1. A passage I found of importance in this reading is when Hume writes, "Some causes are entirely uniform and constant in producing a particular kind of effect...but other causes have been found to be more irregular and uncertain." (Hume 28) Although Hume recognizes the universal law of gravity, fire and water, he also recognizes that the uncertainty outcome of rhubarb and opium. Here, we can see Hume's skepticism view. Hume suggest that we can make assumptions about aspects of the world, but we don't know for sure it will be that way. 2. Another important passage in this reading is when Hume writes, "All our ideas are merely copies of our impressions, so it is impossible for us to think of anything that we haven’t previously felt through either our external or our internal senses." (Hume 30) This quote is important because it summarizes Hume's metaphysical views on ideas and impressions. Hume claims that all ideas must have came from impressions; so we can not have any ideas of anything that we have no experience of.
1)David Hume strikes me as being the 19th century version of Socrates. His project doesn't seem to be one of construction, but rather the destruction of others. To strike anxiety into those who thought themselves wise. Hume, like socrates, is very straightforward about the fact that is what he is doing -“For my part, I shall be satisfied if the hints that I have given arouse the curiosity of philosophers, and make them aware of how defective all common theories are in their treatments of these interesting and elevated subjects.” 2)The transparency of Hume's writing is both refreshing and reassuring. His premises are all clearly stated and make it comparatively easy to understand. That said it is understandable why he can be that way while many of his contemporaries can’t. Arguing from intuition is easy, but for many who can't do Humes armchair philosophy and real life balancing act leads anxiety. Hume philosophy could threaten to plunge someone into an even deeper skepticism that not even Descarte can imagine. It is far easier to find a weak premise to invoke doubt then to build a whole metaphysical theory from the ground up.
1. I like to think Hume predates many modern advancements about the mind, particularly its own ignorance of its own ideas, which leads to his immediate dismissal about any theories concerning God or substances. From the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, knowing what underlies all of reality is "unknowable".
2. Hume paints almost a cognitive picture of the human mind, with its association of ideas and erroneous assumptions of causality. The mind seems very unlike past philosophers, who freely dictate that we use reason to control our passions whereas Hume sees humans as slaves to passion and finds that even then we are hard to control.
1. Hume's section on probability strikes me as a pragmatic way to downplay his skeptic belief when it comes to practical application into his day-to-day lifestyle. Whereas, while theorizing, Hume's skepticism is perfectly applicable. In practice it places severe limitations on daily living. Therefore, by assessing a probable belief that things will remain in the future as they have in the past, one can avoid the debilitating nature of this skeptic thought in practical application. Although I don't think this is how he meant this section to be determined in his text.
2. It was also interesting to see Hume's rebuke of knowledge of God's existence through the principle of necessary connection and the example of volition in the human body. As he states "Even if the chain of arguments leading to the theory were ever so logical, there would have to be a strong suspicion (if not absolute certainty) that it has carried us quite beyond the reach of our faculties, when it leads to conclusions that are so extraordinary and so remote from common life and experience. Long before we have reached the last steps of the argument leading our theory, we are already In Fairyland" (35).
Hume argues that we are not able to comprehend the relationship between the mind and the body. I find it very interesting how Hume states "throughout the whole nature there seems not to be a single instance of connection that is conceived by us,"(36). It seems not possible for us to not have a clue of how the mind and body interact ever. I feel as we have some acknowledgement to some degree.
The terms "force, Power, and energy"(38) explained seem to have no influence on the connection of the mind and the external world. Hume makes it seem as these words are just merely words with really no basis of substance.
1. In Section 6 of Probability, I thought it was very interesting how Hume describes the cause of event happening. Hume states "With the probability of causes the situation is the same as it is with the probability of chance. Some causes are entirely uniform and constant in producing a particular kind of effect, with no instance having ever been found of any failure or irregularly in their operation" (Hume 28). It seems that here, Hume describes probability has some type of event that happens on a constant rate.
2. In Section 7 of The Idea of Necessary connection I agreed with Hume when he talks about the mathematical sciences. In mathematics, everything has an definition and detailed description. Hume states "When a term is defined in geometry, the mind always promptly substitutes the definition for the term defined" (Hume 29). In mathematics to have a better understanding of certain key topics, you need to create simple terms to break down complex terms.
Hume says that we don’t actually havre the power to move our limbs but instead that we have some power over “animal spirit” that eventually causes our limbs to move according to our will. I appreciate the mechanical and scientific nature of this notion, but the way is is posed raises some concerns about the movement of something that I don’t believe has a will in the human sense, say an ant or honey bee. If they don’t have a will, then the mechanical trigger for their movement must be something else, and if that is the case, would it not be a simpler theory to apply that “cause” to all living things, including humans?
