"We may observe, though, that in such a case he would have no cause to complain of experience; because it commonly informs us of such uncertainty in advance, by presenting us with conflicting outcomes that we can learn about by attending carefully. Not all effects follow with the same certainty from their supposed causes"(56). I do agree with this notion that assuming an outcome is not always the most "accurate" thing to do, since predictions are very 50/50. I also think that people can not stop assumptions based on their experience, or it is very hard to not rely on experience in order to make assumptions or judgments.
"We believe witnesses and historians not because we of any connection that we perceive a priori between testimony and reality, but because we are accustomed to find a conformity between them" I find this very interesting. It seems as no one can be trusted with full certainty not matter how much expertise you have in a subject or an area. It almost seems as even the evidence is unreliable.
"When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately ask myself whether it is more probable that this person either deceives or has been deceived or that what he reports really has happened. (pp. 59)" This suspicion is really astute and rational. Typically, you're either a really cunning deceiver, or you are actually mentally unstable/delusional. This line of thinking is very sensible and relevant in today's age. Resurrection is very difficult to believe and have faith in. But to many less rational thinkers, faith is easy for them to just blindly accept, especially by just assuring oneself that the event is simply a miracle. But to each his own opinion.
I also found it interesting on page 58, when Hume wonders the irony of what is considered miraculous, saying "a dead man’s coming to life would be a miracle," but then "...when a man who seems to be in good health suddenly dies, this isn’t a miracle." Miracles are clearly very exceptional to the laws of nature.
1. A passage of importance I found in David's Hume section 10: Miracles writing is when he states, "When a man who seems to be in good health suddenly dies, this isn’t a miracle...But a dead man’s coming to life would be a miracle, because that has never been observed in any age or country."(Hume 58) I think this quote is important because here, Hume distinctions his ideas between what a non-miracle and miracle is. A sick man dying would not count as a miracle because according to Hume, these types of event are found to be agreeable with the laws of nature. A man coming to life although, does not follow our common experience, thus it would be identified as a miracle. 2. Following the discussion regrading miracles, Hume states that he decides whether a miracle is false or true by weighing one miracle against the other; Hume writes, "When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately ask myself whether it is more probable that this person either deceives or has been deceived or that what he reports really has happened. I weigh one miracle against the other." (Hume 59) We can see here Hume's skepticism views; although he recognizes miracles, he is then skeptic about assuming whether or not it is a miracle or false miracle. Hume explains how never in history as a miracle been defended my numerous of people making their existence questionale.
1. Our understanding of both primary and secondary qualities depends on experience. Hume explains, “The idea of extension comes purely from the senses of sight and touch; and if all the qualities that are perceived by the senses are in the mind rather than in the object, that must hold also for the idea of extension… To see that something is extended, you have to see colours; to feel that it is extended, you have to feel hardness or softness” (81). We depend on our senses to have experience, as we cannot conceive an extended object without thinking about its shape or color. I think this argument makes sense, as a person who lacks a sense cannot conceive the idea of objects or characteristics of objects that depend on that specific sense to be perceived.
2. On the third part of section 12, Hume explains the importance of experience, as he determines that a priori reasoning does not have any foundation and it would make the cause and effect reasoning less certain, as “anything may appear able to produce anything” (86). Therefore, only experience allows us to determine the nature and limits of cause and effect reasoning.
On page 57 Hume cites a sort of metaphor where the two experiences clash, they behave like force vectors, where one uses up some of its force to defeat the other and “operate on the mind only with the force that then remains to it.” I understand that this is an observation, but it intrigued me to imply (as a metaphor) that testimony or belief based on experience has a force that could be measured relatively to other “forces” of the same type.
I wonder about the reception of this piece, because while it might be the case that Hume never accepted the label of atheist, these arguments so fundamentally assault the dogmatic beliefs of the church that I have trouble imagining someone merely looking upon his work as trying to justify God or Christianity like the many who questioned the Church (within their bounds) before him.
1. On page 58 Hume states, "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature". To be I wouldn't believe this. I would not call a miracle a violation of the laws of nature. That seems a bit extreme. I would say a miracle is a flux in nature not a violation. When babies are born is a miracle from the form of nature.
2. On page 61, Hume states "It counts strongly against all reports of supernatural and miraculous events that they chiefly occur among ignorant and barbarous nations". In this case I do not agree with Hume; a supernatural event is a different story. I believe in the supernatural. Ghost are real.
