1 William Cannon Alexander Izrailevsky David Hume final paper http://williamcannonseportfolio.weebly.

com/

2 David Hume had a philosophy that was rooted in skepticism. He was most skeptical of religion or at least our supposed need for it. His skepticism also raised issue with many religious stories referred to as miracles. He was skeptical because they conveniently contradicted a rival religion. He was certainly skeptical of human belief in many ways. He argued that our beliefs were formed off impressions of the world around us and that said impressions fueled motives which in turn causes our actions. He believed that experience was a collection of impressions and that for something to be valid or have verification it needed to be experienced. The problem he had with religion or at least the concept of god was that it could not be experienced that such a being did or did not exist. Because of this lack of experience there could be no verification, at least not for Hume. Through these rationalizations of basic philosophical concepts Hume really starts to show a strong skepticism or a least a form of doubt. Part of David Humes philosophy states that human belief is a direct result of personal impressions. To Hume, these impressions are direct, lively, and instantaneous results from experience. Next he believes that our ideas at least on an individual level are weak and undeveloped impersonations of even our own original impressions. Meaning that even when we take an experience and relate that into a generalized impression about a broad subject we still translate that into a feeble idea. So to Hume the human belief structure, at least on an individual level, is a weak one from the foundation up. The other difference between an impression and an idea to Hume is that an impression is immediate and based off current experience such as these words as you read them whereas an idea is drawn off a past impression, which Hume believes, is less reliable than even an impression. Hume also argues that each idea and/or impression we have stands on its own

3 and if there is any connection between separate impressions or ideas then we have made the connections ourselves. The problem with this is that we make very particular connections on our own that only apply to our very unique life experience whereas someone else can have a totally inverse experience. This could be a problem in fundamental understanding and communication between humans because if I make a connection between ideas that is only relevant to myself either conscious or otherwise I may assume it is a general truth and not just to myself but to those around me as well. If those around me hold a separate but equally valid relation of ideas and assume the same about me as I do them, then we will have a very difficult time trying to understand even the most basic concepts of what each other is trying to express. Hume believes that we relate or link ideas and impressions in one of three ways. Those three ways are resemblance, contiguity, or cause and effect. Resemblance is when something resembles something else so they are linked together in your mind such as two plants that have similar appearance. Contiguity is when something relates to another physically such as a car on the road, if you see a enough cars on enough roads long enough one will start associating cars with roads. Cause and effect is when one takes a specific action and immediately observes a result of said action, such as eating diminishes the feeling of hunger. When we experience something perhaps more than once Hume believes that the resulting experience gives us not just the ideas we form but also an awareness of the associations we make or that are inherently present. Hume argues that human belief, a term that encompasses even the truths we regard as fundamental wisdom or knowledge is still just a byproduct of these three ways to associate ideas even if they have to be made repeatedly. In a way this sounds familiar to the scientific method, at least to me, because

4 he outlines ways with which we can make connections between things based off repeated observation and specific association patterns. With this in mind I can see logic in Humes belief that even the truths we hold as knowledge are conceived on these basic concepts. Hume continues with his concept on human belief by distinguishing between two different types of human belief. The first category Hume uses to distinguish forms of belief is a relation of ideas that are founded on associations that are made in the mind alone. Next are matters of fact, which are beliefs that appear to simply make a statement on the nature of things already in existence. In a sense this could be interpreted as Humes own take on the a priori ideas of Rene Descartes. To Hume any of our formal knowledge such as science or mathematics must rely on the relation of ideas as it is based solely in the mind so they lack an external referent. This makes these concepts founded on an uncontroversial and logical structure. The problem with this form of belief for Hume is that it is uninformative in a sense because it doesnt relate to things outside of the mind or things that physically exist since these concepts are founded in the mind alone. An example for something that relies on matters of fact as a form of belief is natural science, or at least its propositions, as they are based on repeating observations made off of existing things with relations between ideas being made. The problem with this matter of fact form of belief is that it is not absolute. The benefit of it, however, is that it is genuine because we can not only relate ideas but also consistently show the same result of those relations as to have it be an acceptable truth for more than just those who make the link in their own mind. Hume concerns himself with explaining the origin of beliefs that appear inherent or that precede all others ideas, impressions, or relations between them. Hume also questions how it is possible for one to

5 learn from an experience or a collective and general experience. Hume believes that this matter of fact approach to human belief is not rational on a fundamental level. His logic behind this statement is that for this form of belief we must take what is observed in the past and then apply it to current and future instances when relevant. This function relies on a belief that the future is similar to the past or that things stay the same but Hume states that it is all too possible for the nature of things to change. For even if the nature of things do not change, Hume acknowledges that it very well could. Because of this anything observed in the past, no matter how relevant, may be completely inapplicable due to the nature of change or the change of nature as it were. Humes supposed favorite example of this fundamental lack of rationalism is our inherent belief that the sun will rise tomorrow because while through our entire lives the sun has risen it does not mean that the nature of that can not change and in spite of the concept that its nature can change we continue to believe that the sun will dawn a new day each day. Skepticism does not allow us to speculate on anything beyond our current experience. In spite of this we believe well beyond our present experience. Hume would argue that although these beliefs were unjustified they could indeed be explained. They can be explained through reference, custom, or habit that is how we can learn from experience. When we observe a constant intermingling of occurrences we can easily get used to making associations between said occurrences. So if we go back to Humes sunrise example we can use this concept to elaborate further. Even though I have, throughout the course of my life in, have always experienced the sun rising I cannot prove beyond a doubt that it will rise again tomorrow. I can only expect that things will continue on as they always have so I only have, this feeling that it will as a basis of this

