Take a photo of a barcode or cover
108 reviews for:
Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding: And Concerning the Principles of Morals
David Hume
3.78 AVERAGE
108 reviews for:
Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding: And Concerning the Principles of Morals
David Hume
3.78 AVERAGE
What grounds do we have for believing that the sun will rise again tomorrow?
Hume explores a diverse range of topics, beginning with the inner workings of the mind and expanding out to consider the boundaries of human reason, cause and effect, free will and the scientific method. His most powerful argument lies in exposing the incongruency of human reason with cause and effect, stating that almost all human knowledge must necessarily come from experience and repeated observation, as opposed to pure reason.
His favourite example comes from the billiard ball. An individual plucked from an alternate universe with differing laws of physics, would be unable to make the inference that a billiard ball, upon rolling towards another billiard ball, would transfer its motion to the second, and the second would continue according to the first's trajectory. A person exposed to this scene for the first time would have no more grounds for believing that the second ball would continue fourth, than both balls stop completely, or that the first ball reverses its motion back down the table while the second ball remains at rest. Likewise, a person exposed to fire for the first time would not be able to make the inference that its flames would burn them, or that its smoke would suffocate them. Cause and effect are simply too distinct from one another for the human mind to make predictions without any prior experience or knowledge.
Not only can we not infer cause and effect, but we also cannot directly fathom it as an independent entity. We simply witness an endless conjunction of events, by which some things are consistently demonstrated to follow others. Our notion of cause and effect springs not from any specific idea or observation, but a nebulous concept formed after repeatedly witnessing that a large number of events seem to produce various correspondent events with great fidelity.
Yes, we can turn to science to explain our observations, but paradigm shift, present across all eras and disciplines, demonstrates that the theories we produce can be wrong. Hume argues that we can only have probabilistic knowledge when it comes to the facts of the universe. The more we experiment and test, the more we witness certain events as being connected, the higher the probability that we have observed some kind of truth. The crux of Hume's system lies in the notion that the deficits in our understanding of cause and effect mean we will never be able to bridge the gap between extremely high probability and certainty; there can logically be no absolute knowledge. True understanding of cause and effect is needed to cohere our worldview.
The purpose of the Enquiry is not therefore to undermine the entire scientific method, but rather to inject an element of scepticism into inductive reasoning, suggesting that we should hesitate before making large inferences based on singular observations. On the other hand, he is harshly critical of the rationalist philosophers who exalt the power of human reason, and produce abstract metaphysical systems with bold, sweeping claims about unknowable truths within the universe.
Hume also holds an unorthodox perspective regarding free will, claiming that determinism (the belief that every event in the universe is necessitated by a prior cause beyond our control) is actually compatible with free will. He argues that humans have no control over the constant conjunction of events within our minds, bodies, external environments or the universe itself, however he claims that we have free will as long as we are free to follow the desires and preferences instilled within us by nature and by nurture. This resonates less than his beliefs about human reason and causality. It is tantamount to saying that puppets are free so long as they like their strings.
Overall, a very thought-provoking read. Supposedly his system of scepticism regarding human knowledge has not been adequately refuted to this day.
Hume explores a diverse range of topics, beginning with the inner workings of the mind and expanding out to consider the boundaries of human reason, cause and effect, free will and the scientific method. His most powerful argument lies in exposing the incongruency of human reason with cause and effect, stating that almost all human knowledge must necessarily come from experience and repeated observation, as opposed to pure reason.
His favourite example comes from the billiard ball. An individual plucked from an alternate universe with differing laws of physics, would be unable to make the inference that a billiard ball, upon rolling towards another billiard ball, would transfer its motion to the second, and the second would continue according to the first's trajectory. A person exposed to this scene for the first time would have no more grounds for believing that the second ball would continue fourth, than both balls stop completely, or that the first ball reverses its motion back down the table while the second ball remains at rest. Likewise, a person exposed to fire for the first time would not be able to make the inference that its flames would burn them, or that its smoke would suffocate them. Cause and effect are simply too distinct from one another for the human mind to make predictions without any prior experience or knowledge.
Not only can we not infer cause and effect, but we also cannot directly fathom it as an independent entity. We simply witness an endless conjunction of events, by which some things are consistently demonstrated to follow others. Our notion of cause and effect springs not from any specific idea or observation, but a nebulous concept formed after repeatedly witnessing that a large number of events seem to produce various correspondent events with great fidelity.
Yes, we can turn to science to explain our observations, but paradigm shift, present across all eras and disciplines, demonstrates that the theories we produce can be wrong. Hume argues that we can only have probabilistic knowledge when it comes to the facts of the universe. The more we experiment and test, the more we witness certain events as being connected, the higher the probability that we have observed some kind of truth. The crux of Hume's system lies in the notion that the deficits in our understanding of cause and effect mean we will never be able to bridge the gap between extremely high probability and certainty; there can logically be no absolute knowledge. True understanding of cause and effect is needed to cohere our worldview.
The purpose of the Enquiry is not therefore to undermine the entire scientific method, but rather to inject an element of scepticism into inductive reasoning, suggesting that we should hesitate before making large inferences based on singular observations. On the other hand, he is harshly critical of the rationalist philosophers who exalt the power of human reason, and produce abstract metaphysical systems with bold, sweeping claims about unknowable truths within the universe.
