Western Philosophy
18th-century philosophy |
David Hume
|
|
Name
|
|
|
Birth
|
April 26, 1711 (Edinburgh,
Scotland)
|
|
Death
|
August 25, 1776 (Edinburgh, Scotland)
|
|
School/tradition
|
Naturalism, Scepticism, Empiricism,
Scottish Enlightenment
|
|
Main interests
|
Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Ethics, Political Philosophy, Aesthetics, Philosophy of Religion
|
|
Notable ideas
|
Problem of causation, Induction,
Is-ought problem
|
|
Influences
|
Locke, Berkeley, Hutcheson, Newton, Cicero, Malebranche
|
|
Influenced
|
Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Immanuel Kant, Bentham, James
Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Arthur
Schopenhauer, Auguste Comte, John Stuart
Mill, Darwin, Thomas Huxley,
William James, Bertrand Russell,
Einstein, Karl Popper, Alfred Ayer, J. L. Mackie, Noam
Chomsky, Simon Blackburn, Iain King
|
David Hume (April 26, 1711 – August 25, 1776)[1] was a Scottish philosopher,
economist, and historian. He is considered one of the most
important figures in the history of Western philosophy and the Scottish
Enlightenment. Although in recent years interest in Hume's work has centred on his philosophical writing, it was as an
historian that he first gained recognition and respect. His The History of England[2] was the standard work on English history for sixty or seventy years until
Macaulay's.[3]
Hume was the first great philosopher of the modern era to carve out a thoroughly naturalistic philosophy. This philosophy partly consisted in the rejection of the historically
prevalent conception of human minds as being miniature versions of the Divine mind; a notion Edward
Craig has entitled the ‘Image of God’ doctrine.[4]
This doctrine was associated with a trust in the powers of human reason and insight into reality, which powers possessed God’s
certification. Hume’s scepticism came in his rejection of this ‘insight ideal’,[5] and the (usually rationalistic) confidence derived from it that the world is as we represent it.
Instead, the best we can do is to apply the best explanatory and empirical principles available to the investigation of human
mental phenomena, issuing in a quasi-Newtonian project, Hume's ‘Science of Man’.
Hume was heavily influenced by empiricists John Locke
and George Berkeley, along with various Francophone writers such as Pierre Bayle, and various figures on
the Anglophone intellectual landscape such as Isaac
Newton, Samuel Clarke, Francis
Hutcheson, Adam Smith, and Joseph
Butler.[6]
Life
David Home (later Hume) was the son of Joseph Home of grindsted, advocate, and Katherine, Lady Falconer, was born on
26 April 1711 (Old style) in a
tenement on the North side of the Lawnmarket in
Edinburgh. Throughout his life Hume, who never married, was to spend time occasionally at his
family home at Ninewells by Chirnside, Berwickshire. (He
changed his name to Hume in 1734 because the English had difficulty in pronouncing Home in the Scottish manner.) He was sent by
his family to the University of Edinburgh at the unusually early age of twelve,
perhaps as young as ten (fourteen would have been more normal). At first he considered a career in law, but came to have, in his words, "an insurmountable aversion to everything but the pursuits of
Philosophy and general Learning; and while [my family] fanceyed I was poring over Voet and
Vinnius, Cicero and Vergil were the Authors which I was secretly
devouring." He had little respect for professors, telling a friend in 1735 "there is nothing to be learned from a
Professor, which is not to be met with in Books."[7] At the age of eighteen Hume made a philosophical discovery that opened up to him
"a new Scene of Thought" which inspired him "to throw up every other Pleasure or Business to apply entirely to it".[8] He did not recount what this was, but it seems likely to have
been his theory of causality — that our beliefs about cause and effect depend on
sentiment, custom and habit, and not upon reason, nor upon abstract, timeless,
general Laws of Nature.
