Hume?

[RadicalRadical]

Do you believe the ideas of Hume and Empiricism are correct, further, do you believe they are compatible with Leftist political philosophy. Personally I believe that many of Hume's ideas, particularly that God is a complex idea made up by humans, and that it is not present in our reason, to be very ingenious. I much prefer him over Locke, who was a total hypocrite for believing in God but saying that everything we learn is from what we experience, because last time I checked, we never experience God.

[shorelinetrance]

i haven't read much hume but i enjoyed his rebuttal against all a priori ontological arguments for the existence of god. also empiricism is compatible because empiricism is the basis of historical materialism, it's what makes marxism so powerful.

[MarxSchmarx]

Do you believe the ideas of Hume and Empiricism are correctThey have their difficulties (such as implicitly positing a dang-in-sich), but basically yes.



Further, do you believe they are compatible with Leftist political philosophy. Yes and no. There a streak of moral relativism in Hume that I think is compatible with leftist ideals of (1) social mores and customs, rather than statist laws and economic necessity, governing human behavior, (2) the imperative of a uniquely proletarian struggle, and (3) tolerance and self-determination.

However, this relativism leads Hume to defend conservatism and distrust revolution. This is consistent with some leftist traditions that seek to establish the germ of the new society today (e.g., syndicalism), but is at odds with the view that we need to make a clean slate of the past.


Personally I believe that many of Hume's ideas, particularly that God is a complex idea made up by humans, and that it is not present in our reason, to be very ingenious. I agree.


I much prefer him over Locke, who was a total hypocrite for believing in God but saying that everything we learn is from what we experience, because last time I checked, we never experience God.You think that is Lockean hypocrisy? Pfffft. Here's what Lockean hypocrisy looks like:


the Turfs MY SERVANT has cut... in any place where I have a right to them in common with others, become my Property,without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my Property in them.

Second Treatise on Gov't. Ch.5 Sec.28.
Emphasis added. That, sir, is Locke's hypocrisy.

[Ratatosk]

Yes, empiricism seems to be the most sensible position to me. I'm more familiar with its modern versions than with Hume's, but I think so far I've agreed with most of Hume's claims I've come across.

[Apeiron]

There's something I can appreciate in Hume's epistemological skepticism, but overall I find his system to be overly simplistic and far too limited. His perspective in many ways comprises much of what I find to be problematic about contemporary philosophy: the focus upon epistemology (and a radically limited one at that), the radical disconnect between the subject and the external world (you can find this in Descartes as well, but at least he overcomes it!), etc. much of which really epitomizes the anxiety and meaninglessness of modernity, which has been the chief philosophical problem of the last few centuries.

Just because Hume was more or less a materialist doesn't mean his philosophy is the basis of Marxism... Marx is a much more intelligent and interesting materialist. Hume is more of a paranoid skeptic, who would likely doubt the reality of the social world, a world that is the highest reality for Marx.

[apathy maybe]

Hume is one of the greatest philosophies that I have read (I've read a few, though not some who are promoted around here).

His work just makes sense. He clearly explains why there is no reason to believe in such things as "intelligent design" (even before Darwin provided a theory of evolution that trumped anything the god botherers could come up with) or miracles.

Look at the following:

- - - - - -
Would you say that is a line? Hume would suggest that it isn't a line, but a series of lines (six of them), and that the same psychological processes that make you think there is a single line makes you think that you are the same person that you were five years ago (and even five minutes ago). Very interesting.


There's something I can appreciate in Hume's epistemological skepticism, but overall I find his system to be overly simplistic and far too limited. His perspective in many ways comprises much of what I find to be problematic about contemporary philosophy: the focus upon epistemology (and a radically limited one at that), the radical disconnect between the subject and the external world (you can find this in Descartes as well, but at least he overcomes it!), etc. much of which really epitomizes the anxiety and meaninglessness of modernity, which has been the chief philosophical problem of the last few centuries.

When you say "limited", whatever do you mean? What do you mean that there is a disconnect between "the subject and the external world"? (And how does "Dualist" Descartes over come this disconnect and Hume doesn't?)


Just because Hume was more or less a materialist doesn't mean his philosophy is the basis of Marxism... Marx is a much more intelligent and interesting materialist. Hume is more of a paranoid skeptic, who would likely doubt the reality of the social world, a world that is the highest reality for Marx.
Of course his philosophy isn't the basis for Marxism. However, materialism is always something to be valued. (And I find Hume much more interesting, if for no other reason then his work covers more topics.)
And I would reject that Hume was "a paranoid skeptic", skeptic yes, but do you have any evidence he was "paranoid"?

[Apeiron]

Ugh, I just wrote out a response that I lost because I wasn't logged in.. so here's another shot.



When you say "limited", whatever do you mean? What do you mean that there is a disconnect between "the subject and the external world"? (And how does "Dualist" Descartes over come this disconnect and Hume doesn't) Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear in my initial response... I'm using the word 'limited' here to comment on the 'limited' degree of certainty that can be ascertained regarding the world external to the subject; which is next to nothing, aside from it's mere existence (which was actually rejected by Hume's beloved empiricist predecessor, Berkley). Hume's philosophy severely undermines the legitimacy of any knowledge acquired through human experience vis-a-vis the external world, - with the obvious exception of the internal experience of perceptions/impressions/ideas yada-yada, - thus leaving the subject disconnected and alienated from the world that envelops him/her, disbelieving the validity of one's own experience.

