Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Hume, Enquiry Human Understand
>
Hume, Background and General
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Everyman
(new)
Jun 24, 2017 07:55PM
For background information about Hume and the Enquiry.
reply
|
flag
http://www.newyorker.com/books/second...Hmm -- haven't decided how related the above is to a discussion of Hume.
"A Parable for the Distance Between Language and Truth," by Nicole Rudick in The New Yorker.
In my odd way of relating articles to reading Hume:Mathematical plotting of movement on complex surfaces:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/us...
Cause and effect: Raining Fish
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/us...
Every once in awhile I need to remind myself of common logical fallacies. Today in reading through the discussions here on Hume, I went looking. Not necessarily the best list I've seen -- more than a bit wordy and awkward, but still one I found worth looking at:https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng20...
This sort of thing is full of traps to living that I have had to fight from my very family and childhood: over-generalization; everyone thinks so and so; if one thing goes wrong, so will the next thing -- whatever "the thing" might be; ad infinitum! Recently I went looking for a little book (red cover) that I read maybe forty years ago now that was one of the best succinct statements I ever encountered of those kinds of messed up thinking, Unfortunately, it seems to have disappeared from my book shelves.
Lily wrote: "Every once in awhile I need to remind myself of common logical fallacies. Today in reading through the discussions here on Hume, I went looking. Not necessarily the best list I've seen -- more than..."This is a good site for explaining fallacies.
http://fallacyfiles.org
The owner is pretty good at responding to questions too should you have any.
David wrote: "This is a good site for explaining fallacies.http://fallacyfiles.org
The owner is pretty good at responding to questions too should you have any. ..."
Good site to know about. What I saw however was not quite the stuff I used to find most difficult, which often related to over or under confidence and inappropriate generalizations or worries.
Background and general.. I have to say that my impression of this book (the first Enquiry) was from my first year of college, when I probably wasn't happy with Hume's "results" (and we haven't got to the part where he suggests throwing all Medieval philosophy into a bonfire), but I thought he was an amazingly clear writer and forceful reasoner. I can't say I'm less philosophical now, or less able to grasp complicated arguments, but I do not get the same impression thirty years later.
My most recent experience of reading Hume, aside from out current discussion, was reading some of his political essays, particularly "Of parties in general," and "Of the parties in Great Britain," and these were woeful. I got the impression Hume didn't know what he was talking about- and the essay was only redeemed by a footnote at the end, where Hume says (paraphrase) - since researching my history of England, I realize I didn't know what I was talking about when I wrote these essays.
Here is the actual disclaimer:
Some of the opinions delivered in these Essays, with regard to the public transactions in the last century, the Author, on a more accurate examination, found reason to retract in his History of Great Britain. And as he would not enslave himself to the systems of either party, neither would he fetter his judgment by his own preconceived opinions and principles; nor is he ashamed to acknowledge his mistakes. These mistakes were indeed, at that time almost universal in this kingdom.
So, in fact, I think Voltaire's observations in Letters on England are better than Hume's.
I still retain affection for the Dialogues on Natural Religion, and the Natural History of Religion, but again, who knows, if I re-read them I might be disillusioned.
I thought I had the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence at home, but when I looked around, I had the Leibniz-Arnauld correspondence.This pdf is 'selections' only, but I think it is essential background to Hume's Enquiry:
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-tex...
eta: first letter of link
For instance, this, on p. 17:
The reason why God perceives every thing, is not his
bare presence, but also his operation. 'Tis because he
preserves things by an action, which continually produces
whatever is good and perfect in them. But the soul having
no immediate influence over the body, nor. the body
over the soul; their mutual correspondence cannot be
explained by their being present to each other.
(Not saying this is a 'sick burn' on Newton. I think Liebniz is just warming up...)
Christopher wrote: "I thought I had the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence at home, but when I looked around, I had the Leibniz-Arnauld correspondence.This pdf is 'selections' only, but I think it is essential background..."
Thanks for the excerpt, Christopher. Our current discussion has certainly piqued my interest in Leibniz. Which book is the best introduction to or summary of his work? I'd like to read that before diving into his criticism of Newton.
BTW, the link your provided is missing a letter "s" at the beginning.
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-tex...
Oh, shoot. Maybe I will edit.Hard to say where best to start with Leibniz.
Speaking of science and empiricism and Einstein..
I don't think his theory of relativity was based on observations.
Leibniz is proof that Newton's system had a weak spot, namely "action at a distance," and it was this that Einstein sought to account for.
By Hume's philosophy of science, I don't know. "Action at a distance" is a *fact,* and speculation pointless. Therefore, Einstein refutes Hume, not Kant.
(a bold assertion, I realize)
Christopher wrote: ".....Speaking of science and empiricism and Einstein..I don't think his theory of relativity was based on observations.
Leibniz is proof that Newton's system had a weak spot, namely "action at a distance," and it was this that Einstein sought to account for.
You confuse me, Chris. Certainly is "action at a distance" not one of the fundamental observations of physics???
Is the issue here one of refutation? Or of humankind's ongoing attempts for explanation
..."
Don't forget, "gravity" is still one of the great mysteries of the universe.
Lily wrote: "In my odd way of relating articles to reading Hume:..."Here is another: "Jessaka wrote: I am reading a good but hard book, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst that is written by a neuroscientist.... it is such a deep read that I forget to keep reading it and go on to other books."
Goodreads entry for the author Robert Maurice Sapolsky (view spoiler)
Lily wrote: "Christopher wrote: ".....Speaking of science and empiricism and Einstein..I don't think his theory of relativity was based on observations.
Leibniz is proof that Newton's system had a weak spot,..."
Wikipedia entry on 'action at a distance' with this quote from Newton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_...
It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers.[5]
— Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3
I think physics is 'speculative' more than 'empirical.'
But the very fact that Leibniz and Clarke could go back and forth so many times, each failing to convince the other, is perhaps what Hume was getting at with his 'impressions,' that is, they were away from the realm of irrefutable conviction.
Christopher wrote: "..Wikipedia entry on 'action at a distance' with this quote from Newton:..."
When I first read that quote, I thought Newtons is against action at a distance himself. But after reading it a few times, I think I understand his meaning somewhat. The following is a more complete quote:
What did Leibniz say specifically on this topic?
https://books.google.ca/books?id=gB2-...
''It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be, if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left open to the consideration of my readers.
An interesting case of learning via observation, across the centuries?http://www.latimes.com/science/scienc...
"A team of researchers has discovered the source of a stellar explosion that was first documented by Korean astronomers nearly 600 years ago."
