Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Written by David HumeHume
David Hume
Wrote [[Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding]]
Wrote a History of England
Bkgrd Info
1711-1776
Scottish
studied law at 15, did not like it
self-taught in philosophy
published "Treatise of Human Understanding" at age 28
thought it would make him a rock star like Newton.
received little attention
[[Reid]] & [[Kant]] were the only philosophers who took him seriously
His Philosophy
What was in the air
the rationalism and dedu...
Book Notes
- moral philosophy = science of human nature
- 2 types:
- 1) treats man as an active, emotional thing; makes us "feel the diff" between virtue & vice; deals w/ practical actions
- 2) treats man as a reasoning thing; tries to empirically find a rational foundation for morals, ReasonReason
Reason
reason is the "natural light" [[Descartes]]
what is the difference b/t reason & thinking?
what is thinking?
processing information?
in this case, can an animal think?
what is reason?
a type of thinking?
can you only accept what has been proven by reason?
reason is like a telescope: it lets us see things clearer; but it must have ..., & criticism; deals w/ …
- 2 types:
Book Summary (by paragraphs)
- 1) two types of philosophy (practical & metaphysical), and even though the metaphysical is hard and treacherous, it is worth pursuing
- 1) 2 species of philosophy; first is the active & moral
- 2) second is abstract; searches for hidden truths
- 3) former, emotional philosophy is more practical & popular
- 4) the "easy" philosophy is obviously more popular
- 5) the perfect person lies between the extremes of philosophy & society
- 6) man is a mixed thing: sociable, reasonable, active, etc.
- 7) man generally rejects metaphysics
- 8) abstract philosophy (2) is subject to the active philosophy (1)
- 9) philosophy makes every art more accurate
- 10) even if metaphysics were only an impractical curiosity, it would still be worth pursuing
- 11) metaphysics is considerd an inevitable source of uncertainty
- 12) however, reason can still break through & understand it
- 13) worthwhile to distinguish the individual operations of the mind
- 14) it is certain that the mind has distinguishable operations
- 15) with care, we may find the general principles of metaphysics
- 16) it will be hard, but worth it
- 17) let's go!
- 2) Ideas (which are weaker) come from Impressions (which are stronger). By asking "what impression does this idea come from?" we can find meaningless terms
- 1) sensations are stronger than imaginations
- 2) experiencing passions & only imagining them is very diff.
- 3) thoughts/ideas vs. impressions - "all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones" (Sec 2 para 5)
- 4) thoughts (imaginations) seem unbounded
- 5) but thoughts are actually bound to previous impressions (sensations)
- 6) any thought can be analyzed to its origin
- 7) ideas follow sensations (e.g. a blind man can't imagine colors)
- 8) possible ex. of a minor objection: mind identifies a missing shade;
- 9) ask "what impression does this idea come from" to identify meaningless terms
- 3) ideas are connected by resemblance, contiguity, and causation. And in a story or history, all the ideas must be connected
- 1) ideas are associated w/ each other
- 2) the 3 Principles of Connection: Resemblance, Contiguity (in time or place), and Cause/Effect
- 3) there are no other Principles of Connection, only 3
- 4) man always has an end or purpose in action, even if it's just enjoyment
- 5) all compositions also must have an aim
- 6) no exceptions: all have unity under an aim/purpose
- 7) ex: Ovid (resemblance of actions)
- 8) ex: historian (contiguity of time/place)
- 9) ex: narrative (cause & effect)
- 10) everything, including human life, has this unity of purpose
- 11) poetry brings us near to the objects, does not have to give endless causes
- 12) epic verse maintains unity/coherence
- 13) more about poetry & it being unified
- 14) ''
- 15) ''
- 16) ''
- 17) ''
- 18) the operations of the mind depend on the connection of ideas
- 4) matter of fact can only be known through cause & effect, which can only be known by experience, not reason
- 1) 2 kinds of thought: (1) relations of ideas; it doesn't have to actually exist to have a relation (e.g. Euclid's perfect circles)
- 2) other kind of thought: (2) matters of fact; cannot be proven or disproven
- 3) can we prove real existence and matter of fact ouside of the senses?
- 4) we know matter of fact things b/c we know their causes
- 5) but how do we know causes?
- 6) cause & effect are discoverable not by reason, but by experience
- 7) examples of knowledge of effect coming from experience: billiard ball, loadstone, bread nourishing
- 8) cause & effect of events seem to be known by reason
- 9) but the motion of the cause is nothing like the motion of the effect
- 10) so the first prediction the mind made regarding cause/effect must be arbitrary
- 11) reason is insufficient to discover cause/effect; only experience & senses can do that
- 12) philosophy only leads to knowledge of ignorance (as opposed to experience?)
- 13) even geometry can't make up for a lack of experience
- 14) Matter of fact <- Cause & Effect <- Experience <- ???
- 15) thesis of the remainder: "even after we have experience of the operations of cause & effect, our conclusions from that experience are not founded on reasoning"
- 16) there is no reasoning connect past experience & present observations
- 17) I shall attempt to prove this (16) negative argument
- 18) of the 2 kinds of knowledge, there is no relation of ideas that can prove it (16)
- 19) and (16) can't be proved by cause/effect (because argument would be circular)
- 20) all experiental arguments are founded on similarity
- 21) just b/c we have experienced certain effects from a thing in the past, we expect similar effects from similar things in the future
- 22) I don't think I'm being arrogant in making these claims
- 23) there must be something other than ration that leads us from cause to effect
- 5) belief vs fiction; sensing one thing brings coorelatives into focus; the thing that connects ideas is custom, not reason
- 1) most philosophies lead to selfishness, but not the skeptical philosophy
- 2) but it also makes enemies
- 3) but fear not, this abstract philosophy will always be subordinate to nature, which is active
- 4) even the strongest reasoner cannot reason about matters of fact
- 5) some principle–not reason–makes one decide on cause & effect
- 6) to understand cause/effect, we infer from experience b/c of custom
- 7) every inference is based on a fact in the memory or senses
- 8) all matters of fact come from the senses & experienced conjunctions
- 9) we must explain further
- 10) the mind can construct whatever imagination it likes out of existing ideas, but it will not actually believe its fictions
- 11) the difference to us between fiction & something we believe is a sentiment
- 12) that feeling (^) is belief
- 13) belief is just a stronger conception than fiction
- 14) sensing one thing brings its coorelative into sharper focus than before
- 15) ex: man and a picture of him
- 16) ex: Roman Catholics using images & postures for devotion
- 17) contiguity also brings coorelatives into sharper focus
- 18) causation also makes coorelatives stronger
- 19) ex: thought of a dead friend brings memories back
- 20) only works for things we believe, but in these cases it always works
- 21) custom is the necessary principle that connects coorelatives
- 22) this custom is an instinct, not bound on reason
Book Summary
Hume differentiates philosophy into the practical & the metaphysical, and then defends his choice of pursuing the metaphysical, saying that careful reason can bring light to such a difficult topic. He explains how ideas (which are weaker) come from impressions (which are stronger). Ideas are just amalgamations of impressions and memories. Ideas are associated with each other through resemblance, contiguity, & causation. The operations of the mind depend on these connections. Now there are two kinds of thoughts: relation of ideas & matters of fact (MOFs). Relations can be easily proven, but MOFs are unprovable. The only way to know MOFs is through impressions & memories. For instance, we can't know cause & effect through reason; often the effect is very different from the cause; the only way to know them is through past experience. Also, intuitive custom is the thing that allows for experience. Reason is insufficient & error-prone.