When Hume concludes that cause and effect must only be known by experience I don’t really have any objection to this. He postulates that if the events in the world occurred in such a way that no similar events ever happened then we would have no notion of cause and effect, only former and latter. Of course I think it is plain to see that we have developed these ideas of cause and effect because they at least appear to be referring to some real world phenomenon where replication of certain effects is possible by similarly replicating “causes” or inputs.
1. Hume’s section 6 about probability entirely makes sense to me. He explains that we transfer the past to the future, and this fortifies the imagination, which is how we form beliefs. Beliefs many times are not science-based. They are just an idea that individuals form about certain aspects of life in which there is not an established right or wrong, or true or false label. Beliefs are assumptions about our reality. And just because something happened once or a hundred times, it does not mean that someday that might not change. Although I do believe (and many times defend) science, I accept that the certainty of it can be questioned sometimes, as we have no control over reality, or the universe (multiuniverse?) itself. I believe that in any second now, something that we thought we scientifically knew with certainty might change. Therefore, it is difficult to be entirely certain about things that might seem plausible because both the event and the outcomes correlated multiple times.
2. I certainly enjoyed reading section 8, as he analyzes the necessary connection between past and present, and centers a lot in human behavior. Hume explains that just as there are physical laws that seem to be constant, there seem to be laws that govern human behavior. Just as one would expect a pen to fall down eventually once you throw it upwards, one can learn and analyze human behavior by looking at the history and people who lived in it, and compare it to the actuality, as there are factors of human behavior that will also remain constant for the most part. If a single physical phenomenon does not meet our criteria, it does not necessarily follow that the laws of nature/physics have changed. The same happens with human beings who present an unexpected behavior in front of situations in which one would expect them to behave differently. Therefore, both nature and humans seem to be understood in accordance with laws that lead people to predict or infer in them effects to the causes in which they observe regularities, but that does not necessarily means that absolutely every time, every day, and forever this will happen the way one expects it, as the connection between events, behaviors, etc. is not found in the object itself but rather in the mind of the subject.
1. Hume's section on probability seems reasonable enough. He is essentially saying that chance is not a real thing, rather, it is just the lack of knowledge of the cause and effects of some event. This makes it easy to believe chance is real when it seems to be just as good of an explanation on its own. Even with this understanding, I think some would prefer to believe in chance. If everything in life is boiled down to cause and effect, then life seems less exciting and unpredictable. 2. I agree with Hume's discussion of the mind-mind relationship. We don't know where exactly the mind can conjure up ideas from. Although we do learn a lot from experience, we are born with some capabilities, such as only a limited amount of emotions and emotional expressions. Although we are born with the ability to speak and understand language, there is a vital point in childhood in which language must be developed from experience that, if missed, we will never be able to develop as well or as easily.
1) I enjoyed the fact that reading Hume is not as difficult as some of the other philosophers we have read about. Hume is clear with his views and for the most part makes his logic as accessible as possible. His argument against the existence of God is the fact that we are just as ignorant to the powers and mind of "God" than we are of the things in nature we cannot explain, such as the consciousness of a human being. We do not know exactly why we have the right to tell right from wrong or things of that nature so we assume that an all powerful being is in control but are very vague on his existence as well. 2)Hume explains in his reading the Doctrine of Necessity. If one even constantly follows another event time and time again then it is okay to assume that the second event is a result of the first event. It is important that Humans embrace this doctrine since all of our lives are so intertwined with one another. We rely on cause and effect everyday in order to live.
1.) I found Humes thought about liberty and necessity to be a return to what I believe philosophy to be in its truest sense, the delivery of paradoxes and the destruction of broken ways of thinking. Despite his best efforts to undermine the concept of necessity, Hume is forced to admit that there is indeed a doctrine of necessity dispute his skepticism of the cause and effect relationship. "It seems almost impossible, therefore, to engage either in learning or in action of any kind without acknowledging •the doctrine of necessity, and •this inference from motives to voluntary actions, from characters to conduct"
2.) Humes point that humans are primarily driven by instinct, and that we use reason as an instrument for the attainment of our animistic desires. It seems as if this is blatantly false in certain cases, for instance, the existence of successful revolutionary figures at all seems to run in direct contrast to this way of understanding the world. While I can see a counter point being made about romantic revolutionary figures, history has shown time and time again that the states created by those moments have a tenancy to fall apart.
