Seminar Paper.
David Hume:
David Hume:
David Hume was an 18th century philosopher, during the Scottish enlightenment. He was in favor of John Locke’s ideas and theories in terms of empiricism but built on them to create extreme form of empiricism.
Empiricism is the belief that all knowledge comes from the senses, there is no innate knowledge. David Hume was a believer in scepticism which is the idea that there is no such thing as true knowledge and that the real world is unknowable. Hume concluded that the only claims we can make about the world are those that place human existence in the center of reality, because human existence is the closest we can ever be to the truth. From his strong belief in human knowledge from experience the ‘Bundle theory’ came about which suggests the features of objects are they only what exist, there is no actual object, which leads to his doubt in ‘self’.
One of Hume’s well known book is ‘Treaties of Human Nature’. It is divided into three books and begins by distinguishing between ‘impressions’ and ‘ideas’, as does ‘An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’. ‘Impressions’ and ‘ideas’ are considered perceptions but impressions (sensations) have more force and violence. Hume says ‘By ideas I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning.’ Ideas, for Hume, are simple and similar to impressions but much fainter. ‘Every idea has a simple impression…every simple impressions has a corresponding idea.’ Complex ideas do not resemble impression because it is believed that impressions come before, from experience.
‘Of abstract ideas’ outlines the difference between the kinds of ideas he believes there to be. General ideas are seen a particular ones, connected to a term that gives it extensive significance and makes us recall things similar to them. Hume’s describes abstract ideas as ‘individual’ but may become general through their representations. There are said to be defects in his theory; one logical the other psychological. The logical objection is that there can be several objects of which share resemblance. The psychological objection is that it ignores vagueness. Vagueness is different from generality, but shares some characteristics.
Hume then banished the concept of substance from psychology in saying there is no impression of self and therefore no idea of self. Though he contradicts himself in saying some philosophers have the ability to perceive themselves. The idea of ‘self’ is of great importance and Hume argues that if the self is such a thing it is never perceived, therefore we can have no idea of it. Suggesting we must have an idea of self. Such ideas are interferences of perceptions and are not among the logically basic ideas; they are complex and descriptive. If Hume’s principle that ideas are derived from impressions the argument must be correct. If the principle is rejected we are forced back on ‘innate’ ideas. Though all psychological knowledge can be stated without introducing the self; the ‘self’, Hume describes, is a bundle of perceptions, not a new simple ‘thing.’ It does not determine that there is no simple self but follows the idea that we cannot know whether there is or is not and ‘self’ cannot enter into part of our knowledge.
Hume’s most important ideas are around ‘knowledge and probability’. For Hume, probability is uncertain knowledge, such as what is obtained from empirical data by interferences that aren’t demonstrative. This includes our knowledge of future and unobserved times in the past and present – everything but direct observations.
Hume came to sceptical conclusions after his analysis of knowledge and defines seven kinds of philosophical relation: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion of quantity for number, degrees in any quantity, contrariety and causation. These are then divided into two kinds; those that depend only on the ideas and those that can be changed without any change of idea. Resemblance, proportion of quantity for number, degrees in any quantity and contrariety are of the first kind and give certain knowledge; our knowledge concerning other is only probable – when we remember, our ideas are copied from our impressions. The three remaining relations, identity, relations of time and place and causation depend not only on our ideas. For the first two, the mind does not go beyond what is available to the senses whereas causation alone enables us to infer some thing or occurrence from some other thing or occurrence. Difficulties arise when Hume suggests there is no such this as an impression of a causal relation. We perceive by observation of A and B, that A is to the right of B, but we do not see that A causes B.
Hume’s theory that ‘cause’ is really the perception of things constantly being conjoined in the past is backed up by his definition of ‘belief’. Belief is considered, by Hume, to be a lively idea related to or associated with a present impression. Through association, if A and B been constantly conjoined, the impression of A constitutes a lively impression of B which is belief in B.
Adam Smith:
Smith is described as an extreme empiricist, like Hume, and as a materialist. He thoroughly studied human behavior and society, describing people as being like machines, and of human society of consisting of ‘levers’ and ‘devices’ where one action creates another. Morality was also raised by Adam Smith’s analysis; which he believed to be a sense data and internal psychological (vanity or self-regard). He believed this vanity should just be accepted as part of society and in policy rather than try to tame it with laws; to Smith believed laws will only fail or create more problems. To Smith, people are conflicted and complex. The central conflict is between what he calls ‘self love’ and ‘vanity’ which people desire for pleasure. Smiths view of human nature is reflected in his idea of the hidden hand of the market. The hidden hand of the market is based on the free market economic system which Smith believed to be the ultimate tool of success for business, if the laws of the free market are denied is a doomed enterprise. Universal wealth leads to poverty. He believed there is no such thing as human need, instead there is want.
Wealth, to Smith, is not simple the accumulation of money, but is something he feels to be gained through life experiences of civilization and by trade. Accumulation of wealth is believed to have a ‘trickle down’ effect on society, as it provides jobs for the less wealthy and seen more able to develop civilization because of their cultural hobbies.
