WEEK 5: Hume's Enquiry

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

I like posting questions and prompts to get you thinking about the reading, but I saw many of you just rephrasing what I said and trying to pass it off as a "post." This week, my instructions to you are to find something in the reading that interests *you*. Also, I want to urge you to try to find the important and major differences between Descartes and Hume. 

-Mateo Duque.

[Juliet Harper]

hi,

        After reading that informative piece I can safely say that I am giving my custom and experiences on what I understand it to be.

Section 2: He talked about the origin of ideas and how imagination is mimic and coped by perception of the senses. He talked about the 2 kind of perception of the mind 1. Thought is implied and have no bound, our thought copies idea from feelings and sensation and combines different ideas. That thought have no human power and authority. It is a inward and outward sense that is strong and vivid but can cope early feels.

                                         2. Impression is copied from a source, for if i have never experience something then there is no way i can create a thought of an ideas. Locke used idea in a generalize term and when on to say that impression are innate then our idea are not because innate means the originality not the copied idea.

Section 3: In this section he talked about the connection of idea and thoughts in the mind. How one compound idea and simple idea are linked by the universal factors, it resemblance, contiguity and have causes and effects.

Section 4 talked about relation of ideas- in a mathematics term and matters of facts - is like the possibilities of something happening

Example : The cause and effect i understand this to be is ( say the sun - I associate heat/ burns and so on with it even thought i have never turn the sun. Therefore no real conclusion can be drawn from me in my example of the cause and effect of no touching the sun.

Another example is a child that has no experiences wouldn't know the danger of anything unless he or she has been tough about it.

* He talked about the Laws of nature. * The causes that human being has discovered are eg - elasticity, gravity, cohesion of parts and so on. when on to say only a fool or madman will object the authority of experiences meaning that if past history has no teach you something then you will repeat the same thing over and over with out realizing. And here is where he brought in the " Natural state of ignorance", the ignorance of letting mistake teach then not to do it again.

Yes i agree that the past experience will make you aware of future errors or actions. quote " isn't through reasoning that we are led to suppose the future to resemble the past and to expect similar effects from apparently similar causes"...

Section 5: Correction of behavior and wipe out vice - don't stick on one way of life open your mind to learn new things. 

* here is where doubts and suspending judgement comes in. By pushing all doubts and belief is what this common life want us to do - Human nature dictates

* danger and deciding too quickly

* keeping intellectual inquiries within narrow limits is where custom is guiding human life. Custom here is experiences is useful to us.

He is saying that CUSTOMS, EXPERIENCES, MATTER OF FACTS and  IMAGINATION combines together.

  

[ivandavenny]

Well, the most obvious difference between Hume's theories and Descartes's is that Hume is much more concerned with our perceptions and impressions of the world around us, and how those influence all our reasoning.  Descartes argues that we cannot imagine anything new.  Hume takes this one step further (in the other direction) saying that since all of our imaginings must derive from our impressions of the outer world, all internal thought is derived from those impressions: "all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones" (p 8).  (Which I don't agree with at all.  Dreams can seem more vibrant and vivid than the real world, people going through PTSD often magnify those past event until the event overshadows their present life.)  Because of this, Hume argues that "it is harder to make mistakes about [outward or inward sensations]" (p 9), while Descartes argues that all sensations should be suspect.  Hume states that all knowledge is merely knowledge inferred from past experiences; we do not actually know the causes of anything, we can merely examine and map the outcomes.  So all cognition is, in essence, shaky divination.

The interesting part of Hume's ideas to me were his (implied) ideas of time.  Although he discusses cause and effect at length, he doesn't really touch on the aspect of cause and effect which occur in time.  When he says we "experience" an object, or idea, what he really means is when we see an object interact with other bodies around it.  So, in order to understand something we must  perceive its interactions with its environment and in order to do that, we must see it in time.  An item existing only at time A will interact with nothing, and therefore, will not really provide us with any experience of it, or any effect on anything else.  It would even prevent us from interacting with it, as we must move through time in order to examine and process it (so it may as well not exist).  However, once it moves from time A to time B, all objects it interacts with in that time will grant us a deeper understanding of its special innate "powers" (as well as the objects interacting with it).  And since it must move through time to in fact be perceived by us, I would argue that times A and B have to be connected.  It is not just our minds connecting those two events, the object in fact cannot exist if it interacts with nothing, including time.  So, its interactions are really just extensions of the object in time.  Sorry if this got way too abstract for even me to follow...