The careers open to a poor Scottish gentleman in those days were very few. As Hume's options lay between a travelling
tutorship and a stool in a merchant's office, he chose the latter. In 1734, after a few months in commerce in Bristol, he went to La Flèche in Anjou,
France. He had frequent discourses with the Jesuits of
the famous college in which Descartes was educated. During his four years there, he laid out his life plan, resolving "to make a very
rigid frugality supply my deficiency of fortune, to maintain unimpaired my independency, and to regard every object as
contemptible except the improvements of my talents in literature."[9] While there, he completed A Treatise of Human
Nature at the age of twenty-six. Although many scholars today consider the Treatise to be Hume's most important
work and one of the most important books in the history of philosophy, the public in Great Britain did not agree at first. Hume himself described the (lack of) public reaction to
the publication of the Treatise in 1739–40 by writing that it "fell dead-born from the press, without reaching such
distinction as even to excite a murmur among the zealots. But being naturally of a cheerful and sanguine temper, I soon recovered
from the blow and prosecuted with great ardour my studies in the country". There he wrote the Abstract.[10] Without revealing his authorship, he aimed to make his larger work more
intelligible by shortening it. Even this advertisement failed to enliven interest in the Treatise.[11]
The effort of writing the Treatise drove the youthful Hume to near insanity. To restore his perspective he escaped to
the common life.[12]
After the publication of Essays Moral and Political in 1744, he applied for the Chair of Pneumatics and Moral Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. However, the position was given to William Cleghorn, after the majority of Edinburgh ministers petitioned the town council not to appoint
Hume because of his atheism.[13] During the
Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 he tutored the Marquise of Annandale (1720-92) officially
described as a "lunatic".[14] This engagement ended in
disarray after about a year. But, it was then that he started his great historical work The History of Great Britain[15] which would take fifteen years and run to over a million words, to be published in six volumes in
the period 1754 to 1762. During this period he was involved with the Canongate Theatre and in
this context associated with Lord Monboddo and other Scottish Enlightenment luminaries in Edinburgh. In 1748 he served for three years as Secretary to
General St Clair writing his Philosophical Essays concerning Human Understanding later
published as An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding.
The Enquiry proved little more successful than the Treatise.
Hume was charged with heresy, but he was defended by his young clerical friends who
argued that as an atheist he lay outside the jurisdiction of the Church. Despite his acquittal—and, possibly, due to the opposition of Thomas Reid of Aberdeen, who that year launched a Christian
critique of his metaphysics—Hume failed to gain the Chair of Philosophy at Glasgow. It was after returning to Edinburgh in 1752, as he wrote in My Own Life, that "the
Faculty of Advocates chose me their Librarian, an office from which I received little or no emolument, but which gave me the
command of a large library." It was this resource that enabled him to continue his historical research for his
History.
Hume achieved great literary fame as a historian. His enormous History of
Great Britain from the Saxon kingdoms to the Glorious Revolution was a best-seller in its day. In it, Hume presented political man as a creature
of habit, with a disposition to submit quietly to established government unless confronted by uncertain circumstances. In his
view, only religious difference could deflect men from their everyday lives to think about political matters.
Hume's early essay Of Superstition and Religion laid the foundations for nearly all
subsequent secular thinking about the history of religion. Critics of religion during Hume's time were required to express
themselves cautiously. Less than 15 years before Hume was born, 18-year-old college student Thomas Aikenhead was put on trial for saying openly that he thought Christianity was nonsense; he was
later convicted and hanged for blasphemy. Hume followed the common practice of expressing his
views obliquely, through characters in dialogues. Hume did not acknowledge authorship of Treatise until the year of his
death, in 1776. His essays On Suicide, and On the Immortality of the Soul and his
Dialogues concerning Natural Religion were held from
publication until after his death (published 1778 and 1779, respectively), and they still bore neither author's nor publisher's
name. So masterly was Hume in disguising his own views that debate continues to this day over whether Hume was actually a
deist or an atheist. Regardless, in his own time Hume's alleged
atheism caused him to be passed over for many positions.
