[Ham]
Taken out of context, a quotation can often be made to support an alien
viewpoint.
[Krimel]
I hardly think the concluding statement of his work can be regarded as
anything other than a final summation of what preceded it. It is at the end
of the final part of the final chapter of the book and is by no means taken
out of context.
If the last page is difficult for you there is this from the first chapter
the book:
"But this obscurity in the profound and abstract philosophy, is objected to,
not only as painful and fatiguing, but as the inevitable source of
uncertainty and error. Here indeed lies the justest and most plausible
objection against a considerable part of metaphysics, that they are not
properly a science; but arise either from the fruitless efforts of human
vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to the
understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being
unable to defend themselves on fair ground, raise these intangling brambles
to cover and protect their weakness. Chased from the open country, these
robbers fly into the forest, and lie in wait to break in upon every
unguarded avenue of the mind, and overwhelm it with religious fears and
prejudices. The stoutest antagonist, if he remit his watch a moment, is
oppressed. And many, through cowardice and folly, open the gates to the
enemies, and willingly receive them with reverence and submission, as their
legal sovereigns."
[Ham]
In Part I of his essay on "Sceptical Philosophy", Hume was talking about the
difference between objective knowledge and reasoning to philosophical
conclusions. He cites an example of the latter: "By what argument can it be
proved, that the perceptions of the mind must be caused by external objects,
entirely different from them, though resembling them (if that be possible)
and could not arise either from the energy of the mind itself, or from the
suggestion of some invisible and unknown spirit, or from some other cause
still more unknown to us?"
[Krimel]
FYI, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding is not a collection of
essays. It is a condensed version of Hume's first work "A Treatise of Human
Nature". It is composed of chapters which are broken into parts. You are
quoting from Chapter 12. Had you read a bit farther you would have found
this as a response to the question:
"To have recourse to the veracity of the Supreme Being, in order to prove
the veracity of our senses, is surely making a very unexpected circuit. If
his veracity were at all concerned in this matter, our senses would be
entirely infallible; because it is not possible that he can ever deceive.
Not to mention, that, if the external world be once called in question, we
shall be at a loss to find arguments, by which we may prove the existence of
that Being or any of his attributes."
Throughout the work Hume compares and contrasts a skeptical empiricism with
fanciful high sounding philosophy. While it is not difficult to find quotes
of him stating one position and then the other; it is clear throughout the
work which position Hume takes. The idea that I have taken him out of
context can only be the product of wishful thinking or careless reading.
[Ham]
Your quotation, which comes at the end of Part III, is preceded by a short
paragraph which is clearly set in the context of reasoning on moral values
(Beauty is offered as an example). You omitted the first sentence of the
quoted paragraph containing the key phrase "persuaded of these principles"
by which Hume clearly is separating valuistic judgments from factual
knowledge ("objects of the understanding"). As joined together below, the
two paragraphs suggest that anyone seeking empirical facts about value
sensibility from metaphysical sources will be disappointed, which is
probably true.
"Morals and criticism are not so properly objects of the understanding as of
taste and sentiment. Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt, more
properly than perceived. Or if we reason concerning it, and endeavour to
fix its standard, we regard a new fact, to wit, the general tastes of
mankind, or some such fact, which may be the object of reasoning and
enquiry.
"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must
we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school
metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract
reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any
experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit
it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and
illusion."
[Krimel]
I left of much of what preceded the quote I offered because I want the quote
to fit on a post-it note. But why stop with the paragraph you would like
added. Include the entire book that precedes the part I attached. It alters
the meaning and sense not one whit.
[Ham]
In my opinion Hume was a minor contributor to philosophical thought. He was
basically an objectivist with an epistemological bent. His "skepticism"
(i.e., outright disdain) of metaphysics would have made him an unlikely
source of advice for an essentialist like myself, (not that I would have
welcomed it ;-).
[Krimel]
To one who finds ammunition in such big guns as Cusa and Eckhart I suppose
Hume must seem minor... (Excuse me, I spilled coffee all over myself
laughing at that.)
[Ham]
But thanks for the reference, Krimel.
[Krimel]
If only you would actually read it, that would be thanks enough for me. It
might at least provide some insight into the proper ranking of philosophical
artillery.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about Hume: "The most
important philosopher ever to write in English."
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
