Wednesday, April 7, 2010
My thoughts after class arrived at nothing.
It is only human nature to seek causes from effect and eventually arrive at an inquiry of first causes. This is one of the biggest problems for almost any philosophy. Even though Hume deals with this problem by a form of skepticism, I wonder if he is being skeptical enough. (Perhaps I was bitten by the skepticism bug after today's class). Epicurus is on the right philosophical track when he says, "You afterward become so enamored of this offspring of your brain, that you imagine it is impossible, but he must produce something greater and more perfect than the present scene of things, which is so full of ill and disorder. You forget, that this superlative intelligence and benevolence are entirely imaginary, or, at least, without any foundation in reason." So, there is no way that one can ascribe attributes to this being. The reason I claim that Hume doesn't go far enough with his skepticism is because I don't understand how we can even know that there is a God when he has no attributes. Hume is saying we know he is there, but we don't know what he or there is. I hate to be picky when it's obvious I could be misunderstanding the text. Nonetheless, I'm not seeing any real way around this. Of course he comes to the conclusion of this first mover through reason. The only difference between what I'm saying and what Hume is saying is that you arrive at there not even being a hypothesis to arrive at. If I have concluded on any sort of validity, what happens now? What would a conclusion like that mean?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is the sort of conclusion that Hume describes in section 12 as a point where your reason becomes dazzled (or something along those lines). Though the reason that gets you to these points may seem valid, you are then forced to admit absurd conclusions (such as the fact that this necessary perfect being made something out of nothing and doesn't contain any potency yet acts). The reason for this is that in these moments we have surpassed our limits qua human. Of course our words become useless: our words relate to our experience in this realm; how are we to discuss things beyond this realm?
ReplyDeleteSome would say by analogy; but it is quite confusing what this actually means. "The necessary creator created the world out of nothing in an analogous way that I make a pizza out of something." For those who are satisfied with this obscure explanation, there can be further discussion. For those that see it right to remain skeptical about something they clearly cannot understand, the discussion ceases.
where does Hume say there is a god but we do not know his attributes?
ReplyDeleteRegarding Mr.Smith's first paragraph - yes, I wonder that as well. AJ Ayer is very much like Hume in this but the difference is that Ayer is asking how can humans even have thoughts that transcend the sense experience that all thoughts come from? I enjoy this problem and wonder about it often... its a tough one haha
ReplyDeleteDr. Davis - I know in class we didn't figure out this issue but in the last post when I said "Hume is saying.." I was actually referring to Epicurus. It's in chapter 11, paragraph 15. It reads, "you have no grounds to ascribe to him any qualities" then "Let your gods, therefore, O philosophers, be suited to the present appearances of nature: And presume not to alter these appearances by arbitrary suppositions, in order to suit them to the attributes, which you so fondly ascribe to your deities." Whether not this is actually Hume's position I'm not sure but I'd like to think so.