1. A passage I found of importance in this reading is when Hume writes, "Some causes are entirely uniform and constant in producing a particular kind of effect...but other causes have been found to be more irregular and uncertain." (Hume 28) Although Hume recognizes the universal law of gravity, fire and water, he also recognizes that the uncertainty outcome of rhubarb and opium. Here, we can see Hume's skepticism view. Hume suggest that we can make assumptions about aspects of the world, but we don't know for sure it will be that way.
ReplyDelete2. Another important passage in this reading is when Hume writes, "All our ideas are merely copies of our impressions, so it is impossible for us to think of anything that we haven’t previously felt through either our external or our internal senses." (Hume 30) This quote is important because it summarizes Hume's metaphysical views on ideas and impressions. Hume claims that all ideas must have came from impressions; so we can not have any ideas of anything that we have no experience of.
1)David Hume strikes me as being the 19th century version of Socrates. His project doesn't seem to be one of construction, but rather the destruction of others. To strike anxiety into those who thought themselves wise. Hume, like socrates, is very straightforward about the fact that is what he is doing -“For my part, I shall be satisfied if the hints that I have given arouse the curiosity of philosophers, and make them aware of how defective all common theories are in their treatments of these interesting and elevated subjects.”
ReplyDelete2)The transparency of Hume's writing is both refreshing and reassuring. His premises are all clearly stated and make it comparatively easy to understand. That said it is understandable why he can be that way while many of his contemporaries can’t. Arguing from intuition is easy, but for many who can't do Humes armchair philosophy and real life balancing act leads anxiety. Hume philosophy could threaten to plunge someone into an even deeper skepticism that not even Descarte can imagine. It is far easier to find a weak premise to invoke doubt then to build a whole metaphysical theory from the ground up.
1. I like to think Hume predates many modern advancements about the mind, particularly its own ignorance of its own ideas, which leads to his immediate dismissal about any theories concerning God or substances. From the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, knowing what underlies all of reality is "unknowable".
ReplyDelete2. Hume paints almost a cognitive picture of the human mind, with its association of ideas and erroneous assumptions of causality. The mind seems very unlike past philosophers, who freely dictate that we use reason to control our passions whereas Hume sees humans as slaves to passion and finds that even then we are hard to control.
1. Hume's section on probability strikes me as a pragmatic way to downplay his skeptic belief when it comes to practical application into his day-to-day lifestyle. Whereas, while theorizing, Hume's skepticism is perfectly applicable. In practice it places severe limitations on daily living. Therefore, by assessing a probable belief that things will remain in the future as they have in the past, one can avoid the debilitating nature of this skeptic thought in practical application. Although I don't think this is how he meant this section to be determined in his text.
ReplyDelete2. It was also interesting to see Hume's rebuke of knowledge of God's existence through the principle of necessary connection and the example of volition in the human body. As he states "Even if the chain of arguments leading to the theory were ever so logical, there would have to be a strong suspicion (if not absolute certainty) that it has carried us quite beyond the reach of our faculties, when it leads to conclusions that are so extraordinary and so remote from common life and experience. Long before we have reached the last steps of the argument leading our theory, we are already In Fairyland" (35).
Hume argues that we are not able to comprehend the relationship between the mind and the body. I find it very interesting how Hume states "throughout the whole nature there seems not to be a single instance of connection that is conceived by us,"(36). It seems not possible for us to not have a clue of how the mind and body interact ever. I feel as we have some acknowledgement to some degree.
ReplyDeleteThe terms "force, Power, and energy"(38) explained seem to have no influence on the connection of the mind and the external world. Hume makes it seem as these words are just merely words with really no basis of substance.
1. In Section 6 of Probability, I thought it was very interesting how Hume describes the cause of event happening. Hume states "With the probability of causes the situation is the same as it is with the probability of chance. Some causes are entirely uniform and constant in producing a particular kind of effect, with no instance having ever been found of any failure or irregularly in their operation" (Hume 28). It seems that here, Hume describes probability has some type of event that happens on a constant rate.
ReplyDelete2. In Section 7 of The Idea of Necessary connection I agreed with Hume when he talks about the mathematical sciences. In mathematics, everything has an definition and detailed description. Hume states "When a term is defined in geometry, the mind always promptly substitutes the definition for the term defined" (Hume 29). In mathematics to have a better understanding of certain key topics, you need to create simple terms to break down complex terms.
Hume says that we don’t actually havre the power to move our limbs but instead that we have some power over “animal spirit” that eventually causes our limbs to move according to our will. I appreciate the mechanical and scientific nature of this notion, but the way is is posed raises some concerns about the movement of something that I don’t believe has a will in the human sense, say an ant or honey bee. If they don’t have a will, then the mechanical trigger for their movement must be something else, and if that is the case, would it not be a simpler theory to apply that “cause” to all living things, including humans?
