Of a Particular Providence and of a Future State

"But what must a philosopher think of those vain reasoners, who, instead of regarding the present scene of things as the sole object of their contemplation, so far reverse the whole course of nature, as to render this life merely a passage to something farther; a porch, which leads to a greater, and vastly different building; a prologue, which serves only to introduce the piece, and give it more grace and propriety? Whence, do you think, can such philosophers derive their idea of the gods? From their own conceit and imagination surely." Hume p. 97

I suppose an example of what Hume is saying is that when something good or bad happens someone, perhaps a "vain reasoner", will say something along the lines of everything happens for a reason. For example, when someone passes away God has a greater plan for them. But I say if life on earth right now is just a stepping stone to something better and greater what is the point? Why live righteously now if you are just going to go somewhere else? What is the point in this world at all?

Of Miracles

"Though experience be our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact; it must be acknowledged, that this guide is not altogether infallible, but in some cases is apt to lead us into errors." Hume p. 73

I think what Hume is trying to say here is that just because a person may have experience in one situation they do not know everything. Situations can pan out differently every time depending on all of the factors. If one factor is different than the others then the outcome could be very different than what was previously experienced. Hume says experience is good but does not always help.

Of Liberty and Necessity

"For as the faculties of the mind are supposed to be naturally alike in every individual; otherwise nothing could be more fruitless than to reason or dispute together; it were impossible, if men affix the same ideas to their terms, that they could so long form different opinions of the same ideas to their terms, that they could so long form different opinions of the same subject; especially when they communicate their views, and each party turn themselves on all sides, in search of arguments, which may give them the victory over their antagonists." Hume p.53

I am pretty sure that what Hume is trying to say in this part is that in a perfect world people would not argue about anything because they would be like minded. But in this world that is not the case. People are not like minded and argue about everything. Most of the time you can find people who think they are like minded but you can always find at least one subject that they do not agree on.

Of Probability

"Though there be no such thing as Chance in the world; our ignorance of the real cause of any event has the same influence on the understanding and begets a like species of belief or opinion." Hume p. 37

Chance is something that people associate with things that happen that are not expected. When something that has happened before happens again but with a different result people say it happened by chance. Hume says that when this happens philosophers do not look at it as an irregularity of nature but as something that has a secret cause to the effect. I think that things can just happen because of an irregularity of nature. I believe that life is a mystery and somethings just happen and are not meant to be figured out.

Association of Ideas

"Though it be too obvious to escape observation, that different ideas are connected together; I do not find, that any philosopher has attempted to enumerate or class all the principles of association; a subject, however, that seems worthy of curiosity. To me, there appear to be only three principles of connexion among ideas, namely, Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect." Hume p. 14

Hume brings up a good point when he says that philosophers have not touched on the principles of association. The last two philosophers that we have covered, Descartes and Locke, did not discuss that particular subject. I agree with Hume that it is quite strange that out of all the subjects in the world to be discussed and that have been discussed, association has not been one of those subjects. It seems like it should be talked about because it is a basic human function.

The Origin of Ideas

"Nothing, at first view, may seem more unbounded than the thought of man, which not only escapes all human power and authority, but is not even restrained within the limits of nature and reality. To form monsters, and join incongruous shapes and appearances, cost the imagination no more trouble than to conceive the most natural and familiar objects." Hume p. 11

This particular quote jumped out at me on the page because it is so true! People have such a wide range of ideas to play with in the mind. If a person is inspired enough he or she can think of anything whether it exists in the world or not. The mind can be an extremely abstract thing. I feel that for the most part the only time that the mind is really unbound, as Hume says, is when an individual is a child. As an adult the mind tends not to wonder with the imagination instead it turns to more practical every day thoughts and the imagination of childhood is lost.

Hume page 74

"A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty on another, afford a doubtful expectation of any event; though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is contradictory, reasonably beget a pretty strong degree of assurance."

Hume obviously relys on probability and that the cause and effect theory can only be justified if the probability of the effect happening in part of the cause, are high. 

HUME ON THE REASONING OF ANIMALS SECTION IX PGS. 69-72

" It seems evident, that animals, as well as men learn many things from experience, and inferm that the same events will always follow from the same causes.

I think that this is true and that learning things from experience is one of the many things that humans and animals have in common. People say that they have nothing in common with animals but this not true. I think that people do not give animals enough credit because they are actually just as smart as people. They think and communicate with eachother the same way as people. I think Hume's idea is true because an animal learns new things as well as people do. I think that animals have to teach themselves how to survive, interact with one another and how to react to certain things. Animals need to be able to be in touch with their surroundings and know how to adapt to their environment at any time. Animals learn things the same way as humans and perceive things different from one another the same way people do.

HUME ON THE ORIGIN OF IDEAS PGS. 9-14

Hume says that a person perceives an object in a variety of ways. Sometimes people look at something very quickly and think it to be one thing but when they take a second glance they think it is something else. The mind is a very difficult thing to understand because it uses the 5 senses to bring forth a new and old memory. A person remember what it is to be cold or hot from a past experience and this memory may trigger the thought of another idea. People get ideas from various places and see certain things a certain way but this does not mean that these new ideas were never thought of by another person. So how can something be thought of as a new idea if someone else has already thought of it and if this is true how do we know that some new ideas are actually new just because no one has said them aloud?

