|
The voyage of philosophy : Dr. Ahn’s youtube philosophy classroom
Unit 22 : Hume’s Skeptical Empiricism
Hume as a successor of Locke’s empiricism
J.Locke(1632-1704) founded modern empiricism which denied innate ideas and sought the possibility of knowledge upon sensation. Only sensations are said to make ideas, knowledge. The mind or understanding is like an empty cabinet before the inflow of ideas through the senses. Locke admitted besides the sensation the reflexion, i.e. internal sensation which is also able to produce ideas. Locke divides ideas into simple and complex ideas.
Complex idea consists of simple ideas e.g. “the hand feels softness and warmth in the same piece of wax”. Therefore the complex idea is solely the aggregate of simple, distinct ideas.
Hume followed basically the above mentioned theory of Locke except some transformation of terminology : Hume united the idea and the sensation by Locke into the perception and he united the sensation and reflexion into the impression while he emphasized the causal relation between the impression and the idea : The former causes the latter. However as will be afterwards disclosed, the causal relation of idea and impression could be contradicted by his denial of causality. In this relation Hume’s thought seems to be problematic.
All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I shall call Impressions and Ideas. (David Hume: “A Treatise of Human Nature” 1748, p.1 hierafter simply “Treatise”)
2. The causal relation of Impressions and Ideas
Hume’s strength of argument derives from the simplified relation of the impression and the idea.
That all our simple ideas in their first appearance are deriv’d from simple impressions, which are correspondent to them, and which they exactly represent. (Treatise p.4)
Like Locke who said that “HAVING IDEAS and PERCEPTION are the same thing”, Hume’s notion of idea is derived from, corresponds to, represents that of impression.
Hume’s use of “idea” is in the ordinary meaning of the word same as the “name” of things or the “universal”, while his use of “impression” being same as the sensation, perception. Shortly Hume’s idea corresponds to the universal and impression to the particular. However Hume expresses the intimate relation of ideas and impressions when he says as follows :
That idea of red, which we form in the dark, and that impression, which strikes our eyes in sun-shine, differ only in degree, not in nature. (Treatise p.3)
Impressions and ideas differ only in their strength and vivacity.
An idea is a weaker impression. (Treatise p.20)
In this regard Hume’s use of ideas is meant to be the name of things with their image, viz. image or afterimage of things. Therefore the use of “ideas” is in Hume’s “Treatise” the abstract ideas of things as well as concrete ideas of it as afterimage, imagination.
Furthermore Hume follows Berkeley while he involves ideas and impressions in the perception which means “internal occurrence”. In this regard Hume agrees with Berkeley’s idealism : Esse est percipi. Neither ideas nor impressions are (external, objective) reality, they are my representations, perceptions. In this respect Hume differs from Locke, the realistic empiricism, Hume is on the side of Berkeley, the idealistic empiricism.
3. The problem of complex idea : imagination and habit
Hume’s great contribution to the development of philosophy lies in his criticism of the concept of causality.
Through the analysis of ideas and impressions however Hume came to deny not only the metaphysics and the science in his time but also the ordinary life.
Hume’s refutation of traditional conceptions consists mainly in the chase of origin of the ideas, notions. The criteria of criticism was the possibility of reduction of any idea to the original impression. In other words if a certain idea has its original impression, the idea is legitimate, but if an idea lacks its corresponding impression the idea is false.
The traceability of an idea to its corresponding impression proves the validity of that idea. According to Hume’s fundamental empiricism of the Impression-Idea there is no denying the impression and the corresponding idea : A simple idea is necessitated by the corresponding simple impression, therefore simple ideas cannot be false. E.g. the idea of color “red” comes into being necessarily through the prior impression “red”, which means that there is no error, illusion, deception or fiction in the kingdom of the simple ideas. All the simple ideas are true. Therefore the possibility of falsity is to be sought in the other kingdom, viz. in the realm of complex ideas.
I perceive, therefore, that though there is in general a great resemblance betwixt our complex impressions and ideas, yet the rule is not universally true. (Treatise p.3)
In some complex ideas, the rule of resemblance or correspondence between impressions and ideas is not to be followed. Human mind uses its imagination in order to make complex idea from simple ideas. The way of making complex ideas is called the rules of “association or connexion of ideas” which consists in Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause and Effect.
