I think that Hume is trying to imply that the mind has limitations. He mentions how he believes that although one can remember his/her experiences, the true feeling of the experience can never again be felt. The later quotes bring up other limitations of the mind, like not being able to truly grasps certain concepts or understand entities.
I remember Hume from my philosophy class teachings as very skeptic of the mind and body’s ability to truly perceive the world for what it is. I’ve never really supported the philosophy regarding the limitations of the senses, as it has always seemed very impractical and in a way, neglecting. I think that it is enough to say that we do feel things and that we can interpret and consciously analyze and understand those sensations is fascinating enough to me. And as for being skeptic of the power of the mind and of thought, I feel that one should focus more on the amazing reality that we are sentient beings than on the fact that we can’t mentally accomplish everything. The fact that we can ponder about pondering is definitely enough for me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your opinion on philosophies that seem to devalue our sensations and perceptions as humans. I think that even if it is true that our sensations and perceptions are illusions, or even that there is no physical world, what we perceive as "reality" and "physical" should just be taken as such. Otherwise, life loses it's meaning, and our existence as humans loses significance.
ReplyDeleteI think you guys bring up an excellent larger point: philosophy, historically, has generally disparaged the body. Philosophers are all about the mind. This leads them to, unwarrantedly, neglect the fact that we are all 'embodied' creatures.
ReplyDeleteHowever, to be fair to Hume, he actually was part of a wave of philosophers called the 'empiricists', whose intent was partly to redirect focus from the focus on just thinking our way through problems (like Descartes) and to support gathering evidence through the senses. Another way of saying this is that they were forerunners of today's scientists.
As for Hume in particular: you're only getting a small chunk here of him, but in general he offered lots of reasons to be skeptical of our supposed 'knowledge' of the world, but in the end was conflicted. He thought we were too quick to think we understood the world; on the other hand, he didn't actually like to think of himself as a skeptic. He has a famous passage on this point where he basically says: one can only sit in a chair thinking himself in circles for so long before he has to get up and go play pool with his friends. He saw no solution to skepticism, but on the other hand, realized we are never going to lead our everyday lives as though we don't believe anything our senses (or reason) tells us. This is part of the reason, personally speaking, that I love Hume! :)