Essentially, Hume is saying that unrestrained skepticism must lead to doubt of empiricism and doubt of all and any assumed or experiential 'knowledge'. He also acknowledges that it is a relatively meaningless point-of-view, and that restricting that skepticism, and accepting that we cannot know some things, gives us license to utilize empiricism as an epistemological tool.
Some may find a problem with Hume's views in that he contradicts himself in saying that qualities are real and objects are not since the idea of a quality existing by itself is a mental construct that does not exist in the world of experience. But, what is a quality? I think I agree with Locke, who we talked about last week, that there are different types of "qualities" or "properties" that objects have. For instance, the property of extension seems very different from the property of color. Locke distinguished these two by saying one was a primary quality, since it actually existed in the object (the object took up space) but color was a secondary quality, it was an effect that the object has on us. It is the power of the object to cause in us a certain kind of sensation, namely the sensation of color.
Now, apply this to what I said in the first sentence of the prior paragraph, that all properties are "mental constructs" and that if you acknowledge their existence without the existence of some object, it doesn't make sense, empirically. However, as I've also noted, it seems that a certain kind of quality, a primary quality, things like, extension, number, solidity, etc. are physical, sensible things, and not mental constructs (though we do have mental constructs of them, which represent our knowledge of these things).
This awesome three-minute Hume clip summarizes what I'm getting at :)
Hume's skepticism leads us to his lack of consideration for the existence of God, which was a widely unacceptable view during his lifetime. Since it's also Valentine's day I will conclude with this question: If Hume was alive today what do you think his views on love would be? Is this an abstract idea, or is it something we can actually feel?
Additionaly, I think Hume is suggests that it is not that we are not able to know anything about future events based on past experiences, but rather that we are just not rationally justified in believing those things that we do. We can most certainly make inferences based on causal reasoning, but these inferences have no proofs.
ReplyDeleteTo anwser sean's question, in a way, I feel like Hume will have somewhat an idea of love being in an abstract form. He would treat it as an object and for that reason it will have little meaning.
ReplyDeletethat video was funny! i liked his "bundle theory" very interesting.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs Sean was saying,Hume's skepticism does tie into our discussion of the existence of God.Since nothing is ever present to the mind but perceptions, and since all ideas come from something present to the mind, it follows, that its impossible for us so much as to conceive or form an idea of any thing specifically different from ideas and impressions, especially those that we have already had. "Let us fix our attention out of ourselves as much as possible; let us chase our imagination to the heavens, or to the utmost limits of the universe; we never really advance a step beyond ourselves, nor can conceive any kind of existence, but those perceptions, which have appear'd in that narrow compass."Hume believes that the science of human nature can only be intelligibly and successfully pursued in terms of the “original principles” he has identified, impressions and the associative mechanisms
ReplyDelete