Contrary to simple idea and simple impression, complex idea has the possibility of error because the connection is not an “impression” but an “imagination” or in the words of Kant the “function of understanding”.
By Hume the function of mind or understanding is taken for the source of error or falsity when it has no corresponding impression.
Therefore the above mentioned three rules of Association-of-Ideas are not the rule to be found in reality but that of inventing illusory ideas: Human imagination is inclined to produce the similar object to the reality, impression. Insofar as the illusion obeys the rule of association, it is distinguished from private creative illusion, fantasy. By Hume a lot of important notions of science and philosophy came into being through the “association of ideas”. Therefore the imagination which produces the resembling ideas is not temporary and private but old and general. This imagination is compared to “the inborn propensity of human reason” by Kant.
The imagination must by long custom acquire the same method of thinking, and run along the parts of space and time in conceiving its objects. (Treatise p.11)
On the base of Association-of-Ideas Hume denies some basic concepts of mathematics(=geometry) and philosophy, for example he analyzed the idea of extension, which recurs to the line segment. There is no possibility of seeing or feeling the extension, the endless extension. However human mind contrives the concept of the extension through the Association-of-Ideas.
Therefore the idea of space or extension is nothing but the idea of visible or tangible points distributed in a certain order. (Treatise p.53)
We humans can see only limited line, line segment, however the imagination supposes the idea of unlimited line through the principle of contiguity and causality. In this regard Hume denies the geometry.
4. denial of causality
Hume was famous for his denial of the causality. However from the above mentioned impression-reductionism his denial of the relation of cause and effect can easily understood. Hume analyzes the concept of causality into 2 moments, i.e. the contiguity of cause and effect and the priority of time in the cause before the effect as will be presented soon. In other words the contiguity and the succession are essential in causal relation. As over stated Cause and Effect is one of three rules of association of ideas. Hume’s argument is very simple: The idea of causality doesn’t have its corresponding impression.
The two related ideas of causality, i.e. contiguity and succession have their corresponding impressions, however the causality itself is not to be seen or observed.
In this regard Hume rejected Newtonian mechanics when he asserted as follows:
Motion in one body is regarded upon impulse as the cause of motion in another. When we consider these objects with the utmost attention, we find only that the one body approaches the other; and that the motion of it precedes that of the other, but without any sensible interval. (Treatise p.76ff)
In Newtonian mechanics if the ball A collides with the ball B, the motion of ball A is the cause of motion of the ball B : The momentum of A is conserved before and after the collision.
However Hume’s skepticism objects the physical law of conservation of momentum. Because without the causality the law of motion or momentum is impossible to explain. Hume as impression-positivist doesn’t accept anything beyond sensory object, i.e. impression. His doctrine is therefore very destructive in science as well as philosophy. As a matter of fact Hume’s impression-positivism even denies everyday life consisting of all kinds of causality.
5. Hume’s criticism of dogmatic metaphysics : the case Spinoza
As over discussed Hume tried to overturn the fundament of traditional science and philosophy on the basis of association of ideas.
Concerning the criticism of philosophy Hume refers especially to that of Spinoza.
There is only one substance, says he, in the world; and that substance is perfectly simple and indivisible, and exists every where, without any local presence. Whatever we discover externally by sensation; whatever we feel internally by reflection; all these are nothing but modifications of that one, simple, and necessarily existent being, and are not possest of any separate or distinct existence. (Treatise p.240ff)
Spinoza’s philosophy of One-Substance is by Hume lightly to be criticized: The idea of substance has no impression. Modes are defined by Spinoza as things which inhere in and are conceived through substance. The notions like substance or modes by Spinoza are not be derived from their preceding perceptions, impressions. Therefore Spinoza’s system is to be falsified.
6. Conclusion
Hume’s skepticism is one of the most strong objection against the truth of science, philosophy and finally everyday life. However the theory like this cannot be sustainable even by the author, Hume himself as he confessed in his writing. The philosopher also should live according to the “belief in the general maxims of the world”.
I am ready to throw all my books and papers into the fire, and resolve never more to renounce the pleasures of life for the sake of reasoning and philosophy. (Treatise p.269)
The general maxims of the world lie first of all in the causality. When the belief of causality is doubted, man cannot sustain himself.