Hume told his friend Mure of Caldwell of an incident which occasioned his "conversion" to Christianity. Passing across the
recently drained Nor’ Loch to the New Town of Edinburgh to supervise the masons
building his new house, soon to become No 1 St David Street, he slipped and fell into the mire. Hume, being then of great bulk,
could not regain his feet. Some passing Newhaven fishwives seeing his plight, but recognising him as the well-known atheist,
refused to rescue him until he became a Christian and had recited The Lord’s Prayer and
the Creed. This he did and was rewarded by being set again on his feet by these brawny women. Hume
asserted thereafter that Edinburgh fishwives were the "most acute theologians he had ever met".[16]
From 1763 to 1765 Hume was Secretary to Lord Hertford in Paris, where he was admired by Voltaire and lionised by the
ladies in society. He made friends with and, later, fell out with Rousseau. He
wrote of his Paris life "I really wish often for the plain roughness of the The Poker
Club of Edinburgh . . . to correct and qualify so much luciousness." For a year from 1767, Hume held the appointment of
Under Secretary of State for the Northern Department. In 1768 he settled in Edinburgh. Attention to Hume's philosophical works grew after the German
philosopher Immanuel Kant credited Hume with awakening him from "dogmatic slumbers"
(circa 1770) and from then onwards he gained the recognition that he had craved all his life.
James Boswell visited Hume a few weeks before his death. Hume told him that he
sincerely believed it a "most unreasonable fancy" that there might be life after death.[17] This meeting was also dramatized in semi-fictional form for the
BBC by Michael Ignatieff as Dialogue in the Dark.
Hume wrote his own epitaph:"Born 1711, Died [----]. Leaving it to posterity to add the rest." It is engraved with the year of his
death 1776 on the "simple Roman tomb" which he prescribed, and which stands, as he wished it, on
the Eastern slope of the Calton Hill overlooking his home in the New Town of Edinburgh at No. 1 St David Street.
Statue of David Hume in Edinburgh, Scotland
Hume’s Science of Man
There are, of course, various ways of interpreting Hume’s philosophical project regarding the understanding. Hume certainly
adopts the idiom of previous empiricist philosophers such as John Locke in talking of the ideas of the mind, and indeed at least
formally accepts the theory that our concepts or ideas are derived from or copied off of our sensory impressions. Some
positivist philosophers have thus assumed that his project could be interpreted as a detailed
analysis of our concepts in terms of actual or potential experiences. Such interpreters have sought to disentangle the analytical
Hume from Hume the psychologist, who saw mental states as linked to one another by laws of association. However, such an
interpretation seems doomed to failure, as it has radically anti-sceptical, and thus un-Humean, conclusions. For if our ideas are
analysable into experience, then anything we can grasp in the understanding would have first to be knowable by, or
directly accessible in, experience. Hume would not have thought of our ideas as thus given in experience; for him, the
natural, and importantly non-rational, mechanisms of the mind must go to work on the sensory data or input to produce our
concepts.
However, another strain of interpretation that has become prominent in the last couple of decades is that, rather than
analysing our ideas into copies of experiences, Hume was instead looking at the way our mind synthesises, or
actively generates, our complex notions of and beliefs in, e.g., the external world, causal connection, the self, and so on. For
Hume, our forming and using such concepts was the result of an in-built, natural disposition to deploy faculties of the mind such
as custom, habit, and the imagination. Another way of expressing this is to say that he was not concerned with advancing a theory
of semantics — i.e. what we mean when we talk about, say, physical objects or causal relations — but rather was carrying out an
epistemological enquiry, asking in effect how the stimuli of the senses and our conceptual apparatus work together to compel us
to form various sorts of judgements and to make claims to knowledge.
The Idea of Necessary Connection
Hume begins Chapter VII of the first Enquiry with a hunt for the impression behind our idea of causal power. This has
been interpreted as an attempt to specify the parameters of the concept of causation — i.e. what we mean when we deploy
causal terms — and the traditional analytical take on Hume’s answer is that it is to be found in the regular succession of
certain of our impressions; their ‘constant conjunction’. On this interpretation, Hume is basically saying that when we make
statements of the form "X caused Y", or "Y happened because of X", we just mean that X happened, then Y did, and that X-like
events always precede Y-like ones.
However, this take is almost certainly flawed, for at least two reasons. Firstly, Hume offers two ‘definitions’ of
causation, the first of which is in terms of pure regularity, but the second of which introduces the notion of the natural
passage of the mind from the appearance of the cause to the idea of the effect (e.g. someone knocks a coffee mug off the table
and, having always experienced unsuspended objects to fall, you anticipate its falling to the floor). This feeling stems from a
natural association of the two events after persistent observation of them as constantly conjoined. And it is this feeling, or
‘determination of the mind’, which is the basis of our idea of necessity, i.e. that the cause necessitates its effect.
