Thursday, February 19, 2009

From 2/18: Liberty, Miracles, & The Afterlife

In finishing up Hume on Wednesday night, we touched on many topics: Are liberty and necessity mutually exclusive? Are miracles likley -- or even possible? Can we know anything about God or an afterlife based on our own experience? Much to think about how here, including how Hume's scepticism contrasts with Descartes'. Before we move onto Kant, here's another chance to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of Hume.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think it’s safe to say what we would consider one of Hume's strengths is what he would consider one of Descartes' weaknesses, skepticism. Hume thought that the Cartesian system of extreme doubting just reduced everything to ideas. To doubt radically makes it hard to argue what you doubt. Obviously Hume thought being a skeptic was a good quality but one should only be a skeptic to a certain extent, we should only concern ourselves with questions that are answerable. Hume did not like entertaining himself with questions concerning God or the soul because these are questions that can't produce a definite answer of existence. The tension we talked about in class concerning his section on miracles I guess I would consider a possible weakness because it’s not consistent with the rest of his philosophy. Hume's thought is to never be surprised by anything, expect nothing to be the norm or follow strict laws, yet his thought on miracles is controversial. He defines miracles as instances that go against the laws of nature, but wouldn't he believe there are no laws for nature in the first place, therefore if a miracle were to occur shouldn't we take it as it is and not be surprised because according to Hume anything could happen? Since Hume's philosophy centers around experience and the need to be able to trust one's own experiences and others I guess this is why he has trouble deciding whether or not miracles are real. It’s definitely an area of faith, an area he does not like to venture into.