Unit 22 : Hume’s Skeptical Empiricism
Hume as a successor of Locke’s empiricism
J.Locke(1632-1704) founded modern empiricism which denied innate ideas and sought the possibility of knowledge upon sensation. Only sensations are said to make ideas, knowledge. The mind or understanding is like an empty cabinet before the inflow of ideas through the senses. Locke admitted besides the sensation the reflexion, i.e. internal sensation which is also able to produce ideas. Locke divides ideas into simple and complex ideas.
Complex idea consists of simple ideas e.g. “the hand feels softness and warmth in the same piece of wax”. Therefore the complex idea is solely the aggregate of simple, distinct ideas.
Hume followed basically the above mentioned theory of Locke except some transformation of terminology : Hume united the idea and the sensation by Locke into the perception and he united the sensation and reflexion into the impression while he emphasized the causal relation between the impression and the idea : The former causes the latter. However as will be afterwards disclosed, the causal relation of idea and impression could be contradicted by his denial of causality. In this relation Hume’s thought seems to be problematic.
All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I shall call Impressions and Ideas. (David Hume: “A Treatise of Human Nature” 1748, p.1 hierafter simply “Treatise”)
2. The causal relation of Impressions and Ideas
Hume’s strength of argument derives from the simplified relation of the impression and the idea.
That all our simple ideas in their first appearance are deriv’d from simple impressions, which are correspondent to them, and which they exactly represent. (Treatise p.4)
Like Locke who said that “HAVING IDEAS and PERCEPTION are the same thing”, Hume’s notion of idea is derived from, corresponds to, represents that of impression.
Hume’s use of “idea” is in the ordinary meaning of the word same as the “name” of things or the “universal”, while his use of “impression” being same as the sensation, perception. Shortly Hume’s idea corresponds to the universal and impression to the particular. However Hume expresses the intimate relation of ideas and impressions when he says as follows :
That idea of red, which we form in the dark, and that impression, which strikes our eyes in sun-shine, differ only in degree, not in nature. (Treatise p.3)
Impressions and ideas differ only in their strength and vivacity.
An idea is a weaker impression. (Treatise p.20)
In this regard Hume’s use of ideas is meant to be the name of things with their image, viz. image or afterimage of things. Therefore the use of “ideas” is in Hume’s “Treatise” the abstract ideas of things as well as concrete ideas of it as afterimage, imagination.
Furthermore Hume follows Berkeley while he involves ideas and impressions in the perception which means “internal occurrence”. In this regard Hume agrees with Berkeley’s idealism : Esse est percipi. Neither ideas nor impressions are (external, objective) reality, they are my representations, perceptions. In this respect Hume differs from Locke, the realistic empiricism, Hume is on the side of Berkeley, the idealistic empiricism.
3. The problem of complex idea : imagination and habit
Hume’s great contribution to the development of philosophy lies in his criticism of the concept of causality.
Through the analysis of ideas and impressions however Hume came to deny not only the metaphysics and the science in his time but also the ordinary life.
Hume’s refutation of traditional conceptions consists mainly in the chase of origin of the ideas, notions. The criteria of criticism was the possibility of reduction of any idea to the original impression. In other words if a certain idea has its original impression, the idea is legitimate, but if an idea lacks its corresponding impression the idea is false.
The traceability of an idea to its corresponding impression proves the validity of that idea. According to Hume’s fundamental empiricism of the Impression-Idea there is no denying the impression and the corresponding idea : A simple idea is necessitated by the corresponding simple impression, therefore simple ideas cannot be false. E.g. the idea of color “red” comes into being necessarily through the prior impression “red”, which means that there is no error, illusion, deception or fiction in the kingdom of the simple ideas. All the simple ideas are true. Therefore the possibility of falsity is to be sought in the other kingdom, viz. in the realm of complex ideas.
I perceive, therefore, that though there is in general a great resemblance betwixt our complex impressions and ideas, yet the rule is not universally true. (Treatise p.3)
In some complex ideas, the rule of resemblance or correspondence between impressions and ideas is not to be followed. Human mind uses its imagination in order to make complex idea from simple ideas. The way of making complex ideas is called the rules of “association or connexion of ideas” which consists in Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause and Effect.
