Humian Skepticism, the bane of our existence
First of all I am creating this post not to harm beliefs but rather to show you an entirely new way of looking at things...
David Hume the philosopher behind this is known for his uncanny consistency with his arguments.
He came to a point that he has become so consistent that we, as people trying to live our lives, could not and can never accept his philosophy, why, you might ask? Well let me give you a little sample of his skepticism, lets start off with a story:
There was this nerd, a super genius nerdy type that was the type who always got 4.0's or straight A's, but being the genius he was, he had this idiotic habit of waiting for exactly 8 o'clock before stepping into the school no matter what time he got there. Now one Monday, at exactly 8 o'clock, he stepped into the school feeling good and refreshed as he always does when doing this, when suddenly exactly 3 seconds after he heard a loud screech and a red car parked near the school gate. He at first paid no heed to such an occurrence thinking it must have been just a coincidence. The next day as he stepped into the school at exactly 8 o'clock feeling good, a red car just screeched and parked near the gate once again, and as he checked the time it was once again exactly 3 seconds after he stepped in. Being the genius he was, he started taking notice of this event. Mysteriously, the exact same thing happened both on Wednesday and Thursday as well this convinced him to consult a friend about it, having only one friend though, he told him of the event and come Friday both he and the friend waited near the gate and at exactly 8 o'clock exactly 3 seconds after he stepped in, the red car once again screeched and parked at the same exact space. Now the question is that Is the nerd causing the red car to stop and park? of course we know that this is an impossibility as the idea of stepping into school and a red car parking are totally different and have no grounds of being a cause and effect argument...
but then what if I then told you that this occurrence is exactly the same as these ideas? namely the following:
cause effect
smoke fire
jumping down a building death
dropping a piece of chalk breakage
universe God
impossible isn't it? well according to David Hume, the ideas we get are simply secondary perceptions that occur in our minds, the first thoughts are what he calls impressions, now for an idea be valid and to have meaning according to Hume, it must be supported by a corresponding impression, these impressions are things which we perceive here in the real world which we later form into ideas. Stop here, think for a second, think about anything that is real and you will see that we do have impressions of where these things were based on. Now here comes the main problem, the Principle of Causality, the very principle responsible for our everyday living and existence does not have a corresponding impression which shows it to us! You see for David Hume, there are 3 things as to where we base our thoughts on causality, these are contiguity (ideas that come next to each other.. e.g. I live in apartment B. Oh! He lives between apartments A and C) , priority in time (Before and After occurrences of the event) and Constant Conjunction (the ideas are joint together). These are all satisfied by the Principle of Causality. But then if thats the case where's the problem you ask? well you see Hume was not convinced by these 3 evidences, he was searching for a fourth factor this was the thought of necessary connection. Now this may sound a bit confusing... they are necessarily connected are they not? well this might be what most people would think, but think about it. When we see smoke there just might be fire isn't it? There is also a chance for there not to be a fire! when someone jumps down a building we think that there will be death, but there is a chance that the person will live and will only suffer a couple of injuries.. even if the event has happened around a million times, the next time could always have a chance of having a different outcome, this therefore shows us that no one cause and one effect can be considered necessarily correct!! But taking it a step further, we come to a conclusion that nothing is certain, that nothing can assure us of anything... this means studying hard won't guarantee an A or a passing mark, as well as breathing can necessarily be connected to living... so then the question becomes what do we live for now?
Please by all means post arguments or comments on this post, the more counter arguments and examples you give the better!
David Hume the philosopher behind this is known for his uncanny consistency with his arguments.
He came to a point that he has become so consistent that we, as people trying to live our lives, could not and can never accept his philosophy, why, you might ask? Well let me give you a little sample of his skepticism, lets start off with a story:
There was this nerd, a super genius nerdy type that was the type who always got 4.0's or straight A's, but being the genius he was, he had this idiotic habit of waiting for exactly 8 o'clock before stepping into the school no matter what time he got there. Now one Monday, at exactly 8 o'clock, he stepped into the school feeling good and refreshed as he always does when doing this, when suddenly exactly 3 seconds after he heard a loud screech and a red car parked near the school gate. He at first paid no heed to such an occurrence thinking it must have been just a coincidence. The next day as he stepped into the school at exactly 8 o'clock feeling good, a red car just screeched and parked near the gate once again, and as he checked the time it was once again exactly 3 seconds after he stepped in. Being the genius he was, he started taking notice of this event. Mysteriously, the exact same thing happened both on Wednesday and Thursday as well this convinced him to consult a friend about it, having only one friend though, he told him of the event and come Friday both he and the friend waited near the gate and at exactly 8 o'clock exactly 3 seconds after he stepped in, the red car once again screeched and parked at the same exact space. Now the question is that Is the nerd causing the red car to stop and park? of course we know that this is an impossibility as the idea of stepping into school and a red car parking are totally different and have no grounds of being a cause and effect argument...
