Take a photo of a barcode or cover
freddiebennet 's review for:
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
by David Hume
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.