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.

[Duvall Ledbetter]

"It must be granted that nature has kept us at a distance from all its secrets, and has allowed us to know only a few superficial qualities of objects, concealing from us the powers and energies on which the influence of the objects entirely depends." (Hume's Enquiry 15)

This quote from Hume's Enquiry is similar to Rene Descartes idea about the senses deceiving us and how we are separated from the truth within ourselves. David Hume makes sense by giving us examples of why we make judgments based on past experiences. The next sentence about bread provides the reader with an everyday object that despite its texture, color and taste, raises questions about how well it nourishes the person. I agreed with Hume on this idea because our first instinct is not to research the important details behind a product but is to look at the most picture perfect object. I don't believe that nature is just the bread. Nature is the sounds, sights, touch and taste we depend upon everyday. When you see someone on a daily basis at work or school, are you thrown off by characteristics you didn't expect them to have?. David Hume believes that our ideas from past experiences can be converted to imagination whereas Descartes believes our imagination is not a good indicator of legitimate thoughts and conclusions. 

 I believe that Hume makes more sense because Descartes reasons are full of contradictions and raises more questions than answers. I would like to know would Hume and Descartes try to disprove their respective ideas about imagination and understanding?. 

[trinimjs]

     Descates and Hume are two powerful philosophers, but they are both different in there thinking regarding the way people process things.  They both have important and major differences between them.  Hume argument I believe is against the way people process information, which is a re-bottle to Descartes perception of this issue.

It is important to know that they both agreed on the human senses, in that once you are living you have senses weather human or animal, Senses is part of our genetic frame-work.

 However both men drew different ideas on the subject.  Descartes believe we cannot completely trust our senses it ‘deceives us at least once.’  He use the example of the madman who senses deceived him. Pg1, A dream pg2 ‘Suppose then that I was dreaming.’ Just to name a few examples. But on the other hand Hume do not agree with Descartes he said ‘Memory and imagination may mimic or copy the perception of the senses’ he believe with seeing and remembering the senses cannot function.

In the end after trying to discredit Descartes argument by making several cases to support his ideas yet he could not come up with any proof to support his idea ‘At this point we could reasonably allow ourselves to stop our philosophical researches’

[odinredd]

"All beliefs about matters of facts or real existence are derived merely from something that is present to the memory or senses and a customary association of that with some other thing." (Hume 22)

As Hume does, I also feel that our senses,for now, are the only way that we can interpret our environment. I am curious about a person with no senses though.

I wonder this: If there is nothing "new under the sun", then the only way for us to be able to create anything new at all is through our imagination. If we have the capability to imagine anything then imagining the impossible "new thing" should be possible. If we do not have one sense that does not mean that we are unable to have a functioning brain. Can our imagination be separate from our senses?  What if there was someone who had no senses. What would his imagination be like? Would that person be able to create and imagine "new" and "impossible" ideas. Maybe that really is what God is to us. Something that encompasses the actual "new" or "unimaginable". I also find it interesting that, in the Bible, God created us in his image. A very religious point of view that even coincides with what Hume hypothesizes. 

The major difference between Descartes and Hume I would think would be the ideas of pure understanding and custom. 

[lrwilen4]

"Even in our wildest daydreams and night dreams we shall find, if we think about it, that our imagination does not entirely run wild. And even in imagination different ideas follow one another in somewhat regular fashion. If the loosest and freest conversations where written down, you would be able to see something holding it together through all its twists and turns." This statement reminds me of a game that I used to play with friends. The game was called assosiations and how it went was very simple. Someone would say a random word and everyone sitting around had to blurt out the first word that came to mind. For example, someone would say "CAT" and everyone had to respond with what ever word pops into their head. Some of the response may be "Meow", "Dog", "Rain", or "Liter Box". This game can show a lot about a persons personality and the way they think. Many times people associate words with pictures and then pictures with objects. I wonder if people have diferent associations to an object and the imagination "runs wilder" when u are making an association to a word verses and association to a sound or smell. If someone says the word "Cookie" will it be associated with different things then if someone smells cookies baking.

[gulyabigela]

"(1) All our impressions—i.e. all our outward or inward sensations—are strong and vivid. (2) The boundaries between them are more exactly placed, and (3) it is harder to make mistakes about them."