[Soon M. Seo]

Week 5_Soon M Seo_Hume and Descartes
When Descartes focuses on thinking, Hume thinks senses and experiences are more important. As senses are not reliable sources to Descartes, he does not depend on it. He tries to proof  himself by thinking, doubting all. Hume believes that there cannot be thoughts and ideas with out experiences by senses.
What consists a human being? I do not think that I can call a mind or a body only a man. If I drop one of mind or body, it’s a ghost or a corpse. I believe that I can think and have idea when I am a whole piece with body and soul only. I need senses and rationality both. To proof truth and false, I need a standard. With just one of senses or ideas, I can only have blind faith, not a truth.

[Yolanda Challenger]

I could not find anything that really interest me in David Hume's article, but in Rene Descartes reading what that really interest me was, "Cogito ego sum" ( I think therefore I am). That was when Descarte puts all his doubts to rest and came to terms that he is alive and present in the moment, because he realized that once he was able to have these thoughts that meant he was very much alive. That he is a real thing in existence and he came up with the very quite quotation, that he is a thing that thinks, "a thinking thing".

Descartes concentration is based on Imagination and understanding, while Hume is concentrating on imagination and memory. Hume thinks that memory and imagination is like a reflection in the mirror but in colors that are much fainter, because you cannot relive the real emotions.You can easily distinguish one from the other. Descarte on the other hand believes that understanding and imagination are different, because he realizes that imagination takes more mental effort, but for him sometimes it's hard to distinguish between the two. Descarte sometimes is confused whether he is dreaming or awake, because he thinks that he is seeing real object.

I think that Decarte believed everything that he perceived, because he stated that everything that he perceived came from the senses, and if they were not true then God would not make him perceive them. Where as, Hume does not think that we can rely on the senses; he said we have no good reason to believe much of what we believe about the world. We must not only believe that what we think as matters of fact, are really facts.

[g.dlegister]

Hello,

David Hume makes a very interesting point on the mind, meaning and imagination of what a person perceive. Its similar to what Descarte is arguing but there are many differences. Descarte is more focus on why the sense betray him and that idea if he is there and he is trying confirm his own body and if there is a link. A link to the soul, mind, and body and how that can effect the senses. Thats what I can understand from Descarte and to be honest he was a little difficult to understand. Hume was a little more easier to understand in my opinion. I think he was more focus on the human mind and He was able to branches out into different subjects within what makes the mind perceive and give image to things by giving it some type of meaning.

"A picture naturally leads our thoughts to the thing that is depicted in it; •the mention of one room naturally introduces remarks or questions about other rooms in the same building; and •if we think of a wound, we can hardly help thinking about the pain that follows it."

What made it easier for me to understand Hume argument he continues to explain the idea use of words that are associated meaning and even other forms of dialects. He didn't give any example but I believe Hume might of been hinting to the romance dialects, Spanish, French, and Italian. They all share a lot of similar words and verbs that are associated with the same meaning and can trigger a image or meaning to the mind. What I trying to argue is that symbols or words can trigger a memory, where we associated something personal or what learn to from past experiences.  

My question is, would Hume agree with the idea of what Descartes been arguing in the in the Meditation? I feel they both share some great points but they both focus on two different things. 

[imusicea92]

"To me there appear to be only three factors connecting ideas with one another, namrely -resemblance, -contiguity (in time or and place), and cause or effect."

    I would have to disagree with this quote and with some of Hume's reading up to the point this argument is made; mainly when he is talking about not connecting such as the example that a gentle person cannot conceive revenge. I agree that physical inabilities like loss of sight or not ever have tasted wine make it hard to form certain thoughts in your mind. However, what I feel Hume fails to take into account is the subconscious mind. When we dream our associations aren't following any one of those three patterns Hume speaks of, but a pattern that we can't conceive of. For example, fear can often be a subconscious emotion. You may feel jittery or anxious or not be able to sleep but still not understand what is going on in with your body. Your thoughts on the day you are subconsciously afraid will likely be disturbing or darker than if you were happy.  To discount madness, disease, and imagination in order to validate that you can not conceive anything you haven't experienced is to discount a large part of what our mind is and how we form thoughts. Doesn't feeling come with a burden of whatever else is going on with out body, mind, and world?

[kingholee]

"It is easy for a profound abstract philosopher to make a mistake in his intricate reasonings; and one mistake is bound to lead to another, while the philosopher drives his argument......." (Hume First Enquiry p2)

I really like that sentence: one mistake is bound to lead to another, make me relate to think of doing math in high school, when we do the math equation, when we do one mistake in one step, the whole equation and the numbers are going to be wrong because of that first mistake we made, it's same as David Hume said for philosophy, when one mistake is made, it's may lead us to a wrong direction, and making more mistakes.

