While Hume stresses the importance of the role of experience in philosophy, and that proper observations can only be made within the bounds of impressions, he still allows that those who practice religion and matters of metaphysics must continue to be allowed to do so. “Whether this reasoning of theirs be just or not, is not matter. Its influence on their life and conduct must still be the same” (11, §28). In fact, Hume goes on to state that any man who would attempt to free another from his “prejudices” would be doing a disservice to society, “since they free men from one restraint upon their passions, and make the infringement of the laws of society, in one respect, more easy and secure” (11, §28 contd.).
Up until this point Hume has been stating that religion and metaphysics should be eliminated from philosophy in order to strengthen the role of reason, and here he seems to be contradicting himself. Why would he encourage a person to continue to live with expectations of a future state that cannot be grounded in the senses or reason? The very basis of his philosophical system relies on what can be proven through reason or the observable, so allowing one to live according to contrary beliefs seems to be taking a step backward.
Is Hume trying to make a distinction between the philosopher and the common man? He acknowledges that by proving the absurdity of a man’s religion or idea of a future state based on the actions of his former life, the liberator would, in a way, be encouraging the idea that there is no reason to live up to an ethical code. In order to maintain a stable social structure, it is necessary to allow men to hold onto their fancies insofar as it causes them to be better citizens within the state. Although I hesitate to call this allowance a form of ethics, the concept of allowing the masses their fancies in order to provide philosophers with a stable environment for their practices of philosophy is only made possible through making such a distinction between those who acknowledge the impossibility of truly knowing metaphysics and a common man living through his religious or metaphysical prejudices.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the fact that such ideas cannot be grounded in reason is not a problem for Hume. After all, causality isn't grounded in reason, for Hume, either. Neither is ethics.
ReplyDeleteIt has seemed to me throughout the Enquiry that Hume's chief opponents were natural theologians, who attempted to prove the truth of Christianity on rational grounds (design arguments, cosmological arguments, etc.). Hume is pointing out that we can't do that.
Besides, I think there is a point to all this--if we had to ground religion rationally, then whence all the uneducated Christians? I think Hume is pointing out that natural theologians mistake what they take on faith for the conclusions of reason. And in pointing out the prevalence of non-rational (though not necessarily irrational) belief in concepts as basic as causation, I do think Hume opens up a place for equally non-rational faith, even if he doesn't point that out or say that's what he's doing.