Summary of: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Transcription

1 Student Name Philosophy 101 Summary of: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding In the following paragraphs I will attempt to accurately summarize the concepts of philosophical thought by David Hume in, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. After reading my summary I hope that the reader may leave the proverbial table with a comprehensive view of the nature of human understanding; the experience of perception. Hume believed that there are considerable differences between the perception of the mind and later recollection of memories and sensations via the imagination. The recalled memory, in various ways copies the perception. Hume makes certain that this past perception cannot possibly be recalled by the memory in its original state, in its exact sharpness. He decides the mind can recall an event but will never achieve the depicted liveliness of the original perception. Hume s uses poetry as an example to illustrate his point. He says the description of a thing with poetry can never sufficiently demonstrate an object like actually seeing the thing being described. To further illustrate his point he gives another example. He says if you were to tell him that someone was in love he could easily understand what you meant. Even though he knows what you mean he could never understand what you were talking about, if he hadn t already experienced it himself. Hume describes a recollection of past sentiments as a faithful mirror in which perceptions are painted with faint and dull colors, and in no way can compare to actual experience. Hume then deems it necessary to classify perceptions. He classifies perception into two distinct categories. The first is of the weaker kind of perception, thoughts or ideas. Thoughts or ideas are classified as less forcible and lively, and are very common. The second and strongest classification of perception is an impression. He defines an impression as a more lively perception such as when we hear, see, and love. He says that impressions are easily distinguishable from ideas, which he considers to be less lively perceptions. Hume continues down this route by stating that by examining the nature of thought we quickly determine that there is nothing controllable about them. He states that thoughts seem to be free from the restraint of reality and nature, that man can imagine anything as long as it does not create an absolute contradiction. Hume then decides; upon a more scrupulous examination, that thoughts are really confined within very narrow limits. He quickly declares that in spite of all the creative power of the mind it is confined by perception afforded to us via the senses and experiences. He is adamant that all perception is manufactured from our outward or inward senses or experiences, in turn all ideas or weaker perceptions are merely copies of impressions. Hume supports his claim with the thought of a golden mountain. If we did not know what thing gold was and what a mountain was we could never imagine or perceive a golden mountain. Hume continues down this path and illustrates for us proofs of his philosophy with two arguments. His first argument is that while analyzing the most complex thoughts or ideas we will always find that

2 they are rooted in very simple and basic ideas that were derived from a completely foreign and precedential past feeling or sentiment. Hume provides the idea of God as an example. He asserts that the idea of God essentially arises from the likeness of the function of one s mind. He does not assert that God does or does not exist but he does say that we could deeply examine this idea and in due course find that every idea that is examined is a copy from a similar impression. He says that those that would say that this position is not universally true can only refute it by saying that the idea is not derived from this source. Humes second argument provides a compelling argument that starts off with the examination of the man who cannot see. It is true that if a man cannot see then he has no notion of colors. Hume asserts that if you were to enable the man who cannot see, who has no notion of color to see then he would quickly obtain new ideas. He contributes this to the opening of a new sensual inlet which automatically opens new inlets for ideas that would enable this person to conceive what was previously inconceivable. Hume believes that this is an example that may be applied to any organ of the senses that was previously deprived of sensing in relation to experience of new perception. The next example he gives to support this thesis is this: A Laplander or Negroe has no notion of the relish of wine (Hume). He goes on to explain this phenomenon in a very simple way. He says that unless you have a deficiency of the mind that renders you incapable of sentiment or passion then you would be the exception to the rule, in addition there are examples of this in a lesser degree. Hume believes that a well mannered man cannot be capable of forming the idea of revenge; neither could a selfish person conceive true generosity and friendship. Hume asserts that other beings may have senses that enable them to conceive deeper than a human could and those we could never know this level of conception unless we have the tool that would enable us to conceive the inconceivable. Hume says that there is one contradictory occurrence, which could disprove his philosophy. He states that there are several distinct ideas of color which are obtained from sight. There are those of sound which are obtained by hearing. These two are really different from each other but at the same time they are also similar. He decides to go down this route with an example of a man who has been able to see for thirty years. This man has a perfect understanding of colors of all kind except one shade of blue, which he has never seen. Hume asserts that if all shades of blue were shown to him except the one he does not know, starting from the deepest blue to the lightest blue then it is only natural that he will not be able to identify the color in which he is not acquainted with. He says if this is true of different colors then it must be true of different shades of the same color. He explains this by saying that if you were to continually change the shade of a color it would definitely change to a different color and you could not dispute the change of color, whether or not you knew the name of a color. If you were to ask this man after the experiment was executed if he could recall this unknown shade of color even though he had never seen it before, could he? Many people would not say that he could, that this may serve as a proof that the simple ideas are not always derived from the corresponding impressions and that this observation is not cause to throw the baby out with the bathwater. i In conclusion, under this guise, Hume believes that this formula makes things very simple and understandable. He states that if it were properly used would quite possibly make every dispute understandable. He concludes that all ideas are faint and obscure because the mind has a weak hold of

