Classics and the Western Canon discussion

I’m not sure why Hume included this short section in the work on Human Understanding. It seems obvious that animals learn from experience, but I think they also have a stronger sense of instinct than humans do; spiders, for example, spin webs without apparently having been taught or having experienced other webs, since single spiders in boxes still spin webs. Do humans have skills on that level that they know instinctively?

I think there has also been a great deal of research on animal learning done since Hume’s time which may make some of his observations less reliable.

At any rate, I’m not really sure why he included this section. I didn’t see how it advances his argument that much – I’m open to enlightenment on that.

Everyman wrote: "., I’m not really sure why he included this section. I didn’t see how it advances his argument that much.."

Without reading it, I'd venture that this section doesn't so much advance as follow from his argument: If reason is nothing more than a process of connecting sensory experiences, then animals have a rational faculty too. Hence the title "the reason of animals".

Today an enquiry concerning human understanding may be expected to begin with a consideration of the mental capacities of animals: first things first. But even while it takes Hume 9 chapters to reach this point, his placing of man and animal in a continuum is a seminal quality of his thinking. A sharp break with Descartes’ more traditional opposition between the assumed image of God (us) and everything else.

One of the questions with which I started this reading was how Hume advanced upon the earlier empiricism of Locke. The answer now seems that while Hume accepts the primacy of sense data as Locke’s legacy, he adds a more realistic understanding of our use of these data. He recognises that instinct and experience come first and that the role of human reason is limited (or, that the concept of human reason should be redefined).

While Hume may be taking things too far (dogs learn by experience, but their capacity to structure knowledge is as limited as their capacity to foster misconceptions), he did put our mental processes in a new and very useful perspective. An important step in the modern reconsideration of everything we thought we knew. Maybe the proverbial step backwards?

Not directly related with section IX, but a continuation of my previous post.

Another question I hoped to answer concerns the place of Hume’s radical scepticism within the Enlightenment tradition. Russell understands this scepticism as an attack on empiricism, which not only makes it a dead end but also saddles Hume with a heavy responsibility: "The growth of unreason throughout the nineteenth century and what has passed of the twentieth is a natural sequel to Hume's destruction of empiricism." (History of Philosophy, Ch. 17).

In my (I believe more common) reading however, the attack is not directed against Locke's tradition but against baseless speculation in the Thomist and Cartesian traditions and against spurious claims on Wisdom and Truth in general. Induction is recommended as a more humble but practical alternative. Hume’s presentation may be faulted and one might wish he had given induction a clearer status, but I don’t think he should be hold responsible for the abuses of the later day metaphysicians.

When we put Hume’s scepticism in perspective, I believe his thinking is far from a dead end. So, for once, I’m not convinced by Russell, otherwise my trusted source on all things philosophical. Can it be that Russell felt (subconsciously of course) that Hume’s position implied not just an attack on runaway metaphysics but on but on philosophy itself?

B.t.w.: Russell's chapter is based on the 'Treatise': "He shortened the Treatise by leaving out the best parts and most of the reasons for his conclusions; the result was the Inquiry into Human Understanding ..." . However, Hume disowned the 'Treatise'.

Wendel wrote: "...However, Hume disowned the 'Treatise'..."

Could it be that he disowned the literary style of the Treatise, but not its argument?

(At least that's what I heard, but having not read the Treatise myself, I can't make any informed and independent judgment. Now having read the Enquiry, I'm even less inclined to read the Treatise.)

Nemo wrote: "Wendel wrote: "...However, Hume disowned the 'Treatise'..."

Could it be that he disowned the literary style of the Treatise, but not its argument?

(At least that's what I heard, but having not r..."

Is this the "what I heard" to which you refer, Nemo? Or at least similar to it?

(view spoiler)[?While Hume was derailed in his attempts to start a university career by protests over his "atheism," and bemoaned that his literary debut, A Treatise of Human Nature 'fell dead-born from the press',[8] Hume nevertheless found literary success in his lifetime as an essayist, and a career as a librarian at the University of Edinburgh. His tenure there, and the access to research materials it provided, ultimately resulted in Hume's writing the massive six-volume The History of England, which became a bestseller and the standard history of England in its day. Hume described his "love for literary fame" as his "ruling passion"[9] and judged his two late works, the so-called "first" and "second" enquiries, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, respectively, as his greatest literary and philosophical achievements,[9] asking his contemporaries to judge him on the merits of the later texts alone, rather than the more radical formulations of his early, youthful work, dismissing his philosophical debut as juvenilia: "A work which the Author had projected before he left College."[10] Nevertheless, despite Hume's protestations, a general consensus exists today that Hume's strongest and most important arguments, and most philosophically distinctive doctrines, are found in the original form they take in the Treatise, begun when Hume was just 23 years old, and now regarded as one of the most important works in the history of Western philosophy.[6]" Excerpt 7/26/17 from Wiki article for Hume. I wasn't successful in tracking footnote [6]. (hide spoiler)]

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Wendel wrote: "...However, Hume disowned the 'Treatise'..."

Could it be that he disowned the literary style of the Treatise, but not its argument?

(At least that's what I heard, but..."

We talked about it in the planning thread. You said you started to read the Treatise then, and I'm still curious what you've learned from it so far.

Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Wendel wrote: "...However, Hume disowned the 'Treatise'..."

Could it be that he disowned the literary style of the Treatise, but not its argument?

(At least that's what..."

It is due back to the library in two days after three months of being checked out without getting read. :-( I'm asking a friend to check it out again for me -- it has far more readable font than the paperback copy I have, but this Easton Press copy isn't readily available at a reasonable price.