Classics and the Western Canon discussion

I spent more time than intended on Section 7, and haven't gotten into Section 8 enough to make an intelligent (assuming I make any intelligent at all) opening post for this section. So those who are up with their reading should just go ahead and start the discussion.

Patrice wrote: "yet...western philosophy is nothing if not an attempt to discover the universals. i am stuck."

Discovering universals is not the same as projecting oneself onto others. Abstraction is not the same as replication.

Patrice wrote: "which do you think hume is doing?"

The latter.

Nemo wrote: "Patrice wrote: "which do you think hume is doing?"

The latter. [projecting oneself onto others, replication?]"

Nemo -- I feel you underrate Hume. Not sure I understand why from your comments, i.e., somehow I have not always followed your close readings. But I listened last night/this morning to the two sections on Hume in the Great Courses lectures on "Meaning of Life: Perspectives from the World's Great Intellectual Traditions." I have a sense of Hume as one of those pivot thinkers between the classical world and the modern world. Rather like reading Hume himself, I do not find it easy to generalize. But what I perceive is a shift from reliance on received knowledge to experienced knowledge that is confirmed or challenged by the reported experienced knowledge of other human beings.

Reading Hume feels convoluted to me. Afterwards, what has been said often seems so straightforward and obvious that I find myself asking, is that really (all) he said.

Garfield, who did the GC lectures I cite, says Hume effectively undercut the ability to reason God's existence from the concept of the Watchmaker, used in Hume's day to try to reconcile emerging science and traditional faith. Yet, he argues, Hume found in humankind a kind of reason that stands outside that verifiable by experience. And I know I am getting the words/ideas not at all as accurate or valid or separated as I should like as I try to write this.

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Patrice wrote: "which do you think hume is doing?"

The latter. [projecting oneself onto others, replication?]"

Nemo -- I feel you underrate Hume. Not sure I understand why ..."

You're not the only one. :) I got strong but civil responses from an engineer and a philosopher to my blogpost too.

I followed your comments and get the sense that you're somewhat protective of Hume. I'm not sure why either, :)

Nemo wrote: "I followed your comments and get the sense that you're somewhat protective of Hume. I'm not sure why either, :) ..."

THAT's very simple. I'm one who rather campaigned for this group to read Hume, although by the time we decided, I wasn't convinced we had chosen the "best" book for doing so.

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I followed your comments and get the sense that you're somewhat protective of Hume. I'm not sure why either, :) ..."

THAT's very simple. I'm one who rather campaigned for this group t..."

Was it because what Hume wrote about the role of emotion in human understanding and experience resonated with you, that you wanted to read the Treatise?

I also made a pitch for this book and voted for it. I feel an obligation to participate in the discussion, but not to defend the author. :)

Lily wrote: "Reading Hume feels convoluted to me. Afterwards, what has been said often seems so straightforward and obvious that I find myself asking, is that really (all) he said. "

That is exactly my experience as well. A second reading simplified a great deal of it and is highly recommended; or reading the Early Modern Texts version as the second reading. For one thing the second time through allowed for more familiarity with his terms up front. For another, I may have tried to hard the first time to anticipate where he was going. Once I got to the end and had some sense of where he went, the next time through made a lot more sense.

Lily wrote: "... Garfield, who did the GC lectures I cite, says Hume effectively undercut the ability to reason God's existence from the concept of the Watchmaker..."

It is interesting one can almost gauge a reader's own position on the spectrum of beliefs from his reaction to Hume. Not always accurate, but not far off the mark either. For example, I didn't know anything about "Garfield" until I read this, and inferred that Garfield is religious/spiritual, but not a Christian, and I found out after googling that Prof. Jay L. Garfield is a Buddhist.

Nemo wrote: "....It is interesting one can almost gauge a reader's own position on the spectrum of beliefs from his reaction to Hume...."

Given my exposure to the lectures in the course I have been watching, I wouldn't have necessarily drawn that conclusion about either Hume or Garfield. It was more suggestive to me that Garfield was at Smith. Yes, Hume warns us to be skeptical about cause and effect relationships!

Nemo wrote: "Was it because what Hume wrote about the role of emotion in human understanding and experience resonated with you, that you wanted to read the Treatise? ..."

No, not at all, at least originally. Hume had been one of those highly touted philosophers about whom I knew very little. I wanted to know more. Sort of like experiments that have been verified again and again, he came across as authentic.