I think this phrase demonstrates the main difference between approaches of Hume and Descartes. As we know, Descartes believes in rational beginning of the human, in mind's capabilities and insists that senses deceive us all the time. Hume's attitude, in turn, emphasizes the significance of our "impressions" and claims ideas, thoughts as a secondary, vague and weak ones. He persuades that experience is the major foundation of all work of thought. He also doubts in ability of the mind to work independently, without support of the sensations. As Hume says, blind person will never be able to know how the real colors look like in his head, because he has no impression of real colors. However, he acknowledges that there are some exceptions to his own rule, such as his example of recognizing the shade of blue color even the person never encountered this particular shade before, if colors would gradually increase and the missing shade would be somewhere in the middle. Personally I believe that it is not the only case, where the individual can with his imagination, logic and contemplating create absolutely new ideas and things. For example, in our modern time we see a loot of tools of technology, which prototypes are never existed in nature: smartphones, computers, automobiles, etc.

I believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Our impressions, emotions, sensations are very important in creating the image of the world and indeed form a basis to our mind. However, ideas can come to our brain not only through our perceptions, but also as a pure work of thought. On the other hand, these two processes are combined and influence each other.

[sharifa]

“A blind man can’t form a notion of colours, or a deaf man a notion of sounds. If either is cured of his deafness or blindness, so that the sensations can get through to him, the ideas can then get through as well; and then he will find it easy to conceive these objects.”

It makes sense that one who has no ability of certain perceptions is unable to form ideas or thoughts on them. If I experienced something good, which is considered an “impression,” later on, when I try to remember that experience, I would remember feeling good about it, but not the actual feeling of it. Also, Hume conveys the notion that if one is not able to experience certain perceptions, they will be unable to formulate a thought or idea about it. I believe our impressions are strongly connected with our thoughts. But where does desire falls in? Is that not a part of our thoughts as well? When we experience something good or bad, wouldn’t our thoughts about the original feeling has some desire to it?

With advanced research, how do we know that this still exists for the hearing impaired and the blind to be unable to formulate certain thoughts because of their lack of certain perceptions? 

[Linda Chen]

"If we aren’t led by argument to make inferences from past experience, we must be led by something else that is just as powerful—some other force that will have power in our lives as long as human nature remains the same. It would be worthwhile to explore what that other force is". (David Hume- Section 5: Sceptical solution of these doubts)

 

Hume's ideas are not thought of as spontaneous but rather experience. He writes about the mind's conceptions of life, yet he discusses that even thinking must have been derived from experience. For instance dreaming about a horse swimming is an example of us experiencing water and horses. We can not think about something that we have not experienced. He discusses that the mind cannot experience perception because our mind is not able to physically sense information. Only our senses can feel, touch, see, and smell which gives us the experience. We can only infer information through experiences. Even inventions from the past, our "Law" had to come from experience. Hume's basic idea which is hard to argue with, indicates that everything in life must come from experience. For instance Hume stated that  "When a child has felt pain from touching the flame of a candle, he will be careful not to put his hand near any candle, and will expect a similar effect from any cause that is similar in its appearance". Even the "trees" blooming at different times of the year are predicted not by guessing, but rather by experience. Everything can be proven or disproved by experience according to David Hume. Nothing is just explained to its fullest extent without experience.

 

David Hume's ideas are credible to the fact that no person can actually take credit for accomplishing something without acknowledging previous observers and people who contributed to this accomplishment by sharing their experience.

[tresjoli17]

" But although our thought seems to be so free, when we look more carefully we'll find that it is really confined within very narrow, limits,
and that all this creative power of the mind amounts merely to the ability to combine, transpose, enlarge, or shrink the materials that the senses
and experience provide us with. "

"if a man can't have some kind of sensation because there is something wrong with his eyes, ears, etc., he will never be found to have corresponding
ideas. A blind man can't form a notion of colors, or a deaf man, a notion of sounds. If either is cured of his deafness or blindness, so that the
sensations can get through to him, the ideas can then get through as well; and he will find it easy to conceive these objects."

