilism, but rather an embrace of the positive aspects of human life. In contrast, my experiences with religious conservatives made me come to the realization that they do not value benevolence and sympathy, but rather religious piety and a puritanical adherence to religious morality. Hume’s perspective has been refreshing and liberating to me. It lead me to concur with Hume that natural human sentiments are sufficient for the human virtues and deeds that we properly regard with approbation.
Click to expand...
If **natural **human sentiments are sufficient why did Jesus come into the world?
 
From Boswell’s Life of Johnson.

"I mentioned to Dr. Johnson, that David Hume’s persisting in his infidelity, when he was dying, shocked me much. Johnson: “Why should it shock you, Sir? Hume owned he had never read the New Testament with attention. Here then was a man, who had been at no pains to inquire into the truth of religion, and had continually turned his mind the other way. It was not to be expected that the prospect of death would alter his way of thinking, unless God should send an angel to set him right.” I said, I had no reason to believe that the thought of annihilation gave Hume no pain. Johnson: “It was not so, Sir. He had a vanity in being thought easy. It is more probable that he should assume an appearance of ease, than that so very probable a thing should be, as a man not afraid of going … into an unknown state, and not being uneasy at leaving all he knew. And you are to consider, that upon his own principle of annihilation he had no motive to speak the truth.”

I daresay Johnson did not admire Hume.
 
StudentMI said:
To me personally, the idea of not deriving an ought from an is was one of the most earth-shattering things I learned studying philosophy. I still don’t think the philosophical world has fully come to grips with it, except for a few idiosyncratic thinkers. The atheistic mainstream certainly hasn’t.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t the fact that we are capable of love imply we** ought **to love God, others and ourselves? 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top