David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Benedict De Spinoza in The Ethics run noteworthy parallels in about metaphysics and human nature. Spinoza and Hume share opinions of apriori knowledge and free will. For human nature, similar concepts of the imagination and morality arise. Although both philosophers derive similar conclusions in their philosophy, they could not be further distanced from one another in their concepts of God. Regarded as an atheist, Spinoza argues that God is the simple substance which composes everything and that nothing is outside of this simple substance. Hume rejects this notion completely and claims that nothing in the world can give us a clear picture of God. Hume rejects the argument from design …show more content…
Hume contends that all human behavior is predictable given certain circumstances. Every nation, in any period of time, will have citizens that will act in a similar fashion to other nations, in any other period of time (53). Hume supports this idea by asserting that this is why the philosophy of human nature is possible. Spinoza has similar ideas about behavior but is more thorough in his analysis. Spinoza begins his critique from a naturalistic approach. He believes that the universal laws of nature give us an understanding of affects. Affects such as hate, anger, love, lust, happiness, and joy are all determined by nature. It is nature that affects the individual, not the individual affecting nature. Thus, nature affects everyone in a similar fashion and gives rise to similar ideas and feelings. From a naturalist perspective, the laws of nature can help understand the laws that govern …show more content…
The closest we get to cause and effect are two distinct phenomena arising together often and the mind thinking one produces the other. Hume regards this as a constant conjunction, not cause and effect. Although this is a leap in reasoning, and we have no reason to believe this to be true, Hume regards this as custom, which is the great guide of life (28). Life would be chaos if we believed in things completely contrary to the regularity of our experience, but the formation of habit is where we can lead ourselves to erroneous judgments. Although Hume's skepticism appears to clear up the mind, it leads him to believe that there is no such thing as causation, which Spinoza disagrees with. Rather, Spinoza argues that nature is all a long chain of causation which gives all causes effects and all effects causes. This system recognizes nature as a mechanism. All causes are a result of nature and the conditions imposed by it. Judging cause and effect individually is missing the point. To say that a billiard ball causes the other one to move only focuses two select phenomena. Rather, God, or nature, is that which connects all phenomena. Thus, the chain of causation cannot be understood of by two simple "links, it must be assessed as a whole. Spinoza argues that there are no free causes, only necessary ones. Thus, all causes are free causes and are a result of nature. This great chain of
In this paper I shall consider Spinoza’s argument offered in the second Scholium to Proposition 8, which argues for the impossibility of two substances sharing the same nature. I shall first begin by explaining, in detail, the two-step structure of the argument and proceed accordingly by offering a structured account of its relation to the main claim. Consequently I shall point out what I reasonably judge to be a mistake in Spinoza’s line of reasoning; that is, that the definition of a thing does not express a fixed number of individuals under that definition. By contrast, I hope to motivate the claim that a true definition of a thing does in fact express a fixed number of individuals that fall under that definition. I shall then present a difficulty against my view and concede in its insufficiency to block Spinoza’s conclusion. Finally, I shall resort to a second objection in the attempt to prove an instance by which two substances contain a similar attribute, yet differ in nature. Under these considerations, I conclude that Spinoza’s thesis is mistaken.
Hume defines causation in terms of natural necessity and explains natural necessity as follows: of two events, if event A and always event B, then there is a “natural relation” or a “natural association” between the two; this is the kind of reasoning Hume uses to explain natural necessity between things. Here is another way to put it: if A causes B there is a “natural relation” between the two. In other words, the two events are similar.
For Hume, all objects of human reason are divided into two kinds: Relations of Ideas and Matters of fact. All reasoning of matters of fact are founded on Cause and Effect. Cause and Effect play a big role in Hume's philosophy. David Hume is a man of logic, who believes in experience over knowledge. This is the main in idea in his philosophy.
In order to understand the criticisms of Baruch Spinoza’s beliefs, we look at his work “Ethics; Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect; and Selected Letters” translated by Samuel Shirley and edited by Seymour Feldman. This work by Spinoza is broken down in five parts. The first part talks about god. The first part has eight definitions of which the ‘geometric’ proof for Spinoza’s system is based on. Spinoza keeps on going and expostulates that all events are determined and based on fixed laws. Anything that is of Nature (god), must obey these laws.
