Hume - a prologue

A couple of years ago I had a roommate who told me that she didn't have any time for philosophy because philosophers talk in circles and never arrive anywhere. That is a fair criticism, and it would be enough to damn philosophy altogether if not for developments in recent centuries that have attempted to bring it back to Earth, so to speak.

Things could have gone differently. Before Socrates there were the "Atomists", Democritus and Leucippus, and they anticipated the modern theory of atoms, believing all things to be composed of indestructible and indivisible 'atoms'. Of course, that's not entirely true as we know atoms today, and they came to their conclusions through very different means, but still, there perhaps could have been the seed of real scientific inquiry into the nature of things.

Then Aristotle came along.

Aristotle wrote an impressive metaphysical account of life, the universe, and everything. From the "unmoved mover" who put into motion all we see around us to the "substance" and "essence" of things - musing on the qualities of the "thing-in-itself", that reality which exists outside of the senses. So complete was his metaphysics that for the next 1500 years the world would accept his general view. Most philosophers during that time - during what some might call "the Dark Ages" - were disciples of Aristotle, and they were mostly clergymen, monks, saints and the like. People like Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus who found Aristotle's philosophy gave an air of reason and logic to Catholic dogma.

There are some who lay the Dark Ages at Aristotle's feet, claiming that he made it possible for philosophers (who were also the "scientists" of the day) to neglect scientific inquiry in favour of metaphysical fancy. I think that's a bit over-stated, but not without some truth, and it also gave rise to the problem my roommate complained about: for so long philosophers discussed notions of the-thing-in-itself, of substance and essence and soul, and never got anywhere with it. Nobody is any more certain of these ideas today then they were 2000 years ago. This seems to be because they are discussing things which they cannot account for! What experience ever gave anyone real insight into the "essence" of "substance"?

Then the empiricists came along; John Locke and his tabula rasa, putting forward the idea that all we know we know through experience. But it wasn't until David Hume that the revolution truly got under way. He not only supported the claims of the empiricists, but it took it all one step further, to their natural conclusions, and he made a lot of people uncomfortable in the process.

Anyway, over the next while - could be weeks, could be a year - I'm gonna try my hand at understanding David Hume's epic A Treatise of Human Nature. Luckily the very first part of the book deals with understanding, so as soon as I understand understanding I'll be sure to make another post on the subject.