Later in the same paragraph, he said"Not so with a philosopher who aims only to represent the common sense of mankind in more beautiful and more attractive colours: if by accident he falls into error, he goes no further. rather than pushing on, he renews his appeal  to common sense and to the natural sentiments of the mind, gets back onto the right path, and protects himself from any dangerous illusions.

This is very right thing to do when we make any mistake or error on anything math, science, philosophy, relationship, everything, we went to a wrong way, go back find a right path with our common sense, find the right path and avoid illusion to make the same or another mistake again.

This is one of the interestings thing I found and which interests me in Hume reading

[Ellie]

“But does it follow…that the same perceptible qualities must always be accompanied by the same secret powers? It doesn’t seem to follow necessarily” (pg 16)

 What David Hume is saying is that regardless of whether “act x” has led to “result y” in all previous observations of or attempts at this specific act, it is still not proof enough to ascertain that “act x” will always result in “y”. Although, this process of inference based on past experience is part of how the natural mind works, this repeated perception of result y following act x is still not significant in determining the certainty of the casual effect as absolute truth. Hume brings up an example of bread and the nourishment one receives from it. Just because all the times that one has eaten bread previously and received nourishment does not give certainty to the idea that the same thing will happen the next time he eats the bread. I agree with this idea that past experiences are not substantial enough to determine the results in future experiences because the uncertainty (that Hume brings up regarding receiving nourishment from bread) can be seen in the case of adult onset food allergies. Just because every day for the past who knows how long someone has eaten bread and has received nourishment from it, who’s to be certain that tomorrow he will not develop a gluten allergy and that same bread will no longer be of the same nutritional value to him. Is it likely that it will happen, no. but it can happen and that possibility (no matter how slim) makes certainty regarding such matters of cause and effect to be impossible.

[dahlia4808]

David Hume Enquiry talks about ideas versus perceptions. He states that remembering or thinking about something is not the same as actually experiencing it. I agree with this quote. Having a vague thought about something or remembering it is not the same as it happening the first time around. Experiencing something for the first time is the best impression, and that experience you'll have. If you have never been to a theme park and you finally went . The experience of that moment will stay with you. If you tell someone about the theme park , it's not the same as the first experience you had of it. Hume make a very good point with this. He also talks about our impressions. He says that ideas are copies of our impressions. Our ideas comes from our senses. If you are blind your never going to experience that sense of color. I also agree with Hume because have never seen color, you can't enjoy or figure out what color is. Imagining the color is not the same as actually having that sense of it. Hume brings up many good points I agree with.

[gregorydny]

Interesting or mind boggling. I cant differentiate anymore. Based on what I think I read but maybe I didnt read it maybe Gaia whispered it in my ears ... Humes is a Naturalist but I thought he was a Scientologist maybe hes a hybrid. Humes belived that nature guides us to through life. In a way it does because we react to the things around us but he contradicts himself by saying we shouldnt believe what we experience ... 

[joyash22]

impressions vs ideas

"A real fit of anger is very different from merely thinking of the emotion." Hume states that all our ideas are copies of our impressions. 

I always felt that you really don't know much until you experience it. I didn't know true sadness until my father passed away. I can recall that sadness very easily but it doesn't have the same impact now as it did at the time. Time dulls the feelings. I believe his theory is true for feelings and emotions. I disagree with the notion that our thoughts have boundaries. Hume states that knowledge is always related to other objects or prior experiences. If this is true then where is the ability to create and be creative. Are all inventions dependent on a prior idea? Is nothing new? When I think of the impressionist painters I think of a totally new kind of painting style. Was it around before the famous pioneers of it? Or was it as Hume claims an offshoot of another style transformed a little into what became the impressionist style. It bothers me to think that our minds and thoughts have boundaries and that creativity is dependent on prior ideas and that nothing is exclusive to a single persons mind.

[Juliet Harper]

Hello,

     To my understanding of " Personal Identity" by Hume I learn as well as agree that Mr. Hume believe that perception is lead by ideas.I believe that our mind is a stage were perception makes and appearance and knowing the size, shape and so on can lead to similar ideas and thoughts. Our thought takes something and turn it into something else, here is where resemblance takes into effect. So Mr. Hume is right when stating that fact. What count my attention is this statement " For memory is just a faculty by which we raise up image of past perception and an image of something must resemble" which is so true. We use our memory to develop imagines and ideas of how thing are suppose to look. As was mention that if a small part is removed then we would no right away image it as a part but still a whole. 

    In the end he said that this experiment is left on solve, I am right and why do he think this way?

To me he have raise good points and have explain it clearly with examples and references.

 

[Kateryna Panasyuk]

" Memory should be regarded as the source of personal identity. mainly because without it we wouldn't know of the existence of this lengthy and continuous sequence of perceptions. If we had no memory, we would  never have any notion of causation or consequently, of the chain of causes and effects that constitute our self or person"

This part of Hume's work cached my attention, and made me think about the role of a memory for a human being. I do agree with this part, as people who lost the memory can not identify themselves or people they knew before losing the memory.

So I think that memory really plays a huge role in the process of self identification etc.

[krystalgonzalez.28]

"All beliefs about matters of fact or real existence are derived merely from something that is present to the memory or senses and customary association of that with some other thing." 

This quote brought me back to Descartes meditations.  I remember Descartes talking about things existing doesn't necessarily mean we had to have physically come in contact with it.  Which I believed was true but then again Descartes confused me a whole lot when he started saying we as a living person might not exist just our brains.  Hume made a little more sense to me.  Hume makes a great point saying the things that are concrete and exist come from our past experiences  our senses, and memories.  The things we know and understand we remember them from somewhere in our memories, which I agree with.  Yet he also talked about thinking of something that we have never seen and yet still being able to visualize it like a memory of something that exist, for example when he talked about the shades of blue.  He is sort of contradicting himself.  If the matters of facts and real existence come from our memory and senses how can we imagine a shade of a color we have NEVER seen?  I can understand him in a way because if someone was to ask me if I can visualize the color in between 2 shades I know I'm sure I can picture it in my head.  If I can see this shade does that mean I can just create things by piecing together bits from different memories and creating a new idea?

I will never fully understand philosophical thinking because it always gets me thinking are certain things real in life, if I've never seen it does it exist? I believe in things that I have never seen my self but only been told about.  Reading from philosophers writings really confuses me and I know I say it in every post but I really have a hard time understanding what I am reading sometimes.

[nadiahamidi7]

Contradictions in Hume's Enquiry

Disclaimer: I should start off by stating I thoroughly enjoyed Hume's Enquiry. I like the points he made, the analogies to make them clearer, and the overall flow of the piece. It was even written in everyday vocabulary! With that said, I am going to take a risk and claim while the piece was informative and clear, there were some contradictions embedded within it that I wish to address.

For one, when speaking of the origin of ideas in Section 2, Hume states, "The most lively thought is still dimmer than the dullest sensation" (7). I strongly disagree with this statement. Basically, Hume is saying that rich thoughts of the imagination do not measure up to the dullest physical sensation. As a student of Creative Writing, I can testify that is not true! My classmates and I can think of the most wonderful and fantastical things with just a sentence prompt. For Hume to claim that a sensation like a sip of iced coffee is stronger than the mind at work is surely a tall order!

Here's where the contradiction begins: on the very next page, Hume says, "and while the body must creep laboriously over the surface of one planet, thought can instantly transport us to the most distant regions of the universe--and even further. What never was seen or heard of may still be conceived..." (8). Here, Hume is saying our minds have the capability to take us anywhere we please with just a thought. It is also important to observe the language he uses. Hume says the body, "creeps laboriously" implying our physical selves pose as some sort of a burden on us and that the mind is a source of relief from this burden. So why would Hume claim just a page before that the dullest sensation is better than a rich thought? The statements contradict each other!

I completely agree with the idea that the mind is capable of uniting people and even transporting them. I have excellent memory and it has proven to be a blessing and a curse at the same time. I cam remember so many wonderful things that have happened to me but at the same time I can also remember horrible/traumatic things that happened. These memories both keep me going as well as cripple me from time to time. I barely remember any sort of physical pain or sensations that Hume mentions in the beginning. I hope not to go off track here, but I do want to emphasize my point that the mind/thought is far more powerful than any sensation in my opinion.

[felixjonanthony]

Personally, I am a big fan of Hume's theory of impression and agree strongly with his Empiricist theories opposed to Rationalistic stances such as Descartes' beliefs on a simple ground: it is true that ideas, thoughts, and concepts are solid pillars in our being, but impressions are the bases and foundation of these pillars. How would we be able to conceptualize our opinions of the mind if we knew nothing of the minds existence? How would we publish works of theory had we no idea how to grasp a pen, or even know what ink was? Impressions are the gun-shots that allow our ideas to sprint off and run their track. 

In his Enquiry, Hume mentions the many ways ideas and impressions are integrated with one another throughout our lives (impressions being the seed which the ideas grow from). He speaks upon the origins of an idea, skepticisms, undoubted fact, and theory. However, what most interested me that I decided to read closely into is the third section of his work: The Association of Ideas (pg 10). Instead of praising and simply elaborating on each term, I plan to step into a Rationalist point of view and attack their very principles using the 3 branches which connect ideas with one another and how impression is their birth place with a Descartes and Miller/Weirob style interaction. 

Rationalist: Our knowledge comes from concepts, ideas, and understanding.

Empiricist: What is a concept?

Rationalist: It as an idea that is formed when one combines it's inner characteristics or subjects to conceive a thought.

Empiricist: How do you know this?

Rationalist: It is common knowledge.

Empiricist: So common idea or understanding?

Rationalist: Correct.

Empiricist: But where did you derive this source of information from?

Rationalist: It has been taught to me, of course.

Empiricist: So this term was introduced to you?

Rationalist: Yes.

Empiricist: So wouldn't you consider that it was more knowledgable to be introduced to the idea of a "concept", for had you never known of it, you would be unable to interpret your other definition of knowledge?

Rationalist: But "concept" is just a name. It is a label to identify our thoughts and comprehension.

Empiricist:  True, but let me demonstrate the importance of impression over idea. You say concept is a name - how would we know how to label something had we not experienced being named? We find ways to identify our thoughts - but how can we think of something which are completely unknown to us? We are able to hold this conversation, but how far would this interaction had gone if we had no idea how to interact with one another.

Rationalist: We are able to reason with one another through communication. The words running through your head right now convey concepts. This is how you interact and speak. This is the basis of our knowledge.

Empiricist: Yes, but how would we know to communicate had we never done so before.

Rationalist: We had since we were infants - since we found the necessity to materialize our thought patterns into speech to be heard. Do you believe as an infant you were given the previous impression to speak upon being first born?

Empiricist: Many infants upon birth cry don't they? That emits sound.

Rationalist: That is because they have thought to cry.

Empiricist: Because they have witnessed sound. 

Rationalist: And if a child has been born deaf?

Empiricist: What more a reason to cry out if your ears do not work? If all is silent. Our impression of hearing nothingness causes us to think to act. Besides, children are poor examples. I could easily counter argue how much a child could understand what happens around him.

Rationalist: Yes, but this means the child is not knowledgable.

Empiricist: Oh but here is where our thoughts drastically differ. I believe that child is knowledgeable. And every second he continues to live, he becomes more knowledgable - a newer, more understanding self through his perceptions. A child sees a fire. He touches it and is burned. He learns fire burns,

Rationalist: And how had that child executed the act? By thinking it of course!

Empiricist: And you think the child has not touched anything before? If you want to compare the very second they are born, a child immediately doesn't conceive that he can be touched, but he is anyways.

Rationalist: You know, some babies do not cry at all.

Empiricist: True, and some of us have not walked the surface of the moon. Yet, there it is.

The debate seems to be a "who came first, the chicken or the egg" kind of thing. Yet, this dialogue touches upon the theories I found interesting when it comes to how ideas, concepts, or thoughts come from and all connect to impressions.

Resemblance: The poster hung on the wall makes you think of the band that's on it.

The impression is the band being shown to you through the poster, the thought is what connects you to when you first heard/saw them.

Contiguity: The stain on your shirt makes you wonder if there is a stain on your pants.

The impression is the first time you were stained by something and experienced the discomfort, humility, or unprofessionalism of a stained article of clothing. The thought is that very immediate response to the impression.

Cause or effect: The interview you just got hired at makes you think of the job you just got. The impression is the action in which you were hired (a first hand experience to a previous impression you've heard about, read, seen on television, etc. if it is your first job). The thought of what the work you'll do entails follows the initial impression.

I believe this post answers g.dlegister 's question - no, I believe they do not have the same view, merely the same concepts and similar definitions.

My main concept from the dialogue is that as infants, we cannot conceptualize much, but we can receive many impressions. My question is: does anyone believe that we actually do have thoughts, but just don't remember them? How does memory play a role in this and who's work would you use to support which view? Pro-Empiricist, or Pro-Rationalist?

[herring.chantell]

Impressions vs. Ideas

 After reading David Hume's "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" it changed my aspect of an impression and an idea. I concur with his concept that impressions are perceptual marks and ideas are a representation of a mark. I hadn't thought about ideas in that manner until thoroughly observed my surroundings. Every new idea is actually an enhanced impression. He mentioned that if a man creates a gold mountain then actually didn't invent a gold mountain because he already had an impression of gold and an impression of a mountain. If you were to take a look at anything around you, it is actually a recreation of something that already existed. The basic foundation of the Earth, such as trees could've inspired the idea of sky scrapers.