Secondly, this is the basis for our idea not in the sense that our concept of necessary connection can be analysed into such
feelings of anticipation, expectation, etc., but that we then come to see the world as structured by a certain predictability of
order, and we attribute this predictability to the external objects themselves, i.e. we attribute them a causal power which makes
things fall out, or occur in, the way they do; a property of necessary connection. So Hume's argument is that the mind
synthesises and then projects a concept of causal power when it observes similar events to occur together repeatedly. This is an
example of what the philosopher Simon Blackburn has entitled ‘projectivism’; Hume argues that we project our feeling of
predictability onto the objects, much as he argues that we project our moral attitudes onto situations or objects, as “nothing is
more usual than to apply to external bodies every internal sensation which they occasion.”[18]
The Problem of Induction
-
In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, §4.1.20-27, §4.2.28-33,[19] Hume articulated his view that all human reasoning is of two kinds, to wit
Relation of Ideas and Matters of Fact. While the former involves the abstract concepts of logic and mathematics
where intuitive and deductive certitude presides, the latter concerns what exists in
the world. In order to avail ourselves of any matter of fact or existence beyond what we are aware of in our present sensory
experience and our memory, we must employ inductive reasoning.
Inductive inference operates on the principle that the past acts as a reliable guide to the future (sometimes called the
principle of the uniformity of nature). For example, if in the past the sun has risen in the east and set in the west, then,
inductive inference suggests that it will probably rise in the east and set in the west in the future. But how are we to explain
our ability to make such an inference? Hume argued that we cannot explain our capacity as a product of our faculty of
reason. For reason could only come in two flavours, and neither of these can be used to
ground our inferences.
- Demonstrative or Intuitive. This sort of reasoning is basically a priori. We cannot determine a priori that the future will be conformable to the past, because it is both
(logically) consistent and conceivable that the world stop being uniform. Hume here does not distinguish adequately between the
uniformity of nature in general and the persistence of particular regularities. For it is open to a philosopher (perhaps
of a Kantian bent) to argue that it is in fact inconceivable that the world not be regular in some ways. However,
what is important, and what vindicates Hume, is that for any particular regularity in the operations of nature, it is
consistent and conceivable that it might cease. Thus we cannot ground our inductions in a priori reasoning.
- Inductive. We cannot appeal, either, to our past successes in using inductive inference, to the fact that it has
worked in the past, for this would be circular reasoning.
Hume thus concludes that our inductive practices have no rational foundation, for no form of reason will certify it. However,
there are many points to note about what Hume is definitely not saying. He is not saying that induction is not deduction, and
thus not rational (i.e. he is not a "deductivist"). For in the Treatise, in a section entitled Of Scepticism with
regard to Reason, he argues that if unaided reason determined our beliefs, if belief-formation were rational all the way
down, then we would never believe anything, including intuitive or deductive truths. Furthermore, Hume is not saying
that induction doesn't work, or doesn't reliably lead to true conclusions, or anything of that sort; rather, he argues just that
it isn't spurred on by reason. The important thing to remember with Hume is that although pessimistic about the likelihood of
showing that induction was a rational procedure, he thought it was a remarkably accurate—indeed, quasi-magical—ability to predict
the future. The fuel for the inductive fire for Hume, and his solution to the problem of explaining our inductions, is Nature.
Nature has determined us to expect more of the same, for: "this operation of the mind, by which we infer like effects from like
causes, and vice versa, is so essential to the subsistence of all human creatures, it is not probable, that it could be
trusted to the fallacious deductions of our reason, which is slow in its operations; appears not, in any degree, during the first
years of infancy; and at best is, in every age and period of human life, extremely liable to error and mistake." (ECHU, 5.2.22)
This is the closest thing possible during his (pre-Darwinian) time to an evolutionary account of our inductive tendencies, and
Hume here has lit on a central feature in any properly atheistic Science of Man, placing him firmly in the naturalist tradition
of great thinkers.