Descartes' dualism is thoroughly problematic (and he shares many of the same flaws), but he does finally manage to get outside of himself (albeit via God, of all things) and grasp some sense of certainty about the world outside of his own head (the pineal gland to be precise! sidenote: does anyone else think this point undermines Descartes' dualism?)

As I pointed out in my previous post, I can appreciate Hume's skepticism to some degree; at times I hold the 'anything is possible' doctrine myself. However, I ultimately find Hume's system to denigrate the validity of human experience as such. Perhaps in this regard I'm more of a Kantian than I'd like to admit...



Of course his philosophy isn't the basis for Marxism. However, materialism is always something to be valued. (And I find Hume much more interesting, if for no other reason then his work covers more topics.)
And I would reject that Hume was "a paranoid skeptic", skeptic yes, but do you have any evidence he was "paranoid"? I'm using the word 'paranoid' facetiously here; I don't think Hume can be medically diagnosed with 'paranoia' (it is a real medical condition, no?)... I'm merely using it to exaggerate aspects of his skepticism - he doubted the fact that the sun will rise the following morning. Descartes shares the same neuroses in certain moments throughout the Meditations (the evil demon comes to mind)... perhaps in this respect Hume was a more loyal Cartesian skeptic than Decartes ever was!

Here's to hoping this one posts!

[apathy maybe]

Ugh, I just wrote out a response that I lost because I wasn't logged in.. so here's another shot.

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear in my initial response... I'm using the word 'limited' here to comment on the 'limited' degree of certainty that can be ascertained regarding the world external to the subject; which is next to nothing, aside from it's mere existence (which was actually rejected by Hume's beloved empiricist predecessor, Berkley). Hume's philosophy severely undermines the legitimacy of any knowledge acquired through human experience vis-a-vis the external world, - with the obvious exception of the internal experience of perceptions/impressions/ideas yada-yada, - thus leaving the subject disconnected and alienated from the world that envelops him/her, disbelieving the validity of one's own experience.
Do you believe that we can know anything about the world in an objective sense?

Descartes' dualism is thoroughly problematic (and he shares many of the same flaws), but he does finally manage to get outside of himself (albeit via God, of all things) and grasp some sense of certainty about the world outside of his own head (the pineal gland to be precise! sidenote: does anyone else think this point undermines Descartes' dualism?)Well, Descartes fails to get out of himself, because his arguments for God fail.

As I pointed out in my previous post, I can appreciate Hume's skepticism to some degree; at times I hold the 'anything is possible' doctrine myself. However, I ultimately find Hume's system to denigrate the validity of human experience as such. Perhaps in this regard I'm more of a Kantian than I'd like to admit...
I don't think that Hume denigrates the validity of human experience.


I'm using the word 'paranoid' facetiously here; I don't think Hume can be medically diagnosed with 'paranoia' (it is a real medical condition, no?)... I'm merely using it to exaggerate aspects of his skepticism - he doubted the fact that the sun will rise the following morning. Descartes shares the same neuroses in certain moments throughout the Meditations (the evil demon comes to mind)... perhaps in this respect Hume was a more loyal Cartesian skeptic than Decartes ever was!
(Yes, Paranoia is a real condition.)
I'm not sure whether you could seriously say that he doubted that the sun would rise the following morning. I would suggest he was being facetious :).

To the point though, skepticism is the only rational philosophy of the universe, if you wish to have such a philosophy at all. We cannot know that there is no "evil demon" manipulating our senses. Descartes (as I said above), fails to convince that God exists, and uses sophistry to put across the point. Of course, now you accept that we don't know if what we see is real or not, we can get on with our lives (which is what, I'm sure, Hume did).

[Reclaimed Dasein]

One could make a strong argument that the Vienna Circle is the philosophical and political attempt of radicalizing Hume. I mean, they did call themselves the Logical Empiricists.

[Apeiron]

Do you believe that we can know anything about the world in an objective sense?
To be honest, I'm not so interested in this question... which is certainly part of the reason I don't find Hume, as a prominent epistemologist, to be so interesting. To me, it seems as if Hume did not go far enough with his skepticism... he dedicates himself to the search for truth only to come up empty handed, and yet still maintains the position that truth is somewhere out there - just unknowable, inaccessible to human experience. So why doesn't he just obliterate the concept altogether and embrace the 'illusion' of human experience as such - as the only possible reality - rather than denying it's validity in favor of the elusive carrot on a stick known as 'truth' (a truth that will always remain unknowable)? Kant also posits absolute truth (as the noumenal/thing-in-itself) elsewhere, but he at least grants us a 'phenomenal' realm in which 'objective' knowledge claims are possible. Kant thus goes one step further than Hume, but still not far enough; once again I follow Nietzsche's lead here in suggesting the collapse of the 'other world' altogether. In both cases reality must be relocated.

Regarding the sun-rise - I take Hume seriously on this point because there is no ground for making any claims of certainty regarding the external world. As a true skeptic, I don't see why you would take issue with this claim.

[Drace]

Would you say that is a line? Hume would suggest that it isn't a line, but a series of lines (six of them), and that the same psychological processes that make you think there is a single line makes you think that you are the same person that you were five years ago (and even five minutes ago). Very interesting.

Actually no, I didn't think it was a line. And how do you connect that to thinking that your the same person you were 5 years ago? I'm not sure even if that statement is correct.

I don't ever think about my past in such ways.

[Hit The North]

I don't ever think about my past in such ways.

How old are you?

[Incendiarism]

It's a good thing this topic was bumped because I want to know where to start on Hume. I have An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding - is this a good place to begin?