Contrary to simple idea and simple impression, complex idea has the possibility of error because the connection is not an “impression” but an “imagination” or in the words of Kant the “function of understanding”.
By Hume the function of mind or understanding is taken for the source of error or falsity when it has no corresponding impression.
Therefore the above mentioned three rules of Association-of-Ideas are not the rule to be found in reality but that of inventing illusory ideas: Human imagination is inclined to produce the similar object to the reality, impression. Insofar as the illusion obeys the rule of association, it is distinguished from private creative illusion, fantasy. By Hume a lot of important notions of science and philosophy came into being through the “association of ideas”. Therefore the imagination which produces the resembling ideas is not temporary and private but old and general. This imagination is compared to “the inborn propensity of human reason” by Kant.
The imagination must by long custom acquire the same method of thinking, and run along the parts of space and time in conceiving its objects. (Treatise p.11)
On the base of Association-of-Ideas Hume denies some basic concepts of mathematics(=geometry) and philosophy, for example he analyzed the idea of extension, which recurs to the line segment. There is no possibility of seeing or feeling the extension, the endless extension. However human mind contrives the concept of the extension through the Association-of-Ideas.
Therefore the idea of space or extension is nothing but the idea of visible or tangible points distributed in a certain order. (Treatise p.53)
We humans can see only limited line, line segment, however the imagination supposes the idea of unlimited line through the principle of contiguity and causality. In this regard Hume denies the geometry.
4. denial of causality
Hume was famous for his denial of the causality. However from the above mentioned impression-reductionism his denial of the relation of cause and effect can easily understood. Hume analyzes the concept of causality into 2 moments, i.e. the contiguity of cause and effect and the priority of time in the cause before the effect as will be presented soon. In other words the contiguity and the succession are essential in causal relation. As over stated Cause and Effect is one of three rules of association of ideas. Hume’s argument is very simple: The idea of causality doesn’t have its corresponding impression.
The two related ideas of causality, i.e. contiguity and succession have their corresponding impressions, however the causality itself is not to be seen or observed.
In this regard Hume rejected Newtonian mechanics when he asserted as follows:
Motion in one body is regarded upon impulse as the cause of motion in another. When we consider these objects with the utmost attention, we find only that the one body approaches the other; and that the motion of it precedes that of the other, but without any sensible interval. (Treatise p.76ff)
In Newtonian mechanics if the ball A collides with the ball B, the motion of ball A is the cause of motion of the ball B : The momentum of A is conserved before and after the collision.
However Hume’s skepticism objects the physical law of conservation of momentum. Because without the causality the law of motion or momentum is impossible to explain. Hume as impression-positivist doesn’t accept anything beyond sensory object, i.e. impression. His doctrine is therefore very destructive in science as well as philosophy. As a matter of fact Hume’s impression-positivism even denies everyday life consisting of all kinds of causality.
5. Hume’s criticism of dogmatic metaphysics : the case Spinoza
As over discussed Hume tried to overturn the fundament of traditional science and philosophy on the basis of association of ideas.
Concerning the criticism of philosophy Hume refers especially to that of Spinoza.
There is only one substance, says he, in the world; and that substance is perfectly simple and indivisible, and exists every where, without any local presence. Whatever we discover externally by sensation; whatever we feel internally by reflection; all these are nothing but modifications of that one, simple, and necessarily existent being, and are not possest of any separate or distinct existence. (Treatise p.240ff)
Spinoza’s philosophy of One-Substance is by Hume lightly to be criticized: The idea of substance has no impression. Modes are defined by Spinoza as things which inhere in and are conceived through substance. The notions like substance or modes by Spinoza are not be derived from their preceding perceptions, impressions. Therefore Spinoza’s system is to be falsified.
6. Conclusion
Hume’s skepticism is one of the most strong objection against the truth of science, philosophy and finally everyday life. However the theory like this cannot be sustainable even by the author, Hume himself as he confessed in his writing. The philosopher also should live according to the “belief in the general maxims of the world”.
I am ready to throw all my books and papers into the fire, and resolve never more to renounce the pleasures of life for the sake of reasoning and philosophy. (Treatise p.269)
The general maxims of the world lie first of all in the causality. When the belief of causality is doubted, man cannot sustain himself.
|