Hume, An Enquiry page 19

Hume says on page 19 that "Nor is geometry, when taken into the assistance of natural philosophy, ever able to remedy this defect, or lead us into the knowledge of ultimate causes..." which is sort of funny to me. I study math for business and its filled with formulas and theory's having to do with predicting the future outcome of some figure if the underlying business does X amount in sales and it seems to me that Hume is contradicting all these years of mathematical development. I mean he is probably right considering the outcome of these formulas are never really exact, but then whats the use of going to the trouble of getting complicated when we can just wing it through the use of cause and effect?

David Hume, An Enquiry page 18

"The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it."

It seems as though no matter what you do or how hard you think you can never really know whats going to happen next. Experience and time seem to be the only elements to finding out what is going to happen and there is no way of knowing what is going to happen before it happens. Its a little twist for anyone who thinks to much. The more you think the more you can plan, but you wont necessarily know what will happen until it does. 

Sensation or Reflection

"All ideas come from sensation or reflection.- Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store, which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, From experience: in that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself." John Locke p. 59

Locke is saying that knowledge does not appear out of nowhere. It has to come from somewhere and Locke says that somewhere is from experience. I think that this passage could be used as an argument against things that are innate.

Signs of Ideas

"When a man speaks to another, it is that he may be understood; and the end of speech is, that those sounds, as marks, may make known his ideas to the hearer. That, then, which words are the marks of are the ideas of the speaker: nor can any one apply them, as marks, immediately to any thing else but the ideas that he himself hath. For, this would be to make them signs of his own conceptions, and yet apply them to other ideas; which would be to make them signs and not signs of his ideas at the same time; and so, in effect to have no signification at all. Words being voluntary signs, they cannot be voluntary signs imposed by him on things he know not." John Locke p. 323

This passage seems to be saying that you cannot just go by what another person thinks. Locke seems to be saying that you have to experience things are your own instead of taking another person's word as truth. I think this can be applied to things like religion and individualism.

CHAPTER 1 BOOK 1 HUMAN UNDERSTANDING PG. 1

On the first page of Locke's essay, he talks about how understanding is what sets man apart from other animals and species. He talks about how humans are dominant because they are born to understand certain things and aspects of life. Humans have a way of communicating with others and using their brains to solve compliated problems. No other animal or species can do this or anything close to it. Humans are dominant because they are the only species that can think logically, speak intelligently for the most part, and have religion which make up a society. I agree with Locke when he says that it is an advantage to be human because we have certain privileges that other species do not.

I found it very interesting that he says that the eye makes it possible to perceive things and see them but it can not see itelf. I never thought about that. The eye can be used for many things and is very sensitive when touch or something gets in it but it can not see itself only its reflection. People see themselves only in the way they want to so maybe when people look in the mirror and see there reflection that is the person they are and the person everyone else sees is the real them.

ideal vs. reality

"Judgment may reach farther, but that is not knowledge.- We are not therefore to wonder if certainty be to be found in very few general propositions made concerning substances; our knowledge of their qualities and properties go very seldom farther than our senses reach and inform us. Possibly inquisitive and observing men may, by strength of judgment, penetrate farther; and on probabilities taken from wary observations, and hints well laid together, often guess right at what experience has not yet discovered to them." John Locke p.503

This excerpt can be applied to people's ideals versus the reality of a situation. When I say situation, I mean situations that question people's morals like abortion or premarital sex. I blogged earlier when we were reading about Descartes on how he basically says that what people say and the actions that people carry out are two separate things. This passage reaffirms what Descartes was saying. Until you actually experience something you can not predict what you would do in that particular situation. Just because you might think you have all the information on a situation you can not predict what you would do in a hypothetical situation.

Truth

"On this faculty of distinguishing one thing from another, depends the evidence and certainty of several even very general propositions, which have passed for innate truths; because men, overlooking the true cause why those propositions find universal assent, impute it wholly to native uniform impressions: whereas it in truth depends upon this clear discerning faculty of the mind, whereby it perceives two ideas to be the same or different." John Locke p. 101

I found this passage interesting because it talks about how men not god seem to decide whether or not something is an innate truth. He also seems to blame this fact on "native uniform impressions." By saying native uniform impressions Locke seems to be implying conformity to ideas. Instead of seeking out the truth man just accepts what was formerly seen as truth.

Body vs. Matter

"How many intricate disputes have there been about matter, as if there were some such thing really in nature distinct from body; as it is evident the word, 'matter' stands for an idea distinct from the idea of body!" John Locke p.403

John Locke says that matter and body are not one in the same. These two words are not interchangeable. John Locke is talking about how people often confuse things that seem somewhat similar but if you look closely at them they are not the same thing! People's attention to detail when it comes to the use of words is lacking. I think this can easily be linked to what people say and what their actions are. There are many misconceptions when it comes to people. Perception has a lot to do with it. One person may say they are going to do something and do it but the person that they talked to may think that their actions were completely different. I do not know if this is relevant but that is what I thought of when reading this passage.