My main objection to Hume is one that I've voiced before on FRDB, which is, I think he's full of hot air.
It's easy to say, and I will copy your paraphrase, TP: there is nothing in our sensory experience corresponding to our ordinary notion of the causal relation..., but it's quite a difficult matter to invest any kind of truth in the words. In my experience, I can't imagine what Hume means by saying such a thing. I remember when I first read Hume, when I was new to philosophy: I took his propositions to be true, because he is a large historical figure and one of very high esteem and reputation. I remember reading in the introduction where the author said that Hume had "taken a wrecking ball" to the old and established axioms and presuppositions that had held sway in his time. Who was I to argue? I read the words and tried to reconcile them to my experience in life, but when I failed to be able to do that, I didn't blame Hume, the great philosopher, I blamed my tiny little brain instead.
Being older now, and having read a great deal more, I suggest that Hume's skepticism is little more than a bloated, naked emperor swaggering flatulently down the road to human understanding. The idea that the data we collect from our senses, and the manifest proofs of the objective reality of that data, which occur across every moment of every day in our normal lives, cannot give us any real knowledge of causation, is completely without support, and utterly devoid of reason.
If you want to feel more secure in your understanding of cause and effect in the material world, if you sincerely take David Hume's pronouncements seriously, all you need to do is take a sharp knife, put the cutting edge to your palm, and draw the blade downwards toward your wrist, while applying a good amount of pressure. You will instantly have all the proof you need that extremely acute metal objects will, in fact, cause an incision in your skin and flesh, and a subsequent loss of blood, not to mention a strikingly vivid and unpleasant sensation in the area incised.
I know, that's the same as Sam Johnson's famous refutation of Berkeley, kicking at the stone. But that is really all that's required. And that's the truth of the matter. Of course this takes all the fun away from people who like to pretend that they make reality up in their heads, who, for some unknown reason, need to believe that the massive and beautiful engines of the cosmos depend on their own miniscule wink of consciousness for their very existence.
It's easy to say, and I will copy your paraphrase, TP: there is nothing in our sensory experience corresponding to our ordinary notion of the causal relation..., but it's quite a difficult matter to invest any kind of truth in the words. In my experience, I can't imagine what Hume means by saying such a thing. I remember when I first read Hume, when I was new to philosophy: I took his propositions to be true, because he is a large historical figure and one of very high esteem and reputation. I remember reading in the introduction where the author said that Hume had "taken a wrecking ball" to the old and established axioms and presuppositions that had held sway in his time. Who was I to argue? I read the words and tried to reconcile them to my experience in life, but when I failed to be able to do that, I didn't blame Hume, the great philosopher, I blamed my tiny little brain instead.
Being older now, and having read a great deal more, I suggest that Hume's skepticism is little more than a bloated, naked emperor swaggering flatulently down the road to human understanding. The idea that the data we collect from our senses, and the manifest proofs of the objective reality of that data, which occur across every moment of every day in our normal lives, cannot give us any real knowledge of causation, is completely without support, and utterly devoid of reason.
If you want to feel more secure in your understanding of cause and effect in the material world, if you sincerely take David Hume's pronouncements seriously, all you need to do is take a sharp knife, put the cutting edge to your palm, and draw the blade downwards toward your wrist, while applying a good amount of pressure. You will instantly have all the proof you need that extremely acute metal objects will, in fact, cause an incision in your skin and flesh, and a subsequent loss of blood, not to mention a strikingly vivid and unpleasant sensation in the area incised.
I know, that's the same as Sam Johnson's famous refutation of Berkeley, kicking at the stone. But that is really all that's required. And that's the truth of the matter. Of course this takes all the fun away from people who like to pretend that they make reality up in their heads, who, for some unknown reason, need to believe that the massive and beautiful engines of the cosmos depend on their own miniscule wink of consciousness for their very existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment