Follow-up: David Hume
Apr. 1st, 2008 11:53 am1. Those were thoughts about a post I made, terrifyingly two years ago :( In this time I have failed to read any philosophy.
2. However, I was curious to know how many people actually were familiar with the ideas, and the history of them. I knew some people must have learnt about them, but whether everyone else knew this stuff, or not.
3. Hume's Fork (there's a difference between truths we observe and inherently tautologically true) I think most people now do automatically accept without needing any special name for. However, I'm not at all sure this was always obvious. Many things that are obvious now really have percolated into common thought from some more limited realisation. Maybe it wasn't Hume who put his finger on it, but people, even really intelligent people, did feel like you could deduce how the universe was, didn't they? Witness the ontological argument[1]
4. And even if Hume's Law (a difference between saying what "is" and what "ought to be") sounds obvious, I'm not sure it is. Witness the knots we were tied in on my old post. No-one came along and said "Look, it's easy, it's like this", rather we muddled through.
5. I thought the wikipedia entry on the is-ought problem was fine. I barely read further than the first paragraph, which quoted what Hume had to say:
6. However, despite thinking wasnyë too harsh on wikipedia and Hofstadter, thanks very much to S for linking to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/
However, which "S"?
7. In fact, the entry on Hume's moral philosophy starts:
8. For instance, the original screenplay for the Incredibles was based on... an essay in Hume's book on man's place in society.[3]
[1] Step 1: No observation.
Step 2: Logical sophistry.
Step 3: Deduction of the existence of God from first principles
Step 4:profit Deduction of the existence of everything else.
[2] Like: Previously thought without being able to clearly put words to. Enjoy thinking about.
[3] Not true.
2. However, I was curious to know how many people actually were familiar with the ideas, and the history of them. I knew some people must have learnt about them, but whether everyone else knew this stuff, or not.
3. Hume's Fork (there's a difference between truths we observe and inherently tautologically true) I think most people now do automatically accept without needing any special name for. However, I'm not at all sure this was always obvious. Many things that are obvious now really have percolated into common thought from some more limited realisation. Maybe it wasn't Hume who put his finger on it, but people, even really intelligent people, did feel like you could deduce how the universe was, didn't they? Witness the ontological argument[1]
4. And even if Hume's Law (a difference between saying what "is" and what "ought to be") sounds obvious, I'm not sure it is. Witness the knots we were tied in on my old post. No-one came along and said "Look, it's easy, it's like this", rather we muddled through.
5. I thought the wikipedia entry on the is-ought problem was fine. I barely read further than the first paragraph, which quoted what Hume had to say:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.Which seemed pretty clear, witty and conclusive to me :)
6. However, despite thinking wasnyë too harsh on wikipedia and Hofstadter, thanks very much to S for linking to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/
However, which "S"?
7. In fact, the entry on Hume's moral philosophy starts:
(1) Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions” (see Section 3) (2) Morals are not derived from reason (see Section 4). (3) Morals are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action (see Section 7). (4) While some virtues and vices are natural (see Section 13), others, including justice, are artificial (see Section 9).And I kind of like[2] what else he said too. With some information online I definitely need to read.
8. For instance, the original screenplay for the Incredibles was based on... an essay in Hume's book on man's place in society.[3]
[1] Step 1: No observation.
Step 2: Logical sophistry.
Step 3: Deduction of the existence of God from first principles
Step 4:
[2] Like: Previously thought without being able to clearly put words to. Enjoy thinking about.
[3] Not true.