ReplyDeleteWhen Hume concludes that cause and effect must only be known by experience I don’t really have any objection to this. He postulates that if the events in the world occurred in such a way that no similar events ever happened then we would have no notion of cause and effect, only former and latter. Of course I think it is plain to see that we have developed these ideas of cause and effect because they at least appear to be referring to some real world phenomenon where replication of certain effects is possible by similarly replicating “causes” or inputs.
1. Hume’s section 6 about probability entirely makes sense to me. He explains that we transfer the past to the future, and this fortifies the imagination, which is how we form beliefs. Beliefs many times are not science-based. They are just an idea that individuals form about certain aspects of life in which there is not an established right or wrong, or true or false label. Beliefs are assumptions about our reality. And just because something happened once or a hundred times, it does not mean that someday that might not change. Although I do believe (and many times defend) science, I accept that the certainty of it can be questioned sometimes, as we have no control over reality, or the universe (multiuniverse?) itself. I believe that in any second now, something that we thought we scientifically knew with certainty might change. Therefore, it is difficult to be entirely certain about things that might seem plausible because both the event and the outcomes correlated multiple times.
ReplyDelete2. I certainly enjoyed reading section 8, as he analyzes the necessary connection between past and present, and centers a lot in human behavior. Hume explains that just as there are physical laws that seem to be constant, there seem to be laws that govern human behavior. Just as one would expect a pen to fall down eventually once you throw it upwards, one can learn and analyze human behavior by looking at the history and people who lived in it, and compare it to the actuality, as there are factors of human behavior that will also remain constant for the most part. If a single physical phenomenon does not meet our criteria, it does not necessarily follow that the laws of nature/physics have changed. The same happens with human beings who present an unexpected behavior in front of situations in which one would expect them to behave differently. Therefore, both nature and humans seem to be understood in accordance with laws that lead people to predict or infer in them effects to the causes in which they observe regularities, but that does not necessarily means that absolutely every time, every day, and forever this will happen the way one expects it, as the connection between events, behaviors, etc. is not found in the object itself but rather in the mind of the subject.
1. Hume's section on probability seems reasonable enough. He is essentially saying that chance is not a real thing, rather, it is just the lack of knowledge of the cause and effects of some event. This makes it easy to believe chance is real when it seems to be just as good of an explanation on its own. Even with this understanding, I think some would prefer to believe in chance. If everything in life is boiled down to cause and effect, then life seems less exciting and unpredictable.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Hume's discussion of the mind-mind relationship. We don't know where exactly the mind can conjure up ideas from. Although we do learn a lot from experience, we are born with some capabilities, such as only a limited amount of emotions and emotional expressions. Although we are born with the ability to speak and understand language, there is a vital point in childhood in which language must be developed from experience that, if missed, we will never be able to develop as well or as easily.
1) I enjoyed the fact that reading Hume is not as difficult as some of the other philosophers we have read about. Hume is clear with his views and for the most part makes his logic as accessible as possible. His argument against the existence of God is the fact that we are just as ignorant to the powers and mind of "God" than we are of the things in nature we cannot explain, such as the consciousness of a human being. We do not know exactly why we have the right to tell right from wrong or things of that nature so we assume that an all powerful being is in control but are very vague on his existence as well.
ReplyDelete2)Hume explains in his reading the Doctrine of Necessity. If one even constantly follows another event time and time again then it is okay to assume that the second event is a result of the first event. It is important that Humans embrace this doctrine since all of our lives are so intertwined with one another. We rely on cause and effect everyday in order to live.
1.) I found Humes thought about liberty and necessity to be a return to what I believe philosophy to be in its truest sense, the delivery of paradoxes and the destruction of broken ways of thinking. Despite his best efforts to undermine the concept of necessity, Hume is forced to admit that there is indeed a doctrine of necessity dispute his skepticism of the cause and effect relationship. "It seems almost impossible, therefore, to engage either in learning or in action of any kind without acknowledging •the doctrine of necessity,
ReplyDeleteand •this inference from motives to voluntary actions, from
characters to conduct"
2.) Humes point that humans are primarily driven by instinct, and that we use reason as an instrument for the attainment of our animistic desires. It seems as if this is blatantly false in certain cases, for instance, the existence of successful revolutionary figures at all seems to run in direct contrast to this way of understanding the world. While I can see a counter point being made about romantic revolutionary figures, history has shown time and time again that the states created by those moments have a tenancy to fall apart.