Hume's Empiricism Flashcards
What is perception and memory?
We gather ideas about the world through experience alone
we generate mental representations of the outside world called impressions
Impressions include internal and external perceptions e.g. feeling angry or seeing a car
Impressions are the lively original experiences eg seeing a red apple
impressions come ‘unbidden to the mind’
we then can make faint copies of the impressions
these copies are called ideas eg remembering a red apple
ideas can be summoned at will and constitute memories
What are impressions and ideas?
these are explained by Hume’s distinction between simple and complex ideas
acts of the imagination are complex ideas which have been created by compounding, augmenting, diminishing or transposing simple ideas which have in turn been copied from impressions
what is the evaluation of impressions and ideas?
Its questionable whether Hume has established a clear distinction between IMPRESSIONS and IDEAS
some impressions seem LESS vivid than some IDEAS
the problem of the speckled hen - ideas aren’t just faint copies of impressions
Hume’s inductive argument - it has all the problems of inductive arguments
Better understood as a challenge?
Hume’s second argument
Defective sense organs - seems likely that sensory ideas are NOT possible without fully functioning (perfectly working) sense organs
The appropriate nerves may be artificially stimulated but this might count as an impression - may feel you can touch something but u aren’t actually (deceiving)
What is the missing shade of blue?
Notable exceptions to his claim that impressions are usually lively and ideas usually faint
Impossibility of comparing ideas with impressions (barrier of ideas)
Representative account leads to scepticism about the outside world (barrier of impressions) Missing shade of blue appears to contradict his theory
What is the evaluation of the missing shade of blue?
Why is it a problem:
hume states it is a contradictory example just after saying that only a single contrary example would be required to refute his argument
Leaves open the possibility of innate ideas
states it is a singular example but arguably applies to sounds and tastes
but text implies hume was aware of this and the singular may apply to the type of example ie a highly ordered sequence rather tan this specific example
Possibility of colours being produced as a complex idea
Hume’s philosophy requires that colours are simple
But not clear that augmenting and diminishing result in complex ideas
Possibility that there should be another category added to augmenting, diminishing etc.
for example mental mixing
Possibly Hume is wrong and someone might not be able to supply the missing shade unless they had prior experience - difficulty in finding an appropriate test subject
PROBLEM: if the solution is this simple then why did Hume include it as a counter example?
Naive psychology. we perceive colours by comparison not as discrete concepts
Possibility that hume requires the possibility of an exception so that it can be claasified as a matter of fact rather than a relation of ideas
But the contrary only has to be possible not actual
What are the acts of imagination?
These are explained by Hume’s distinction between simple and complex ideas
Acts of the imagination are complex ideas which have been created by compounding, augmenting, diminishing or transposing simple ideas, which have in turn been copied from impressions
What are the criticisms?
Notable exceptions to his claim that impressions are usually lively and ideas are usually faint
Impossibility of comparing ideas with impressions (barrier of ideas)
Representative account leads to scepticism about the outside world (barrier of impressions)
Missing shade of blue appears to contradict his theory
Some ideas have no obvious prior impression (e.g. ultraviolet or infrared) and we seem to grasp them only indirectly
Establishing that something can be grasped through the construction of a complex ideas is no guarantee that it cant also be innate or grasped in some other way. for example we can grasp what a zebra is either by building a complex idea or by simply seeing one.
Hence the fact that we can imagine God by building a complex idea doesnt rule out the possibility that he might be known innately too.
Problem of other minds prevent us speculating with assurance about the contents of blind or deaf people’s minds, although his claims do seem tenable
Hume’s claims about emotions seems less tenable than his claims about visual perception. Cant a generous man imagine the opposite sentiments to his own?
We do now know that animals have sensory capabilities alien to our own.
For example dogs hear ultrasound, Snakes taste infrared, bats use echolocation
However, it is even more difficult to speculate about the contents of different species than it is to speculate about other members of our own species.
What is the outline of Hume’s argument?
all ideas can be traced to prior impressions
Even GOD is a complex idea copied from impressions
Hume challenges us to come up with an idea without a prior impression
People who cannot have a particular impression can never have the idea (e.g. blind men cant imagine colour, nor deaf man sound)
People who have the faculty for experiencing things but have never had the appropriate experience, are similarly incapable of conjuring the idea e.g. a laplander cannot imagine the taste of wine
the same applies to emotions e.g. a generous heart cant conceive of inveterate revenge
Other beings presumably animals can have ideas which we cannot conceive since we do not have their sensory apparatus and so cant have the impressions
What is Hume’s fork?
Hume distinguishes all knowledge into two types: matters of fact and relations of ideas
matters of fact are the sort of propositions we find in the empirical sciences
They are synthetic, contingent and learned a posteriori
Relations of ideas are the sort of propositions we find in Maths and Geometry
They are analytic, necessary and learned a priori
“the sky is blue” is a matter of fact “2+3=5” is a relation of ideas
the negation of a relation of ideas implies a contradiction “2+3=6” but the negation of matter of fact is never logically impossible (it is logically possible that “the sun wont rise tomorrow”)
Statements about God or form fall into neither camp and are not worthwhile subjects of enquiry
Evaluation of Humes Fork?
Humes epistemological Framework is elegant and simple
Hume’s fork casts relations of idea as yielding only analytic truths which can tell us nothing about the world
Matters of fact give us substantive empirical knowledge that is about more than simply the meanings of terms.
Hume’s fork rules out metaphysical terms which empiricists often oppose because they are not grounded in experience
Hume’s fork might itself fall foul in the distinction it makes
hume’s fork conflates two different distinctions; analytic/synthetic; apriori/a posteriori
Kant points out that synthetic a priori concepts may exist (eg every effect has a cause)
Conclusions about causation?
The future or present experience will resemble past experiences
similar effects will follow from similar causes
We come to believe that the effect is a necessary consequence of the cause
Hume is presenting an empiricist account of knowledge
Children infer from experience
Animals infer from experience
Geniuses arrive at the conclusions in common with the vulgar
the processes need to be quicker than achievable by reason
If there were any reasoning we cannot identify it
It isnt a relation of ideas as there is no logical impossibility that things may be different to the way they have been in the past
any reasoning about matters of fact is based on the principle
the conclusions are derived from ‘custom and habit’
