See also: Hume
David Hume (April 26th 1711 - August 25th 1776), philosopher, economist and historian was one of the most important thinkers of the Scottish Lumières, with inter alia Adam Smith and Thomas Reid. It was one of the founders of the modern Empirisme and one of most radical (with Locke and Berkeley), in reaction to Descartes; it also had a major influence on Kant and the Phénoménologie. The Scepticisme is often what is retained of its philosophy, in particular when it is compared with the Criticisme.
Born with Edinburgh from a family from the minor nobility from the Borders, Hume is the junior by a phratry of three. His/her father dies whereas it is in low age. Its family pushes it to make career in the Droit, but it is taken of a “insurmountable aversion for all things, except the studies of philosophy and the general knowledge”. It gains Bristol in 1734 and is tested in the trade, without passion. He travels in France during nearly 3 years, while remaining in particular with Rheims and the Arrow (in the the current Sarthe). 26 years old it completes to write its Traité human nature , published with London in 1737. This work is a failure near the public, the book “fall still-born child from the press”. She is regarded today as one of the most important works of Western philosophy.
It joined its family, in Scotland, in 1738 and makes publish the first part of its Essais in 1742 in Edinburgh. In 1745, he becomes the tutor of the marquis d' Annandale, then in 1746, the secretary of the general Saint-Clearly and joined Vienna and Turin. It then publishes its Recherches on the human understanding which hardly meets success.
It returns to Scotland in 1749, writes its Political discourses and its Recherches on the principles of morals , the latter being a partial remelting of sound Traité human nature and that Hume regards as its masterpiece. Its reputation of philosopher then starts to germinate. In 1751, it joined Edinburgh and publishes in 1752 its Political discourses , work accommodated well. The London exit of its Recherches on the principles of morals is done however in a certain indifference.
In 1752, it takes the function of librarian of the body of lawyers of Edinburgh. This situation inspires the project of a to him Histoire of England . The first volume, devoted to the Stuart, is however highly and unanimously criticized. In 1757 it publishes in London its Natural history of the religion . The second volume of sound Histoire of England leaves in 1756, devoted to the period going from died from Charles Ier of England until the revolution, then in 1759, that devoted to the Tudors. The series is completed in 1761 by the last two volumes, the whole meeting a mitigated success. It is withdrawn then in the countryside, thinking of a peaceful retirement.
It however accepts a post of secretary to the embassy of France which is proposed to him in 1763 by the count de Hertford and it joined Paris thus. In 1767 he becomes person in charge. He leaves this function in 1766 to be appointed under-secretary of state in London. He regains England in company of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, with which he will scramble himself. This quarrel défraie the chronicle in all enlightened Europe. He turns over to Edinburgh in 1769.
Starting from 1775, it starts to feel the effects of an intestinal tumor which will carry it later one year, at the age of sixty-five years.
In an anecdotic way, its autobiography is truffée details on the progressive increase in its inheritance, passing from a relative poverty to a certain opulence. It ends in an analysis of its character: “soft, Master of myself, of a merry and social mood, capable of friendship but far from likely of hatred, and very moderate in all my passions”.
Continuing the work of Berkeley (which had made the criticism of the abstract ideas and the matter idea), the study of Hume thus consists in examining what we have in the spirit when we think of certain concepts (causality for example). It is a question of knowing what we really think, and to discover which significant impression each one of our ideas reproduced, because any idea is only the recall of an old feeling. These are the impressions which constitute for us the given absolute one without one being able to discover the origin of it. Hume studies primarily the ideas of relation, and supports that put aside the space and the time which are given to us, the relations do not have anything objective, but rest on the cognitive provisions of a knowing subject, provisions which must be the subject of a psychological examination. The relations are thus the result of the movements of the Esprit.
See also: Empiricism
Hume is regarded as a philosopher empirist. However empiricism and the Idéalisme are very close Doctrine S. For Hume the ideas reproduce the significant impressions: but what comes exactly from the experiment? It is there the question which is used to him as starting point. The Esprit perceives two types of Réalité that Hume classifies in two categories:
The difficulty presented by Hume is such as “humiens” as Bertrand Russell entirely rejected the idea of causality, this idea concerned with a kind of superstition popular. But, at all events, the problem remains of knowing what justifies our Croyance in the causal nexus and of what this connection consists. For Hume, this belief is a kind of Instinct, founded on the development of our Habitude S and our nervous system. This belief is thus inéliminable, but can be proven by no kind of argument (deductive or inductive).