1. Hume states on page 57, "Because the evidence derived from witnesses and human testimony is based on past experience, it varies with the experience, and is regarded either as proof or as a probability, depending on whether he association between the kind of report in question and the kind of fact it repots has been found to be constant or variable." I found it interesting when Hume said this because it highlight an aspect of his philosophy that is novel. Namely, that indirect evidence, such as testimony from others, can be regarded as proof of something, thereby guaranteeing its existence.
2. In his conclusion to his section on miracles, Hume states, "So our over-all conclusion should be that the Christian religion not only was at first accompanied by miracles, but even now cannot by believed by any reasonable person without miracle. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its truth; and anyone who is moved by faith to assent to it is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person" Thus dispelling any notion that a faith can be gained in any sort of approach that only relies on the use of reason.
1.) I am finding myself struggling with the ideas of Spinoza on the one hand and Hume on the other; between the position of skepticism, and a kind of monistic metaphysical system. In the section on miracles it seems as if they are in a kind of agreement with one and other, that what constitute these mystical miracles contingent upon the intervention of a divine force are absurd as all causes are necessary causes. 2.) I am currently finding myself torn between a Humian kind of skepticism and a kind of monism. However another part of my consciousness is wondering if both of these views are inadequate. Hume still seems to believe in epistemology, but the Gettier problem seems to point out that one should be skeptical of justified true belief as well.
1. Hume is interesting when he writes and meditates upon the nature of miracles. He posits miracles as 'ruptures' (my emphasis) in nature, or contrary to the laws of nature, which leads him to ruminate on why people may accept authorities who claim such divinity. He sprinkles a little a herd psychology to discuss why those who in other circumstances may be naturally skeptic end up believing miracles to be based on the agreeable nature of believing.
2. It strikes me as somewhat odd that Hume maintains the claim that passion, over reason, rules over humans while never pursuing its coloration over perception as something to benefit from. Maybe, this is the task of philosopher, to unglue reason and reflection from heuristic-like thinking, but then skepticism puts this all under an opaque lens.
"We may observe, though, that in such a case he would have no cause to complain of experience; because it commonly informs us of such uncertainty in advance, by presenting us with conflicting outcomes that we can learn about by attending carefully. Not all effects follow with the same certainty from their supposed causes"(56). I do agree with this notion that assuming an outcome is not always the most "accurate" thing to do, since predictions are very 50/50. I also think that people can not stop assumptions based on their experience, or it is very hard to not rely on experience in order to make assumptions or judgments.
ReplyDelete"We believe witnesses and historians not because we of any connection that we perceive a priori between testimony and reality, but because we are accustomed to find a conformity between them" I find this very interesting. It seems as no one can be trusted with full certainty not matter how much expertise you have in a subject or an area. It almost seems as even the evidence is unreliable.
"When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately ask myself whether it is more probable that this person either deceives or has been deceived or that what he reports really has happened. (pp. 59)" This suspicion is really astute and rational. Typically, you're either a really cunning deceiver, or you are actually mentally unstable/delusional. This line of thinking is very sensible and relevant in today's age. Resurrection is very difficult to believe and have faith in. But to many less rational thinkers, faith is easy for them to just blindly accept, especially by just assuring oneself that the event is simply a miracle. But to each his own opinion.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting on page 58, when Hume wonders the irony of what is considered miraculous, saying "a dead man’s coming to life would be a miracle," but then "...when a man who seems to be in good health suddenly dies, this isn’t a miracle." Miracles are clearly very exceptional to the laws of nature.
1. A passage of importance I found in David's Hume section 10: Miracles writing is when he states, "When a man who seems to be in good health suddenly dies, this isn’t a miracle...But a dead man’s coming to life would be a miracle, because that has never been observed in any age or country."(Hume 58) I think this quote is important because here, Hume distinctions his ideas between what a non-miracle and miracle is. A sick man dying would not count as a miracle because according to Hume, these types of event are found to be agreeable with the laws of nature. A man coming to life although, does not follow our common experience, thus it would be identified as a miracle.