Hume and empiricists acknowledge that all the objects of human reason are divided into two parts, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. To start, relations of ideas are a priori, which is believed by the Rationalists; they are also logically true statements
God is by defined as, “a substance consisting of infinite attributes” in Proposition 11. Spinoza presents 3 Axioms based off his definitions to prove God’s existence. They are as follows: “(e)verything that exists, exists either in itself or in something else”, “(t)hat which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived though itself”, and “(t)hat from a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows”. He uses these, along with his Propositions and Definitions to argue God’s existence in four steps.
Together, David Hume and Emanuel Kant, have a very crucial influence to modern philosophy. Hume challenges conventional philosophical views with his skepticism as well as his new take on what is metaphysics. His views and ideas where influential to many, including Kant, however they lead to his philosophical reasoning and empiricism to be viewed lead to negatively and atheistically. Kant, whose philosophy was so strongly influenced by Hume that in his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics wrote “I openly confess that my remembering of David Hume was the very thing which many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave me new investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a quite new direction” (Kant, Preference) defends and overcomes Hume by advancing philosophy in a revolutionary way. Kant’s philosophy has its foundation on Hume’s work, specifically his skeptical view on causality.
Spinoza defines a substance as something ‘conceived through itself’ , there cannot be anything that causes a substance as it is ‘self-explanatory’ . Therefore, Spinoza reasons, it comes to follow that one substance cannot be caused by another, and so two substances must essentiality not share any attributes.
Aristotle and David Hume share very clashing views on morality. Aristotle and Hume both believe in the possibility of being a virtuous person and both emphasize importance when it comes to reason, but their respective definitions of what virtue and reason actually mean differ drastically. Aristotle believes all human actions aim at some good, while Hume believes the reason behind everything is arithmetic and that human passions rule over reason. There is one supreme good according to Aristotle, but Hume believes what is good and bad all depends on perception. Both Aristotle and Hume take on the same topics in regards to morality, but take very different approaches.
In Appendix I., Concerning Moral Sentiment, David Hume looks to find a place in morality for reason, and sentiment. Through, five principles he ultimately concludes that reason has no place within the concept of morality, but rather is something that can only assist sentiment in matters concerning morality. And while reason can be true or false, those truths or falsities apply to facts, not to morality. He then argues morals are the direct result of sentiment, or the inner feeling within a human being. These sentiments are what intrinsically drive and thus create morality within a being. Sentiments such as beauty, revenge, pleasure, pain, create moral motivation, and action, and are immune to falsity and truth. They are the foundation for which morals are built, and exist themselves apart from any reasoning. Thesis: In moral motivation, the role of sentiment is to drive an intrinsically instilled presence within us to examine what we would deem a moral act or an immoral act, and act accordingly, and accurately upon the sentiments that apply. These sentiments may be assisted by reasons, but the reason alone does not drive us to do what we would feel necessary. They can only guide us towards the final result of moral motivation which (by now it’s painfully clear) is sentiment.
Descartes and Hume may have both come from Europe, but there ideas concerning self are opposing. They do both hold similar ideas in some form but their philosophical methodologies lead to conflicting viewpoints.
John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers. They all have many different believes, but agree on the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience. Each of these philosophers developed some of the most fascinating conceptions of the relationships between our thoughts and the world around us. I will argue that Locke, Berkeley and Hume are three empiricists that have different beliefs.
Hume states that in nature we observe correlated events that are both regular and irregular. For instance, we assume that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has continued to do so time and time again and we assume that thunder will be accompanied by lightning for the same reason. We never observe the causation between a new day and the sun rising or between thunder and lightning, however. We are simply observing two events that correlate in a regular manner. Hume’s skepticism therefore comes from the belief that since we do not observe causal links, we can never truly be sure about what causes anything else. He then goes so far as to say that if this is the case, it must be a fact that nothing causes anything else. In Hume’s theory, there is not only no objective causation, but no objective principle of cause and effect on the whole.
Interesting you bring this up because I have a similar approach and after discussing in class Hobbes's proposals and some of his up-bringing I find it quite ironic that being a man that believed, or at least wanted to believe in a monarchical society, accused many of arming themselves and locking their doors and chests(Pg. 43) when he himself basically proved Hume correct. "Morality and our choices are guided by our feelings, opposed to some sort of abstraction." (Hume PPT) Having Hobbes himself flee for his safety during the war doesn't that make him part of that "protecting something due to fear" population that he so often accused?(Pg. 43) This is why I disagree with Hobbes. You cannot force society to give up their freedom much less their
According to Spinoza "we act, when something happens, in us or outside us, of which we are the adequate cause. . . . we are acted on when something happens in us, or something follows from our nature, of which we are only a partial cause. (IIID2)."