Later, as I encountered the work of Haidt, I did begin to wonder if Hume would turn out to be a precursor.

Lily wrote: "Hume had been one of those highly touted philosophers ..."

The question is by whom and for what. :)

I chose to read Hume mainly because I was curious why atheists quoted him so much. Most of what he says about cause and effect has been covered by Aristotle, and the relationship between experiences and ideas by Berkeley, and I don't think his modesty in acknowledging ignorance of nature, which I can relate to, is the reason why he is highly touted.

Lily wrote: "Reading Hume feels convoluted to me. Afterwards, what has been said often seems so straightforward and obvious that I find myself asking, is that really (all) he said. "

That is exactly my experience as well. A second reading or a second reading of the Early Modern Texts version was a great aid to my understanding the work. For one thing the second time through allowed for more familiarity with his more peculiar terms up front. For another, I may have tried to hard the first time to anticipate where he was going. Once I got to the end and had some sense of where he went, the next time through made a lot more sense.

The work is definitely worth every effort to understand it. In The History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell writes of Hume:

What these arguments prove—and I do not think the proof can be controverted—is, that induction is an independent logical principle, incapable of being inferred either from experience or from other logical principles, and that without this principle science is impossible.

Nemo wrote: "...why he is highly touted. ...."

I don't know about the references by atheists and hence haven't figured that into any assessments I have seen. It has been more that he strongly influenced the thinking that followed him, even by those who challenged. What I have seen does recognize his continuity/evolution (what is the right word?) from Aristotle. Berkeley I haven't yet fit into a historical continuity/place.

Lily wrote: "Berkeley I haven't yet fit into a historical continuity/place. .."

Hume uses the word "ingenious" only once in the Enquiry, referring to Berkeley (Footnote 31). I have to agree with him on that. Of the three empiricists, Locke, Berkeley and Hume. Berkeley is the most fascinating of the three.

Mirrors to One Another: Emotion and Value in Jane Austen and David Hume

Hey, they both wrote Histories of England!

eta:

Argues that the normative perspectives endorsed in Jane Austen's novels are best characterized in terms of a Humean approach, and that the merits of Hume's account of ethical, aesthetic and epistemic virtue are vividly illustrated by Austen's writing. Illustrates how Hume and Austen complement one another, each providing a lens that allows us to expand and elaborate on the ideas of the other Proposes that literature may serve as a thought experiment, articulating hypothetical cases which allow the reader to test her moral intuitions.

Patrice wrote: "after reading for the umpteenth time that something is universally acknowledged, i burst out laughing. the first line of Pride and Prejudice! It is a truth, universally acknowledged... Could Austin..."

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains.
― Seth Grahame-Smith, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Patrice wrote: "I do see how Humes ideas would lead to atheism. i haven't gotten to the end yet."

Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "Hume had been one of those highly touted philosophers ..."

I chose to read Hume mainly because I was curious why atheists quoted him so much...."

He has been attacked with charges of atheism by the members of Edinburgh academia, but in the Hackett version I read, there is an additional letter titled 'A Letter from a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh' to defend his work from any accusations of that sort. The gentleman is Hume, btw.

Like Lily, I voted to read Hume because he keeps coming up, but I really knew nothing about him. In fact, I'm feeling in way over my head because so much of the discussion centers on other texts with which I'm also not familiar! This is a good experience, though, because it's a reminder of how my students feel a lot of the time. All those allusions and very little to actually hold on to.

If I were to try to articulate what I've been struggling with most, it would be:
1. How he defines the terms he's using. Rarely does he explain his understanding of them, and when he does, those definitions are slippery. If I can't understand how he defines the terms (in this section, for example, "necessity"), then I can't possibly follow his argument.
2. Where he stands on religion. At times I can see why atheists line up behind him. At other times, he says something that seems downright Christian, as when he writes in this section that "repentance wipes off every crime." I wonder how much he is influenced by his time to take certain "beliefs" for granted.

I'm stalled at the beginning of Section 12 now, having been behind the crowd all the way, but I WILL finish!

I marked this passage as his definition of necessity: "the constant conjunction of like objects, or the inference of the understanding from one object to another." It's on page 79 of my edition (Section 8, beginning of Part II). He actually spells this out as his definition, but to be honest, I found "necessity" to be an odd choice for marking these relationships. I think that's part of the problem--the words he chooses to use aren't the words I would choose.

I hear ya! It's past noon here, so I'm moving on!