 

Hume is similar to Des Cartes in stating that in order to conjure up thoughts of objects, sensations and feelings, our senses must have first had to make contact

with said objects.I do believe, however, that Descartes did more disecting when he questioned his body and his organs that allow him to perceive objects. Hume does

not doubt our existence or the existence of our physical bodies, he just brings into question, our way of thinking. I liked his point in stating that those of us without certain

senses, (sight, or hearing) will never be able to form a notion of objects that require those senses in order to form an "impression". I also found the first point very interesting. When I think of thought and imagination it really appears limitless to me, however, I can see Hume's point in stating that it really is not. Every new idea that the imagination contrives, is a combination of other ideas, shapes, colors, sensations, feelings, experiences, etc that we have perceived before. I also think that even if we do not personally experience something, it is not beyond us to imagine an idea that comes from another medium, (someone's else's experience that we may have been privy too, television, movies, books etc.) Knowledge is passed around and interpreted and new ideas form but all within the realm of things we have already perceived.

 

Hume says this in his first arguement, "When we analyse our thoughts or ideas - however complex or elevated they are - we always find them to be made up of simple ideas that were copied from earlier feelings or sensations."

[taniki0108]

"Memory and imagination may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses, but they can't create a perception that as much force and liveliness as the one they are copying."

 

This remind me of when someone say "I know how you feel" I always think its being hypocritical, because unless you have been in the exact same situation, you can't know with clear cut understanding what it is that I'm feeling, you can only imagine it.  Hume to me is saying the opposite of Descartes, because Hume is saying that that the body and the mind are connected, whereas Descartes was saying they were saparate.  To really know about a thing you have to experience it, whether it be by accident or curiousity, you have to test water to have a clear understanding of it. So that why people are always coming up with new technology.  As we live and experience new things it triggers new thoughts and stimulate or sense which leads us to new discoveries.  "Experience teaches fools" is the idea I think Hume is getting across.

 

 

 

 

[pclottin]

"but the phenomenon I am describing does occur with feelings as well, though in a lesser degree. A gentle person can't form any kind of determined revenge or cruelty: nor can a selfish one easily conceive the heights of friendship and generosity." (Hume, pg 9)

    This point is significant to me because I don't agree with it. I believe as humans, we all have the same emotions. Maybe due to our lack of experience we can't name them but we do have the capacity to feel them. We are all mirrors of one another, almost prisms, that we reflect and contain many different colors (emotions) but we are all the same.
    Descartes tells us that our senses can deceive. We are imperfect and the only thing that we know for sure is that we "think, therefor I am". He doesn't have much confidence in is ability to perceive the world. Hume on the other hand, tells us to trust our senses. Trust our experiences to guide us through the world.

[jossianny(jossy)]

"When we think back on our past sensations and feelings, our thought is a faithful mirror that copies its objects truly;  But it does so in colours that are fainter and more washed-out than those in which our original perceptions were clothed. To tell one from the other you don't need careful thought or philosophical ability"(Hume,7).

        I think what Hume is saying here is that thoughts, and dreams can be differentiated from reality and all it takes is to think a little.Is like dreams or thoughts are movies or scenes that come to our minds unlike reality where we feel everything. I like this better then Decartes  writing because is more understandable. There's a  also the fact that he doesn't separate our whole body and world and try to makes sense of what is solid and reliable. I belief the biggest difference between Hume and Decartes is that Hume's believes that senses are reliable and even our thoughts come from our senses. Unlike Decartes where the only reliable thing is our mind(soul).

 

 In page 10, Hume's puts two arguments which i don't really know if that is what he really beliefs.But he says that the idea of God really comes from within us. Like Does that mean that we can create anything?how then can he explain the creation of earth and humans?

[Carmen Wang]

“All beliefs about matters of fact or real existence are derived merely from something that is present to the memory or senses, and a customary association of that with some other thing.” (p. 22, Section 5: Sceptical solution)

Hume sums up his philosophy with the above sentence. I believe he is trying to explain that knowledge and human existence begins with experiencing reality as human beings. We experience life through our senses, and these senses are stored in our memory. As we experience more in life through observation, we see a resemblance with something we have formerly experienced in our senses or memory, and develop thoughts that are similar in time and place. Overtime, through the customs and habit of seeing similar causes and effects of things, we begin to think and behave a certain way. The mind sometimes naturally and instinctively think without reason or understanding because it has been habitually thinking a certain way through similar things, and these similar things began from things we first observed and experienced through senses. I think Hume have analyzed the mind for a really long time to try to understand how about knowledge and reality. I think his argument is interesting and some may be true, such as how our minds have organized ideas, but I cannot agree that all is true until I learn more about this and become confident that this is true. I like how Hume says doubts encourages us to learn more and helps us become confident about what we believe.