ReplyDelete2. Following the discussion regrading miracles, Hume states that he decides whether a miracle is false or true by weighing one miracle against the other; Hume writes, "When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately ask myself whether it is more probable that this person either deceives or has been deceived or that what he reports really has happened. I weigh one miracle against the other." (Hume 59) We can see here Hume's skepticism views; although he recognizes miracles, he is then skeptic about assuming whether or not it is a miracle or false miracle. Hume explains how never in history as a miracle been defended my numerous of people making their existence questionale.
1. Our understanding of both primary and secondary qualities depends on experience. Hume explains, “The idea of extension comes purely from the senses of sight and touch; and if all the qualities that are perceived by the senses are in the mind rather than in the object, that must hold also for the idea of extension… To see that something is extended, you have to see colours; to feel that it is extended, you have to feel hardness or softness” (81). We depend on our senses to have experience, as we cannot conceive an extended object without thinking about its shape or color. I think this argument makes sense, as a person who lacks a sense cannot conceive the idea of objects or characteristics of objects that depend on that specific sense to be perceived.
ReplyDelete2. On the third part of section 12, Hume explains the importance of experience, as he determines that a priori reasoning does not have any foundation and it would make the cause and effect reasoning less certain, as “anything may appear able to produce anything” (86). Therefore, only experience allows us to determine the nature and limits of cause and effect reasoning.
On page 57 Hume cites a sort of metaphor where the two experiences clash, they behave like force vectors, where one uses up some of its force to defeat the other and “operate on the mind only with the force that then remains to it.” I understand that this is an observation, but it intrigued me to imply (as a metaphor) that testimony or belief based on experience has a force that could be measured relatively to other “forces” of the same type.
ReplyDeleteI wonder about the reception of this piece, because while it might be the case that Hume never accepted the label of atheist, these arguments so fundamentally assault the dogmatic beliefs of the church that I have trouble imagining someone merely looking upon his work as trying to justify God or Christianity like the many who questioned the Church (within their bounds) before him.
1. On page 58 Hume states, "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature". To be I wouldn't believe this. I would not call a miracle a violation of the laws of nature. That seems a bit extreme. I would say a miracle is a flux in nature not a violation. When babies are born is a miracle from the form of nature.
ReplyDelete2. On page 61, Hume states "It counts strongly against all reports of supernatural and miraculous events that they chiefly occur among ignorant and barbarous nations". In this case I do not agree with Hume; a supernatural event is a different story. I believe in the supernatural. Ghost are real.
1. Hume states on page 57, "Because the evidence derived from witnesses and human testimony is based on past experience, it varies with the experience, and is regarded either as proof or as a probability, depending on whether he association between the kind of report in question and the kind of fact it repots has been found to be constant or variable." I found it interesting when Hume said this because it highlight an aspect of his philosophy that is novel. Namely, that indirect evidence, such as testimony from others, can be regarded as proof of something, thereby guaranteeing its existence.
ReplyDelete2. In his conclusion to his section on miracles, Hume states, "So our over-all conclusion should be that the Christian religion not only was at first accompanied by miracles, but even now cannot by believed by any reasonable person without miracle. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its truth; and anyone who is moved by faith to assent to it is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person" Thus dispelling any notion that a faith can be gained in any sort of approach that only relies on the use of reason.
1.) I am finding myself struggling with the ideas of Spinoza on the one hand and Hume on the other; between the position of skepticism, and a kind of monistic metaphysical system. In the section on miracles it seems as if they are in a kind of agreement with one and other, that what constitute these mystical miracles contingent upon the intervention of a divine force are absurd as all causes are necessary causes.
ReplyDelete2.) I am currently finding myself torn between a Humian kind of skepticism and a kind of monism. However another part of my consciousness is wondering if both of these views are inadequate. Hume still seems to believe in epistemology, but the Gettier problem seems to point out that one should be skeptical of justified true belief as well.
1. Hume is interesting when he writes and meditates upon the nature of miracles. He posits miracles as 'ruptures' (my emphasis) in nature, or contrary to the laws of nature, which leads him to ruminate on why people may accept authorities who claim such divinity. He sprinkles a little a herd psychology to discuss why those who in other circumstances may be naturally skeptic end up believing miracles to be based on the agreeable nature of believing.
ReplyDelete2. It strikes me as somewhat odd that Hume maintains the claim that passion, over reason, rules over humans while never pursuing its coloration over perception as something to benefit from. Maybe, this is the task of philosopher, to unglue reason and reflection from heuristic-like thinking, but then skepticism puts this all under an opaque lens.