Being ever skeptical of metaphysical doctrines and absolute declarations, Hume deals with a number of traditional philosophical questions in the second half of his Enquiry. Can liberty and necessity be reconciled with each other? Are we really so different from animals? What do we make of miracles (such as the parting of the Red Sea)? Where do we see divine providence? Is our belief in a future state justified? In considering Hume's answer to these assorted questions, be sure to share your own insights as well.
2 comments:
When reading Hume’s answers to this wide variety of questions, I tend to agree with his level of skepticism and doubt. When dealing with liberty/necessity, animals versus human beings, miracles and divine providence, the questions are countless, and absolute answers are lacking. I tend to agree most with his ideas concerning animals versus human beings, as well as his ideas on miracles and divine providence. Concerning the relationship in understanding between animals and human beings, Hume gathers that animals do indeed learn of cause an effect through experiences, and also that human beings and animals share similar innate instincts. I tend to agree with Hume in that both animals and human beings are innately animal beings, and therefore share instinctive qualities when reasoning between cause and effect. Hume’s theories on miracles and divine providence also coincide with my personal level of doubt in these ideas. Hume begins his skepticism of miracles and divine providence by stating that one must be careful when taking human testimony or stories to be absolute. Hume lists six particular reasons: a) testimonies conflict one another, b) small number of witnesses, c)speaker has no integrity, d) speaker overly hesitant or bold, e)speaker has known motives for lying and finally, f)if the propositions being presented are miraculous. Hume continues by defining miracles as any event that which contradicts the laws of nature. Since the laws of nature have enormous amount of evidence supporting them, miracle that break these laws are deemed unlikely to Hume, and I personally tend to agree with his skepticism and doubt.
I personally found myself agreeing and disagreeing throughout my reading of Hume’s Enquiry. I agree with his reconciling of liberty and necessity by redefining terms so as to make them agreeable to all. Not every event is causally necessitated. We just tend to perceive them that way. He suggests we should observe only constant conjunctions and not necessary connections. Necessary connections are found not in objects but in the imagination of the observer. So liberty does not depend on actions being disconnected from their motives it rather means actions depend on determinations of the will. Liberty should be contrasted to constraint, not necessity. I understand Hume’s thoughts and see truth in his belief that our rationality as humans is the same as animals except for our sharpness and precision and ability to ponder necessary connections in nature. He perceives reason to be a faculty that has arisen naturally. When he starts talking about the merit of miracles and God as an empty hypothesis I start to disagree. He respects faith as acceptable grounds for religious beliefs but does not see faith as grounds to prove something. He doesn’t see religious traditions being founded in reason whereas I see faith and reason hand in hand in practicing religion. Hume, I can see, doesn’t try to condemn religion but wants to remove its influences from speculative philosophy; he is a naturalist and does not concern himself with metaphysical topics. Even when discussing miracles he was concerned in how we give them merit not whether or not they are even valid.
Post a Comment