In relation to Descartes, I do see some differences. I think Descartes’ mostly talked about the person existing because of a “thinking mind,” while Hume seems to be on the opposite spectrum, that we are existing through “experiencing life.” I’m not quite sure, but my question is, what do you think about validating the existence of human beings through both mind and experience?

[abe]

This is a notion I've held ever since I could remember. (you mentioned this in class, as well) Whatever it may be that the human mind is able to conceive, think of, come up with, imagine, envisage or even consider; all of these single thoughts/conceptions must stem from some essence or a foundational source. You may not even come close to the realization that the mere thought of whatever thought it may be you have come up with, is derived from the bar stool you've been fixated on while in deep thought for the past 30 minutes (ie). These thoughts are borrowed from your cognitive/active senses and perceptual understanding of whatever it is you may have come across, throughout the course of your life; they are merely emanations of your circadian terrestrial experiences. Let's say you were an astronaut... and you're ready for your first mission... blast off is in a few! Upon your exiting of the exosphere, don't you think that experience alone would alter your whole perception on life altogether, forever? the only thing i could think of, were I to ever come close, is.... "there must be more"... to see and experience something out of this world for once... not envision... but to be there... literally... our minds, for as convincing and robust as they are, can suddenly be riddled and impaired by impenetrable boundaries were you to succumb to such limits. whether it be a thought, idkk a "new" background landscape, or a "new" concrete object; whatever the hell it may be. Anything the mind conceives... Is it all really new? Or are these brewed, solely, by way of the mind and its penchant for amalgamating. let's just say a tangible invention that'll change the world. idk, a chair with a glass desk for a touch screen computer...Is it really an invention or a concoction originating from the innovators ability to augment(debatable in this case lol) whatever it is he has come across..? This might have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but as a child... I would always think of the conception that "god created everything." You'd hear it everywhere... All of our minds have been pervaded with sayings like this. Now, lets just say there was a single god, and that He is, indeed, the creator of all creation.. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one whose thought of it this way! but anyway, evidently, everything around you in this very room (where ever you are) couldn't have been created by god. god never used a hammer, god didn't nail that screw, god is not a gemologist, Unless the new testament proclaims so? and god sure as hell wasn't the one responsible for putting up that door. these are all man made creations(or innovations?), with certainty. but the essence of what was used in order for that door to be installed, was always there in the first place, and purportedly created by god. man just came along, improvised, thought about it twice, maybe once more and then amended things for the betterment of lifestyle/society...sorry for rambling again, here's the excerpt from the piece that i really enjoyed......effective examples employed by the author.

"But although our thought seems to be so free, when we look more carefully we'll find that it is really confined within very narrow limits, and that all this creative power of the mind amounts merely to the ability to combine transpose, enlarge, or shrink with materials that the senses and experience provide us with. When we think of a golden mountain, we only join two consistent ideas-gold and mountain-with which we were already familiar. We can conceive a virtuous horse because our own feelings enable us to conceive virtue, and we can join this with the shape of a horse, which as animal we know. IN short, all the materials of thinking are derived either from our outward senses or from our inward feelings: all that the mind and will do is to mix and combine these materials. Put in philosophical terminology: all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones.
Here are two arguments that I hope will suffice to prove this. (1) When we analyze our thoughts or ideas- however complex or elevated they are-however complex or elevated they are-we always find them to be made up of simple ideas that were copied from earlier feelings or sensations. Even ideas that at first glance seem to be the furthest removed from that origin are found on closer examination to be derived from it. The idea of God-meaning an infinitely intelligent, wise, and good Being-comes from extending beyond all limits the qualities of goodness and wisdom that we find in our own minds. However far we push this inquiry, we shall find that every idea that we examine is copied from a similar impression. those who maintain that this isn't universally true and that there are exceptions to it have only one way of refuting it_ but it should be easy for them, if they are right. They need merely to produce an idea that they think isn't derived from this source. It will then be up to me, if I am to maintain my doctrine, to point to the impression or lively perception that corresponds to the idea they have produced."

Hume is much more concise than I am, now that I've read it over...