6 belief or experience. Next are instances in which ideas are associated rationally such as in mathematics. Hume argues that even in these rational instances reason is an inefficient means to an end. Although many mathematical applications can be proven within its system, many go about making it a relation not by understanding how or why it is a rational conclusion but simply by reciting the system, which is correct and yields accurate results. An excellent example is multiplication, because while multiplying two numbers can be rationally figured and understood within the confines of the mathematical system of multiplication many people will multiply numbers by memorizing the multiplication chart. This demonstrates that even in a most rational system ruled by logic humans will not bother with the entirety of knowledge but rather the factual associations that can quickly be stated consistently and correctly. To Hume in most cases our knowledge is an example of conviction we have formed through our consistent experiences. Hume states that while we form our belief on events and relate them through habit we also form an expectation of an effect to take place whenever we experience a linked cause. Meaning that through our own linking of ideas through habits we will make an assumption that a cause produces an effect. This could cause more miscommunications or misconceptions. Just because you experience a cause does not always mean you will have the same result every time, just as you can observe an effect and that be the result of a different cause than you assume. This is why the links we create in our minds are irrational. Hume questioned where the impression or idea of the self began. Hume argued that we do not and cannot have an impression of the self. His argument being that no matter how much effort we focus solely on ourselves and our own experience we can never directly be aware of ourselves. Because of this answer, Hume argues that a so-

7 called immortal soul is just fiction from philosophy. To elaborate further, Hume would argue that to disagree with this point was to incorrectly categorize the concept of the self. It is to treat ones separate perceptions as separate and individual pieces rather than components of a larger whole. While Hume understands that this belief is natural just as the cause and effect assumptions we make he maintains that such belief is unjustifiable. Free will can be thought of in terms of necessity or liberty, at least for Hume. His argument for necessity is that each action one takes has a purpose behind it. Along with this, Hume believes that our will corresponds with motivational influence prior to the action. Meaning that our actions are linked to how we are feeling, what situation were in, or our underlying motivations. So it could be argued that our motives lead to our actions, which could be taken in an extent to a representation of free will that is if we are to set our motivations. However we do not always set motivations or even realize that we have done so. Perhaps this is a limit to the liberty we experience, at least under Humes philosophy. While skepticism was a large part of his philosophy, I believe it had an even more meaningful application when it came to religion for Hume. Hume believed that the only way we could offer up facts or at least opinions with some backing was with the availability of experience to go with it. He states that that experience applies to laws of nature as well. In terms of religion he finds these two uses of experience to contradict to a point of annihilation. Meaning that no matter how much experience can be weighed in favor of religion the experience that reinforces the laws of nature will always outweigh it. He offers criticisms that argue against the plausibility of religion and its miraculous stories. The first point he argues is that many who claim witness to a miracle, religious or

8 otherwise, often lack honesty or at least integrity. Second in his counterargument is that we as humans are drawn to and even want to believe in such amazing and unbelievable stories. It is because of this that even if we are inclined to not believe in these stories we will tell them anyway until they do become taken as fact. His third statement is that accounts of miracles come from places that are less civilized. His fourth and final point is that the mere existence of miracles and their various tellings support religious organizational rivals. This makes all organizations using such stories to discredit one another lose all integrity and thus discredit themselves. Further, Hume even practices a hedonistic doubt where he doesnt state whether there is or isnt a god but simply that he just does not know. He does not know either way, but most importantly, he believes gods existence to be irrelevant. This, to me, is a very reasonable conclusion on a very big question for numerous people. Why must we concern ourselves with the possible existence of an omniscient being when it has no real impact on our lives as they currently unfold. With that said, I truly believe that religion in certain forms and with the right process is deeply valuable to a society. There are certain aspects to any and every religion even the atheistic ones that are beneficial for a society. Just the inverse is equally true, meaning that every religion also has some negative aspects to it. As is with most everything in life. While I would agree that the existence of god doesnt matter, I do also believe that it is a necessary thing for many people to believe if only for a form of connection deeper than what you find in daily interactions. I would argue that religion is vital to a functional society in which there is to be any structure. As far as this topic on a personal level I find the existence irrelevant even in organized religion. What is relevant

9 is the impact in has on a society or at least a community and the connections it allows anyone to make, especially those who need it. The philosophy of David Hume was one that supported ideas on the condition of taking support from another or disproving some aspect of it. Many fundamental conclusions Hume makes are ones on the basis of skepticism. If it cannot be proven or at least experienced in order to verify it then it is at most irrelevant. Furthermore the extent of human belief for Hume is a very limited one. He argued that many of our ideas come from impressions of the world around us. On the topic of what this means for how we truly make decisions Hume believed that it was the foundation for our motivation. Meaning that our impressions formed a motivation, which in turn caused us to take an action. This blurs the concept of liberty as it means that we are making decisions based off our own possibly inaccurate impressions, which drive us towards a certain action. In conclusion I found the skepticism Hume presents as a helpful concept in the right circumstances. Hume does eventually take his skepticism to the point of doubting everything and it is at this point I think it starts losing some of its benefits. Now how much skepticism can be practiced before it starts becoming less helpful I do not know. I will just argue that skepticism especially in instances of religion, the self, and others is a wise practice. In that respect I believe David Hume was very much correct.

10 Bibliography

"David Hume." The Information Philosopher - dedicated to the new information philosophy. The Information Philosopher, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hume/>. Fieser, James. "Hume, David [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/>. Kemerling, Garth. "Hume: Epistemology." Philosophy Pages. N.p., 12 Nov. 2011. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4t.htm>. Morris, William E. "David Hume (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/>. The University of Tennessee at Martin - http://www.utm.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/vita/research/morskep.htm>.