DAVID HUME'S IDEAS AND THEIR CRITICISM

Hume denies that man is born with ‘innate ideas’  He argues for this 1. By dividing the contents of our minds into two kinds of phenomena  -  a)  ‘impressions’ or direct perceptions that include sensations, passions and emotions AND b) ‘ideas’ which are faint copies of impressions, such as thoughts, reflections and imaginings THEN 2. Asking how ideas and impressions relate to each other.

In doing this Hume calls into question our most cherished beliefs not only about logic and science but also about the nature around us.

He seems to have a point. For if we examine various types of statements we see them to be broadly of two types:

1.     Demonstrative statements whose truth or falsity is self-evident. Like the statement 2+2 = 4. Denying this statement would lead us to a logical contradiction where we may fail to grasp the meaning of ‘2’ or ‘4’ or ‘+’ or ‘=’. Demonstrative statements and deductive reasoning are known to be true ‘a priori’ meaning prior to experience.

2.     Probable statements whose truths are not self-evident for it is concerned with matters of empirical fact. E.g. Shakira loved Deepak. This is a probable statement because it requires empirical evidence for it to be known to be true or false (most likely it is false!). One needs to experience things to find out its falsity.

HENCE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE CAN ASK OF ANY STATEMENT WHETHER IT IS DEMONSTRATIVE OR PROBABLE AND IF A STATEMENT IS NEITHER THE ONE NOR THE OTHER, IT IS MEANINGLESS.

Hume’s reasoning really takes on an edge when it is applied to inductive inference – our ability to infer things from past evidence.

We may see the sun rise every morning and infer that it will rise again tomorrow morning. But is this claim justifiable? CLAIMING THE SUN WILL RISE TOMORROW MORNING IS NOT A DEMONSTRATIVE STATEMENT, AS CLAIMING THE OPPOSITE INVOLVES NO LOGIOCAL CONTRADICTION. NOR IS IT A PROBABLE STATEMENT BECAUSE WE CANNOT EXPERIENCE NOW THE SUN’S FUTURE RISINGS.

The same problem applies to causality. The statement ‘Event A causes Event B’ may be able to be verified, BUT THERE IS NO LOGICAL CONTRADICTION IN DENYING THAT EVENT A CAUSES EVENT B as there would be in denying 2+2=4. Nor can it be proved empirically because we cannot observe every event A to see if it is followed by event B. Hence it is not a probable statement either.

We make connections due to human nature and human habits where human minds read uniformity into regular repetition and a causal connection between constant conjunctions of events. Despite the temptation to interpret our inferences as “laws” of nature, this practice cannot be justified by rational argument.

HENCE IF WE REALLY GO TO SEE, IT IS ONLY BELIEF (a lively idea related to or associated with a present impression), GUIDED BY CUSTOM THAT LIES AT THE HEART OF OUR CLAIMS TO KNOWLEDGE RATHER THAN REASON. Hence Science, Hume says, deals with only theories and can never yield a “law of nature”.

This does not mean that inductive inferences are not useful (though not provable). In the absence of a rational justification for inductive inference, custom is a good guide. BUT THE MENTAL HABIT OF CUSTOM SHOULD BE APPLIED WITH CAUTION.

TAKE THE CASE OF THE TWO EXAMPLES GIVEN BELOW:

Case 1 : We can reasonably predict that when we let go of an object it will fall to the ground, because this is what has always happened in the past and there is an obvious connection.

Case 2 : Two clocks set to ring a few seconds apart will chime one after another – but since there is no obvious connection between them, we should not infer that one clock’s chiming is the cause of the other’s.

Criticism of Hume: Ayn Rand observes that if it were possible for an animal to describe the content of its consciousness, the result would be a transcript of Hume’s philosophy. Hume’s conclusions would be the conclusions of a consciousness limited to the perceptual level of awareness, passively reacting to the experience of immediate concretes, with no capacity to form abstractions, to integrate perceptions into concepts, waiting in vain for the appearance of an object called ‘causality’. To negate man’s mind, it is the conceptual level of his consciousness that has to be invalidated. In Post-Renaissance philosophy – the one consistent line, the fundamental that explains the rest is: a concerted attack on man’s conceptual faculty. As Ayn Rand says “the philosophers were unable to refute the Witch Doctor’s claim that their concepts were as arbitrary as his whims and that their scientific knowledge had no greater metaphysical validity than his revelations”.