[tayo.ojudun]

"But although our thoughts seems to be so free, when we look more carefully we'll find that it is really confined within very narrow limits, and that all this creative power of the mind amounts merely to the ability to combine, transpose, enlarge, or shrink the materials that the sense and experience provide us with" (Hume 8)

I'm glad Hume added this statement after to counter what he previously stated  "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; nothing is beyond the power of thought except what implies an absolute contradiction" because I didn't truly agree with this statement. But I thoroughly agree with Hume when he states that we seem to have free thoughts, but in actuality we are confined. It enhances on my thought about why I believe artist of all mediums are a major factor in life. At times I listen to music or look at a piece of art and I just think to myself how did they come up with that? I would've never thought about that. Artist are those who haven't been brainwashed by society. They are like newborns; always having fresh eyes and I must admit I'm somewhat jealous of that. Artist though they probably somewhat are don't seem all that confined to their minds or experiences. As humans in nature I feel like it's inevitable to be a bit transformed by your environment, but they let it effect them in a minimal way. They aren't as much of a product of their environment as I would consider myself one. 

I also find that being able to not conform to your environment is powerful. For a bird to be bought up as a bird, but then somehow turn into a fox, that's a magically thing. Being an artist is simply the ability to think outside of the box you were suppose to be confined to, because otherwise we would all be robots. But also for others who aren't artist and understand that they are somewhat confined by their environment, they also hold a power. I'm not too sure if this post went in the direction I had originally intended or made any type of sense. 

[jimborat69]

I really got into the idea of all ideas came from experience like humes believe. However it really made me got stuck regarding my questions about babies who are good in something. Like when you give a puzzle to a baby, he or she able to solve it withou experience. This made me think all night. I believe I have an answer. I think when babies are still in their moms womb, whatever their mom is experiencing, the baby is also experiencing. This is why I still believe that humes idea is correct. I do believe that all our ideas came from experience.

One classmate ask about planning ahead. I think this idea came from experience because you would not plan ahead if you had a bad experience when you were late with something .

I am also think about the two billiard ball. From experience we know that the moving billiard ball can make the other billiard ball move when hit. We cannot picture this in our mind if we never experience seeing this. Like a foam ball hitting a bowling ball. I have an idea than instead of the bowling ball moving the foam ball will bounce back because I have seen it before. I will not have an idea like that if I never experience it.

[m.inam.gul]

"The mind's thoughts or ideas are obviously inter-connected in some systematic way: there is some order and regularity in how, in memory and imagination, one idea leads on to another"

This above quote from David Hume's section three, the association of ideas is really interesting and i personally agree with this him. There is defiantly a say in how the formation of ideas is connected with associated ideas. I think that if you associate something with something else, it will be easily to remember it and easily to recall it. This is a technique taught in school as well, while doing homework, classwork, or studying for an exam, i personally try to associate new concepts with common things so that i can recall the newer concept better and easier. And we generally know what we know because we know other things, if that makes any sense. I agree with Hume because our mind cant be just random, it makes sense if it has some order and regularity in some systematic way.       

[Amanda Murat]

     According to Hume’s “Nothing is beyond the power of thought except , what implies an absolute contradiction” . This statement was very appealing to me; I find it should be a rule in life people should abide by. In today’s society, at time people tend to put a lot of emphasis on their inner thoughts, which most of the time leads them to contradict the way they act and what is factual. I personally shy away from people with this trait , they tend to live in an illusion and are usually very unclear on how they feel and will drive their peers insane with their skeptical thoughts.

 A difference I have identified between Descartes and Hume is that , Descartes is a empiricist and Humes’ is a Rationalist. Descartes spoke on his views as if they were factual based on his ideas, He would then go on to give examples (like the wax), to help readers have a better understanding to prove that it is not based off of imagination and sensation. 

Humes' on the other hand based things on experiences , and he goes on to elaborate on how impressions, and our ideas put into place the reality of things.

[Ji Yeon Park]

I completely agree with Hume's theory of all ideas being generated from impressions. I believe that you can take any complicated idea, or image, and break it down to something that exists.

However I think that his example with the alien coming to earth and not knowing the laws of motion and gravity was not a strong point. I think that even before landing on earth, the alien would already understand the concept of the laws of motion and gravity. 

Just like how we can imagine flying people from the ability to jump, I believe that if one can move, they will be able to imagine infinite amounts of actions.