Hume also holds an unorthodox perspective regarding free will, claiming that determinism (the belief that every event in the universe is necessitated by a prior cause beyond our control) is actually compatible with free will. He argues that humans have no control over the constant conjunction of events within our minds, bodies, external environments or the universe itself, however he claims that we have free will as long as we are free to follow the desires and preferences instilled within us by nature and by nurture. This resonates less than his beliefs about human reason and causality. It is tantamount to saying that puppets are free so long as they like their strings.
Overall, a very thought-provoking read. Supposedly his system of scepticism regarding human knowledge has not been adequately refuted to this day.
David Hume was way ahead of his time. In fact, for some today, he is still ahead.
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a well-considered work of Empiricism that has stood the test of time, especially when compared to Spinoza's Ethics.
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a well-considered work of Empiricism that has stood the test of time, especially when compared to Spinoza's Ethics.
I am rereading this as a refresher before I get too far into Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's different to how I remember it, so I'm glad I decided on the revisit.
I find myself remarking or recollecting how prescient Hume was.
I find myself remarking or recollecting how prescient Hume was.
Despite not really being able to see the actual applicability of Humean philosophy, it is so very refreshing to read such clarity in a philosophical text. He writes with precision and, although still being tough to manage at times, ultimately this renders his meaning crystal clear.
His tight epistemological approach gives his arguments depth and precision, which is monumentally handy for the inexperienced philosopher (as I myself was upon first reading, and still am to an extent). I was taught this as an A2 text by a devout believer in Humean philosophy, and so I might be slightly biased, but I still believe this to be one of the clearest texts I have ever read.
His tight epistemological approach gives his arguments depth and precision, which is monumentally handy for the inexperienced philosopher (as I myself was upon first reading, and still am to an extent). I was taught this as an A2 text by a devout believer in Humean philosophy, and so I might be slightly biased, but I still believe this to be one of the clearest texts I have ever read.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
slow-paced
من ۱۰ فصل اول رو به انگلیسی و دو فصل آخر رو به علت کمبود وقت به فارسی خوندم. به نظرم فهم متن انگلیسی یه جاهایی سادهتر از فهم متن فارسی کتاب هست ولی در کل ترجمه ترجمهی درست و خوبی هست. کتاب خیلی شفاف و واضح نوشته شده و استدلالهاش تا حد خوبی برای من هم که کتاب فلسفی نخوندم قابل درک بودن. تلاش کلی هیوم توی این کتاب این هست که محدودهی فهم بشری رو مشخص بکنه ولی قصد نداره به کلی وارد فضای شکاکانهای بشه که نتیجهاش بیعملی هست بلکه قصد داره بشر رو متوجه به محدودیتهای فهمش بکنه و به نوعی فروتنی رو در اون به وجود بیاره. از نظر هیوم تجارب حسی منشا هر ایده در بشر هست و هر ایده از ترکیب و بزرگنمایی و تغییر تجارب پیشین به دست میان. رابطهی علت و معلولی هم صرفا یک استقرا مبتنی بر تجربه و عادت هست و علت و نیروی اصلی پیوند دهنده بین این دو فرای فهم بشر قرار داره. از این جا هیوم نقبی هم به دین میزنه و از نظرش رسیدن از طریق معلولها به خدایی که در ادیان توصیف میشه غیر ممکن هست. بحثی هم در مورد معجزات و علت نامحتمل بودنشون میکنه و در نهایت با نقد شکاکیت صرف و دفاع از عملگرایی و شکاکیت آکادمیک بحثش رو خاتمه میده.
Happy, if we can unite the boundaries of the different species of philosophy, by reconciling profound enquiry with clearness, and truth with novelty! And still more happy, if, reasoning in this easy manner, we can undermine the foundations of an abstruse philosophy, which seems to have hitherto served only as a shelter to superstition, and a cover to absurdity and error!
In the enquiry, Hume sets out to show why metaphysical truth is beyond the grasp of human beings. philosophers strive for metaphysical truth.
All our knowledge derives from the senses, by the experience of cause and effect. Knowledge of cause and effect, in turn, is based on repeated experience of two objects constantly conjoined to each other. Cause and effect can not be inferred from thought, or from the ideas themselves (since the effect is completely different from the cause), without experience.
Beyond experience of objects that are frequently joined together, there is nothing for humans to know - and even the often joined objects are only probabilistically related in the future (the induction problem.
I do not agree that we can't know anything beyond our impressions. Science has learned us many things about the world beyond what is observed directly, by findings ways to test predictions that follow from our theories of such things. Nevertheless, Hume has been extremely important and influential, and has given an immense to the development of rational thinking.
In the enquiry, Hume sets out to show why metaphysical truth is beyond the grasp of human beings. philosophers strive for metaphysical truth.
All our knowledge derives from the senses, by the experience of cause and effect. Knowledge of cause and effect, in turn, is based on repeated experience of two objects constantly conjoined to each other. Cause and effect can not be inferred from thought, or from the ideas themselves (since the effect is completely different from the cause), without experience.
Beyond experience of objects that are frequently joined together, there is nothing for humans to know - and even the often joined objects are only probabilistically related in the future (the induction problem.
I do not agree that we can't know anything beyond our impressions. Science has learned us many things about the world beyond what is observed directly, by findings ways to test predictions that follow from our theories of such things. Nevertheless, Hume has been extremely important and influential, and has given an immense to the development of rational thinking.
challenging
reflective
slow-paced