but then what if I then told you that this occurrence is exactly the same as these ideas? namely the following:
cause effect
smoke fire
jumping down a building death
dropping a piece of chalk breakage
universe God
impossible isn't it? well according to David Hume, the ideas we get are simply secondary perceptions that occur in our minds, the first thoughts are what he calls impressions, now for an idea be valid and to have meaning according to Hume, it must be supported by a corresponding impression, these impressions are things which we perceive here in the real world which we later form into ideas. Stop here, think for a second, think about anything that is real and you will see that we do have impressions of where these things were based on. Now here comes the main problem, the Principle of Causality, the very principle responsible for our everyday living and existence does not have a corresponding impression which shows it to us! You see for David Hume, there are 3 things as to where we base our thoughts on causality, these are contiguity (ideas that come next to each other.. e.g. I live in apartment B. Oh! He lives between apartments A and C) , priority in time (Before and After occurrences of the event) and Constant Conjunction (the ideas are joint together). These are all satisfied by the Principle of Causality. But then if thats the case where's the problem you ask? well you see Hume was not convinced by these 3 evidences, he was searching for a fourth factor this was the thought of necessary connection. Now this may sound a bit confusing... they are necessarily connected are they not? well this might be what most people would think, but think about it. When we see smoke there just might be fire isn't it? There is also a chance for there not to be a fire! when someone jumps down a building we think that there will be death, but there is a chance that the person will live and will only suffer a couple of injuries.. even if the event has happened around a million times, the next time could always have a chance of having a different outcome, this therefore shows us that no one cause and one effect can be considered necessarily correct!! But taking it a step further, we come to a conclusion that nothing is certain, that nothing can assure us of anything... this means studying hard won't guarantee an A or a passing mark, as well as breathing can necessarily be connected to living... so then the question becomes what do we live for now?
Please by all means post arguments or comments on this post, the more counter arguments and examples you give the better!
posted by bounce at 10:24 PM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm not quite sure what your thesis is. But I think you have somehow confused personal conclusions with scientific causality.
Causality in it's strictest sense is defined by definite and structured causes (physical laws etc) thereby inducing effects. If you open your cupboard, light from outside your cupboard floods into that space opened. Causality. Merovingian drank too much wine, he then has to take a piss. (non-scientific)He screwed the girl who came, Persephone dumped him. Causality.
Just as your chalk might not break when it falls, there will be some alterations in its structures or there will be some exchange in force just the same. It may not have been enough to break the chalk because of resistance but there was energy used and transferred in that instance.
I just don't understand your universe god thing. There is no definite answer to the origin of life. All we have are hypothesis of nuclear forces causing the big bang. But where did these forces come from?
Nothing is certain? Please. Just as I am encoding this in this browser and even with my damned dial-up connection, when I click that post button, it will post this comment.
Oh and smoke=fire. AFAIK there is no occurence of smoke without fire. I'm just a layman though, we'll have to ask Mau or someone more qualified. Now smoke=Jaundice... hm...
The concept that you are probably implying is association. Association and causailty are two different bananas. Association is influences by personal biases and social locations whilst causality is defined by science and logic.
Thus, your concept of nothing is certain is purely philosophical, actually philophastering... In that sense, it only dwells in the realms of semantics and not in defined science.
Studying hard in an objective exam will guarantee an A provided that you were able to recall all the data given thus you are able to answer the questions perfectly. Causality has its influence within the realms of the actors' powers.
Breathing necessarily translates to having particles go in your body thereby triggering a series of processes and exchanges that prolong/sustains life. Not life per se.
Your concluding statement, what do we live for now? Doesn't need David Hume's thinking to be asked. It is a personal question, each answer is relative to the one supplying the answer.
Your point probably is that life is chaotic. Life is inconsistent, you never know when an earthquake, tsunami, ex-lover, tumor comes into your life but there are steps to be taken to put more and more consistency to your life. When people started organizing themselves to form bureaucratic governments, they put more consistency to their lives.
Fix your terminology. First sentence was kinda funny. Banggag ka no? lol
The Humean skpetic challenge was the main event that sparked Kant's philosophy. If you want answers to Hume, please look into Kant. I read about another story which might be even better than the nerd's. Basically, someone finds a box in a room with a red and a blue button. He finds that each time he presses the blue one, it makes a low-pitch sound, and whenever he presses the red one, it makes a high-pitch sound. That's a symbol for science. Then after he is convinced about his scientific theory of blue-low pitch and red-high pitch, someone comes out of a door laughing with a control remote in hand, saying: "Did you really believe in this theory of buttons? I was controlling them with the remote all the time." But unnoticed to him, someone now comes out from another door laughing even harder, with another control remote in hand...
Post a Comment
<< Home