Hume and Causation:
Hume did not believe in causation in the universe; he suggested that any apparent causes are constructed in our minds, they do not exist in reality. He used the example of billiard balls to explain this. He said that just because you hit a white billiard ball into a red one and the red one starts at the moments of impact does mean that the while ball caused the red one to move. It appears to have caused that movement, but there is no evidence to suggest this; it could simply be a matter of random chance. Similarly, Hume applied this theory to a sun rise claiming that just because the sun rose today and yesterday does not guarantee that it will rise tomorrow. This again could all be coincidence, and it is never possible to say with absolute certainty that any natural event will occur in the future.
While I understand Hume's principle, and in some ways agree, I find that it is not an easy position to hold in some circumstance. For example, if a man were to stab another man repeatedly until he died, it would be very difficult to claim that the stabbing did not cause the death. Using Hume's theory I could claim that the victim coincidentally had a heart attack at the exact same time that he was stabbed, and his death was not actually related to his stab wounds. I will agree that this is not completely beyond the realms of reasonable doubt, but it would be incredibly difficult for this to be understood. On the other hand, it could be true that the only reason I am thinking, even in theory, that the stabbing and the death would be related is because I am using my experience to make a judgement.
Hume believed that nothing has a cause, that everything is simply random. When considering human beings themselves, this theory again has problems. For example, I know that my existence has been directly caused as a result of my parent's actions - this is scientific fact. It would be difficult to argue that my existence was going to happen anyway, and my parent's actions simply appear to have caused me.
On the other hand, Hume's theory that nothing in nature has a cause could be argued to be accurate using science; take, for example, quantum electro dynamics (QED). QED is the scientific research which proves that the smaller something is, the less energy is needed to make it, and so in theory, it would be possible for something to be so small that it take no energy to create. Everything in the world is made of tiny atoms, which in turn are constructed, in the simplest terms, or vibrations. These vibrations are so tiny that it could be possible that no energy is need to create them, meaning that when everything is broken down to its smallest, most simple form, we are left with things which needed no energy to make, and so had no original cause.
This would mean that minuscule objects are popping in and out of existence all the time without recognition, and without having any cause at all - so Hume's theory could be accurate.
Hume claimed that things in the universe appear to be happening because humans interpret things in a certain way; this is one of Hume's claims that I completely agree with. We have all heard the riddle-type question if a tree falls in a wood with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I would argue that the tree would not make a sound unless a person were there to hear it. This can be scientifically proved because all sounds are simply vibrations of different frequencies, these vibrations are interpreted by our ears and our minds into different sounds. This means that if the tree were to fall with no one around, then the vibrations would travel uninterpreted until they either completely vanished, or until they reached an ear that would be able to interpret them.
Sound vibrations are much like ripples in a pond. They start off very close together but the further they travel the further they move apart. This is why the closer you are to a noise, the louder it appears to be. Sounds are therefore completely subjective, depending on who is interpreting them.
The same is true of colours in the world. Colours, in their simplest forms, are rays of light which, again, have different frequencies. Our eyes are "designed" to interpret these frequencies as different colours. This means that we have absolutely no proof that our eyes are working the same as anyone elses. Look at the image on the right of the ripples. I can see an image containing different shades. It is possible that you would agree that there are shades of blue in the image, although there is absolutely no way to prove that what I consider to be blue, is the same as what you consider to be blue.
I have used the example of sound and colour to try and prove Hume's theory right. It is true that all things in the world are interpreted by humans to have meaning and causes. If humans were not on the planet then there would be no causation and no meaning, they are simply things which we think are true but are not based on any evidence at all.
