David Hume (Intro to Philosophy Coursera Week 1)
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, amen. A continuation of the commentary of Week 1 of the Introduction to Philosophy course from Coursera. I tend to dislike Hume because of his skeptical attitude, but the death of his ideas shall certainly be fruitful. He is certainly wrong to be skeptical towards the existence of a right way of thinking and whether we can grasp it. The truth of my arguments regarding the right way of thinking is sufficient to defend itself from Humean skepticism.
Hume’s empiricism does
not help either, that only empirical judgements are true or meaningful or valid
sources of knowledge. Investigations into our thoughts as abstract objects and
thus having a higher nature than empirical objects will reveal much about the
nature of reality. After all the immediate object of reality is not anything
separate from reality but really our awareness and perceptions. Everything else
is either presupposed or follows from that awareness and perception. His claims
about the weakness of sensation is actually interesting though, as follows.
When we observe
causation, it is a mental addition to the perception of reality. Reality is
change, but that is all, no true causation can be implied from there. On this
aspect, he is actually correct. We cannot truly be certain on what causes what
from one state to another state. However, when we speak of causation in
theistic terms, it refers to the higher cause of things which are derived from
asking the question of what causes the world as a whole in the first place. The
cause of individual events may be undetermined, but the great cause of the
world must be determined in an absolute necessity. The world begins, because of
what? The only possible reason is God.
When we observe the self,
it is also a mental addition to our perception of reality. Hume’s arguments
flies in the face of the classical understanding of perception. If there exists
perception, there has to be a perceiver. It is strange that Hume would argue against
the self when in fact, he is an empiricist relying on a clear marker of the
self, that is the body. It would be more interesting if Hume was trying to make
the point that the distinction between the self and the non-self is less true than
what we have always been thinking. In that sense, there is a truth to that. However,
until I encounter the full breadth of Hume’s arguments, I cannot do anything
about it.
Hume leads his
skepticism to the bitter end, that there is not much that we can know about the
world, or if there is anything that can be known about the world properly at
all. Of course this flies in the face of modern science and logic. He claims
that these ways of thinking exist, but we cannot know whether they are the
right way of thinking or not. His skeptical atheism does not help to the
contradiction with what I have established that is the theocentric way of
thinking, or the Catholic mindset and the Catholic Faith. Glory be to the
Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is
now, and ever shall be, world without end, amen.
Comments
Post a Comment