Customer Reviews

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

David Hume was perhaps the leading light in the Empiricist movement in philosophy. Empiricism is seen in distinction from Rationalism, in that it doubts the viability of universal principles (rational or otherwise), and uses sense data as the basis of all knowledge - experience is the source of knowledge. Hume was a skeptic as well as empiricist, and had radical (for the time) atheist ideas that often got in the way of his professional advancement, but given his reliance on experience (and the kinds of experiences he had), his problem with much that was considered conventional was understandable.

Hume's major work, 'A Treatise of Human Nature', was not well received intially - according to Hume, 'it fell dead-born from the press'. Hume reworked the first part of this work in a more popular way for this text, which has become a standard, and perhaps the best introduction to Empiricism.

In a nutshell, the idea of empiricism is that experience teaches, and rules and understanding are derived from this. However, for Hume this wasn't sufficient. Just because billiard balls when striking always behave in a certain manner, or just because the sun always rose in the morning, there was no direct causal connection that could be automatically affirmed - we assume a necessary connection, but how can this be proved?

Hume's ideas impact not only metaphysics, but also epistemology and psychology. Hume develops empiricism to a point that empiricism is practically unsupportable (and it is in this regard that Kant sees this text as a very important piece, and works toward his synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism). For Hume, empirical thought requires skepticism, but leaves it unresolved as far as what one then needs to accept with regard to reason and understanding. According to scholar Eric Steinberg, 'A view that pervades nearly all of Hume's philosophical writings is that both ancient and modern philosophers have been guilty of optimistic and exaggerated claims for the power of human reason.'

Some have seen Hume as presenting a fundamental mistrust of daily belief while recognising that we cannot escape from some sort of framework; others have seen Hume as working toward a more naturalist paradigm of human understanding. In fact, Hume is open to a number of different interpretations, and these different interpretations have been taken up by subsequent philosophers to develop areas of synthetic philosophical ideas, as well as further developments more directly out of Empiricism (such as Phenomenology).

This is in fact a rather short book, a mere 100 pages or so in many editions. As a primer for understanding Hume, the British Empiricists (who include Hobbes, Locke, and Berkeley), as well as the major philosphical concerns of the eighteenth century, this is a great text with which to start.

This is a great book. It is very concise and to the point. It is not light reading though. It is packed full of content and deep thinking.

Hume is over-rated. He skirts between the obvious and the incorrect. He asserts that geometry and math are unreal or analytical, to use a technical term, as opposed to real or synthetic. He is right about Euclidian geometry, but not math. Math is not analytical but synthetic.
While the proposition (a = b therefore b = a) is analytical, as it is a definition, from which (c = b therefore c = a) may be derived.
The initial proposition is a definition, not any type of observation. The conclusion is a derivation from the definition, not an observation.

But, (1 + 1 = 2) is an observation, synthetic knowledge. The ability to count is derived from the initial thing counted; it is not a mere definition. Were Hume correct, an analytical proposition could be used to establish a synthetic reality, which is impossible.

v = f(x) where v is variation and f means a function and x is a value.
It is a concept, analytical, saying nothing about reality. If you add reality: v being variation in gender of an human individual and w being weight. Gender does not alter because weight changes. But if you say v is weight and x is age, there will be a change in weight with age.

If the analytical could prove the synthetic, existance would become a true predicate.

I am surprised that Desmond David Hume had time to write such an amazing book while he was a monk, a military grunt, a sailing enthusiast and of course a member of the Dharma Initiative. Perhaps his catchphrase "See you in another life, brutha" is his hint that he has multiple lives like a cat, thus giving him time to write such an amazing piece of work.

Hume contradicts himself all over the place. If our knowledge is so impoverished, how does he establish unalterable natural laws in order to dispense with miracles? Humanist magazines regard Hume as a model humanist. Yet, how many of these humanists, including Hume, ever did anything for their fellow man? I know plenty of Christians, such as Mother Theresa and so forth, who have spent their lives feeding, clothing and sheltering the poor; but, I cannot recall one humanist who has ever done anything unselfish and philanthropic. "Humanism" is perhaps the greatest misnomer of all time. And Hume's thesis is nothing more than another freemasonic attack upon Christianity because they hate the Truth of Christianity, which is Jesus Christ and His message.