Kant will give a solution transcendantale to this problem.
For Hume, it seems that we have an instinct which carries us to believe that the future will be similar to the past, instinct founded on the practice, exactly as for causality.
According to Karl Popper, Hume would have been first has to have clarified the problem of induction well, that Popper names “the problem of Hume”. But according to Popper the solution brought by Hume to this problem would be unsatisfactory, because Hume would come to an irrational design of the constitution of knowledge.
But Hume denies that we can make the least difference between such me mysterious and the changes which one claims that they belong to him or who result from this. Therefore, when we examine ourselves, we will be able only to perceive only whole of Idée S and Sentiment. Therefore, since the heart is something of too subjective, introspection never makes it possible to perceive a Substance which we could call “ME”. Ego is anything else only one aggregate of bound perceptions, and, according to Hume, these perceptions do not belong to nothing. The heart is thus a community which has a certain identity, not under the terms of its gasoline, but by the composition of elements changing continuously. The problem of the identity of ego is then for Hume the problem of the cohesion of the individual experiment. However, it will point out in the appendix of the Traité that this explanation of ego does not satisfy it, but it was never explained any! The Humienne thought on ego is strong génante because it even gives in doubt its reality. According to him the personal identity could be only one simple philosophical fiction well.
But against these attacks against the role of the Raison in the appreciation of the behavior, Hume argues that immoral control is not such while being opposed to the reason. It supports that the beliefs morals are intrinsically justified, since to believe that to kill is a crime, it is of this fact being moved by a moral principle interns not to kill and blame this crime. He notices whereas the reason alone can nothing justify, she discovers only truths in fact and Logique, and that depends only on our Désir S and preferences to know if these Vérité S will be able to encourage us with the action. The reason alone thus does not produce a moral Croyance. For Hume, morals rests ultimement on the feeling, the reason not making that to prepare the way with our significant judgments by the analysis of the moral problems. These arguments against the rational bases of morals became anti-realistic arguments: for a moral fact, being an existing actual fact in the world and being an intrinsic source of motivation are two entirely different things. There is thus no reason to believe in the reality of the moral facts.
According to Hume, if the experiment carry us to believe naturally that a cause will always produce the same effect, and that the future will resemble the past, it is because we consider that the phenomena occur according to a probability: It is rare, but possible, that a tetraplegic classified patient recovers to walk, because that was already observed. A contrario if I release a stone which I held in my hand, it is certain that it will fall, because with each time I did it fell, and just as observed it all the men since the beginning of humanity. It is by this model which we draw what one calls the natural laws.
A miracle being something which goes against these laws (like, for example, the resurrection of a man), Hume explains us why it is already, in this definition even, impossible to believe in it. The natural laws are indeed of a so strong probability (observed by all, in all times and all places) which they constitute a final uniform proof against the miracles.
Moreover, it would be necessary, to attest existence of the miracle, a proof contrary and higher than that of the natural law, which requires a testimony of a miracle whose falseness would be more miraculous than the fact in question.
“ When a man says to me that he saw a death recalled to the life, I immediately consider in myself if it is more probable than this man misleads me or than it is mistaken, or than the fact it is really produced. I weigh, one compared to the other, the two miracles ''. If the falseness of its testimony were even more miraculous than the event than it pays, then, and then only, it can claim to control my belief and my opinion. ”
However, No human testimony could meet this condition, because a miracle is never attested per enough men of a knowledge, a good sense and an education worthy of an absolute confidence, and these events are never completely public. Moreover, the accounts concerning the miracle are found especially at nations ignorant and cruel, which forms an argument moreover against those.
Finally Hume watch that the astonishment and the natural belief of the man towards the marvellous one, when it mix with the religious feeling, announce the end of the “good sense”. In this case there, the testimony of the man is not worth anything any more.
Hume thus concluded logically that one cannot reasonably accept the miracle, and that a religion founded and affirmed by its miracles is an ineptitude (but it saves vis-a-vis the Christian religion, that he known as only founded by the personal faith).
| Random links: | Presidents of South Africa | Zen in the chivalrous art of the shooting to the arc | Kingdom of Gugé | Milušinac | Helena Rychkov |