3 them. He states that these finicky ideas are easily confused with similar ideas. He then asserts that all impressions, outward or inward are strong and vivid. Since this is true their restrictions are easily exposed and it is not likely to fall into miscalculation when dealing with them. When we entertain any suspicion that a philosophical term is used without any meaning or idea all we need to do is ask, what impression led you to believe this idea? And if is impossible to assign any then this will only cement that this is indeed fact. Hume says that by bringing ideas into clear understanding we may abolish all disputes, concerning the truth. Fundamental Idea and Thesis: I believe the fundamental idea and thesis of David Humes, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is that all ideas are derived from perception. Perception is accumulated by the senses. With the lack of any mode of perception (i.e. hearing, seeing, feeling, or living) it would be impossible for human beings to accumulate any conception of any given idea. In conclusion, if you can find the root of idea (which would be the perception) then you can understand the motive of the idea. Supportive Argument: I agree with Hume in his philosophy. A supporting argument that I thought of in support of his philosophy is the idea of God. The idea of God is traceable to the emergence of symbolism. Why did we draw these things on cave walls? Because we did not understand them, they were mysterious. This idea of symbolizing what we did not understand based on the inconceivable (at the time) compounded itself into the idea of an omnipotent being that is in ultimate control. If we can trace religion to its origins we find that God was just an idea based on a perception of things our ancestors could not understand. I believe the Humes philosophy may be able to demystify all those abstract, magical thinkers. Destructive Argument: One flaw that I saw with Humes philosophy manifested itself as an assumption. Hume assumes that a person completely devoid of all tools of the sensual kind would not have any ideas because ideas are so derived from perception. I do not believe it would be possible or logical to jump to that conclusion. I do not believe it is probable that a person devoid of all tools of the sensual kind would have ideas, but I cannot be sure of it. It s logical that they wouldn t, but it is not logical to jump to any conclusion based on an assumption. Let s say this particular person had ideas in spite of its handicap. I would really have to consider how these ideas manifested. God? The soul? I honestly don t think that is possible, I could be wrong. I really don t w ii ant the other side to win that debate.

4 i i David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Grading Rubrics 65% of points are earned by presenting the major conclusions given in the essay. This can best be accomplished by a paragraph by paragraph (or section by section) treatment of the essay. 25% points are earned by giving details about the major conclusions. This means providing premises (both explicitly given ones, and ones gleaned by a careful reading of the text), or noting that no real premises/reasons are given to support a specific conclusion (this is not a loop hole if you claim no premises/reasons are given, then this claim must be accurate!) Inclusion of stipulative definitions, or making note of special use of terminology, and all other details which would be important to include in an academic summary of an essay intended to explain the contents of the essay to fellow philosophy students, or the public at large. 10% of the remaining points are earned by providing a clear opening paragraph with thesis statement together with all the normal elements of academic writing at the college level. Specifically, your paper should be free of typological errors, spelling errors, show organization and be written in an academic tone. (hint: let your paper set several hours before you submit it, and then do a careful proof read before submission!) Finally, your paper must be saved using a naming criteria that includes your last name, the assignment type and number (for example, John_Doe_Summary2.doc) Please note : If your paper contains any obvious errors, then your grade will be deduced 10% automatically so take time to proof read! Critiques (20% of total grade): 90% Your criticism should explicitly identify one major argument given in the original text (the text by the Philosopher), and then offer your own critique of that argument (if you did a proper and thorough summary, this part should be easy). The original argument attributed to the Philosopher must be properly characterized (don t say X argued Y, if X did not argue Y!), and your criticism against it (or your additional arguments supporting it) should be relevant and contain no obvious logical errors or fallacies.

5 10% Composition, same as the 10% for summaries.