The Self: Bundles and Beliefs
Although Hume almost certainly meant it figuratively, his statement that man is "a bundle or collection of different
perceptions"[20] has been taken by many quite literally.
This interpretation stems from a desire to see Hume as answering the same sort of question about the self that Locke addressed himself to; viz., what counts as an individual person? Locke's answer was that a person is a
thinking thing, and that the boundaries of a person stretch as far back as they can remember (though "thinking thing" is not to
be taken in the Cartesian sense of being an intellectual substance; Locke thought that we have, and can have, no knowledge
of the substantial nature of the self). If this was Hume's question, it might seem reasonable to take his answer to be that the
self is just a bundle of perceptions. However, if we interpret him this way, we do him a great disservice, for the view that the
self is a bundle of perceptions is deeply flawed. It can be shown to be incorrect with a simple argument: it is logically
impossible for two different people to be the same person; it is logically possible for two different people to have the same
collections of perceptions; therefore people are not collections of perceptions.
Charity demands, then, that we find a different way of looking at Hume's problem. If we see him as answering an
epistemological question — namely, what causes us to form judgements, or beliefs, about the existence of the self? — then
we will have more success. Luckily, Hume is quite explicit that this is his question: "What then gives us so great a
propension to ascribe an identity to these successive perceptions, and to suppose ourselves possest of an invariable and
uninterrupted existence thro' the whole course of our lives?"[21] The problem, then, is that experience is interrupted and ever-changing, but somehow causes us to
form a concept of a constant self which is the subject of these experiences. Given that this is Hume's real question, we must
also re-interpret his answer. Hume's discussion of personal identity is strongly interlocked with a discussion of the attribution
of identity to objects. Roughly, Hume's argument concerning our belief in external objects is that we attribute a continued
identity to unperceived objects because resemblances and relations of contiguity and causation in our perceptions force us to
form an imaginative picture to the effect that their identity remains intact even when we are not looking. And, he argues, we
cannot make sense of the notion of objects existing independently of ourselves unless we have an idea of 'ourself' as something
that occasionally becomes aware of these objects. It is the human mind, or consciousness, that is thus conceived of as a
field of experience into which various different objects appear and then disappear: "the true idea of the human mind, is to
consider it as a system of different perceptions or different existences, which are link'd together by the relation of cause and
effect, and mutually produce, destroy, influence, and modify each other."[22] So we are not collections of perceptions (except perhaps metaphorically); we are the
subjects of experience, who encounter a world of continuous objects in consciousness.
Instead of the thesis that we are bundles of perceptions, we may attribute Hume with the much more plausible view that our
concept of the self is formed alongside our conception of an external world of independently existing objects.
Practical Reason in Hume
Hume's most famous sentence occurs at Treatise, II, III, iii, Of the influencing motives of the will: "Reason
is, and ought only to be, slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Hume
here extends his anti-rationalism from the epistemological sphere into that of the theory of action, and demonstrates that the
faculty of reason cannot, of itself, move the will. He starts the section by going over the by now familiar distinction between
demonstrative and probable reasoning (roughly, deductive and inductive reasoning). He then argues that neither can influence the
will, as both simply provide information — deductive reasoning about correct mathematical or logical inference and
inductive reasoning about causal connections — and it is always open to us as to how to act on this information. Hume then
argues that in order to be moved to act on the information provided us by reason, my passions, desires and inclinations must play
a role. To take a simple example: using causal reasoning I can discern that if I drink a lot of wine, I will get drunk, but the
truth of this conditional will not motivate me to do anything unless I have some desire, in this case the desire to be drunk. As
such, Hume forwards the basic folk psychological action-theory that a motive to action requires both a belief (ascertained by the
understanding) and a desire (provided by the passions). This theory is still hotly contested, with Humean philosophers such as
Simon Blackburn and Michael Smith on one side,
and moral cognitivists, like John McDowell, and Kantians, like Christine Korsgaard, on the other.
Sentiment-based ethical theory
Hume first discusses ethics in A Treatise of Human Nature. He later
extracts and expounds upon the ideas he proposed there in a s