Hume and induction:
Hume believed that statements can either be synthetic or analytic. Analytic statements are ones in which the conclusion can be derived by the subject - they are self evident. For example the sentence all cats are feline is analytic because it verifies itself, there is no need to research it any further. Synthetic statements can be verified if the axiom is accepted as truth:
- All humans are mortal, I am human, therefore I am mortal
Hume's epistemology:
Hume believed that sense impressions such as pain or heat are formed in word; they do not exist in the external world, only in our minds. He also claims that we use building blocks of our simple knowledge in order to imagine much more complex things. For example, we can imagine an angel by combining our knowledge of a human and a bird, similarly we can imagine a unicorn combining our knowledge of a horse and a rhino.
I find Hume's point about pain and heat being simply constructs of our minds because it would, perhaps, help to explain why people are able to handle different amounts of pain. Surely if pain was an external element then we would all feel different kinds of pain the same as one another and no one would be able to cope with more pain that someone is able to. The same is true of feelings of hot and cold. It is perfectly possible that two people could be sat in a room, and with all factors of them being the same, one could feel cold and the other hot. If heat and cold were external elements then surely we would all feel the same at the same time as one another. The same is true of emotion; the only difference being that it is widely accepted that emotions are internal.
Hume and morality:
Hume stated that it is not possible to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.
I would agree with Hume on this point because I cannot understand the relationship between 'is' and 'ought'. They are completely separate to one another, yet it is very common that we derive an ought from an is, in fact our entire legal system is based upon this.
For example, we are taught that 'stealing is wrong, so you ought not to do it'. There is a logical leap from saying something is wrong so you ought not to do it. The more I consider it, the more ridiculous it appears to me that we live our lives by a principle that does not make sense. I am not suggesting that crimes are acceptable and there is no reason not to commit murder or theft, it it simply my observation that it is very odd that we do not question the logic of the jump from an 'is' to an 'ought', especially when this is in an idea which has been around for hundreds of years!
The Verification Principle:
Logical Positivists, who base their beliefs and values on Hume's work, believe that statements are only worth discussing if they are capable of independent verification. The statement "ducks can fly" can be verified by finding a duck and seeing if it can fly. The statement "God exists" cannot be verified and therefore, according to Hume, is not worth discussing.
This claim from Hume reminded me of a clip from the TV Series friends:
This may seem like a rather unimportant clip to have added to my notes, although I feel that it helps to explain how Hume would feel about non-verifiable statements - they would all be moo points.
There is also the Falsification Principle; statements are also meaningful is they can be falsified, or falsified in principle. For example the statement "all ducks have webbed feet" could be falsified or verified in principle because you could theoretically check all the ducks in existence. This of course would be a ridiculous thing to do, but it the fact that there would be a way to falsify the statement makes in meaningful.
In his book, Language, Truth and Logic, philosopher A.J Ayer tried to use the verification principle to prove certain things to be nonsense (moo points) including metaphysics and religion. He argued that only statements which can be empirically verified are meaningful.
Philosopher Richard Swinburne had an interesting retaliation to this theory, claiming that statements which can't be empirically verified could also be meaningful. He used an example of toys to try and make his point clear. He said that there are toys in his room that come out only when when they cannot be detected. It would never be possible to empirically verify the claim because the toys would not appear when they humans can detect them, but Swinburne argues that the statement is still meaningful because it can be conceived by the human mind.
Personally I think there is point in discussing most things, whether I agree with them or not. Like Swinburne, I would argue that anything that the human mind can conceive is worth discussing.
Karl Popper, a "disciple" of Hume objected to the verification principle, pointing out that the principle itself could not be empirically verified, and so was meaningless. Popper, instead, followed the falsification principle. An example to explain the falsification principle would be the statement 'all men are mortal' - this statement is not meaningful because just because all men so far have been mortal does not mean that a man won't be born one day who is immortal; it is not possible to check this. However, the statement 'all men are immortal' could be easily falsified at the presentation of just one dead body.
I would say that for the most part I agree with Hume's empiricist beliefs, and for the parts I don't agree with, I still appreciate that he is one of the most influential philosophers there has ever been.
No comments:
Post a Comment