David Hume

<p>David Hume - John Passmore &amp; Bryan Magee</p>

<p>John Passmore talks to Bryan Magee about David Hume in this 1987 interview.</p>

<p>https://youtu.be/UJLHf9Vt-m4</p>

<p>00:01
[Music]
00:03
but philosopher most widely regarded as
00:06
the greatest who has ever written in the
00:08
English language is David Hume not an
00:11
Englishman but a Scot born in Edinburgh
00:13
in the Year 1711 he did some of his best
00:16
work very young at about 18 he
00:19
experienced a sort of intellectual
00:21
revelation and over the next eight years
00:23
he produced a large and revolutionary
00:25
book called a treatise of human nature
00:27
it met with little attention and even
00:30
less understanding in his own phrase it
00:33
fell dead born from the press so in his
00:36
30s he tried to rewrite that book in
00:38
what he hoped would be a more popular
00:40
form this resulted in two smaller
00:43
volumes one called
00:44
an inquiry concerning human
00:46
understanding and one called
00:48
an inquiry concerning the principles of
00:50
morals but these were scarcely any
00:52
better received and he gave the
00:54
impression then of turning away from
00:56
philosophy in his 40s he wrote a history
00:59
of Great Britain which for a hundred
01:01
years was the standard work that's why
01:03
he still sometimes categorized in
01:06
libraries and books of reference as
01:08
David Hume historian in his own lifetime
01:11
he made his reputation - as an economist
01:14
and his monetary theories have been
01:16
reacting attention recently he was even
01:19
in a modest way a man of affairs in the
01:22
War of the Austrian succession he served
01:24
as a staff officer on two military
01:26
expeditions and for a couple of years in
01:28
his early fifties he was secretary to
01:30
the British Embassy in Paris and then
01:33
after that Under Secretary of State in
01:35
London in all the many different circles
01:38
in which he moved he was popular for his
01:40
good nature as much as for his genius
01:42
such was his gift for friendship that he
01:45
almost brought off the impossible task
01:47
of defending his French contemporary
01:50
philosopher Rousseau would one time
01:52
actually propose making his home in
01:54
Britain because Hume was there in France
01:58
Hume was known as leborgne Dalida
02:01
and in his native Edinburgh the street
02:03
in which he lived was and is named after
02:05
him st. David's streets in view of the
02:09
latter point it's perhaps ironical but
02:11
in secret he'd been writing his fine
02:13
philosophical masterpiece profound and
02:16
damaging critique of natural religion
02:18
which didn't come to light until after
02:20
his death he died in 1776 and in 1779
02:25
his dialogues concerning natural
02:27
religion were published some people
02:30
consider it his best work he's an
02:32
unusually attractive figure who should
02:35
also be seen as part of that great
02:36
flowering of intellectual life in
02:39
Edinburgh in the 18th century which we
02:41
now refer to as the Scottish
02:43
enlightenment in David Hume Adam Smith
02:46
and James Boswell the Scottish
02:48
enlightenment produced the English
02:50
languages for most philosopher economist
02:53
and biographer and they all knew each
02:55
other Adam Smith was one of Humes
02:57
closest friends and was greatly
02:59
influenced by him Basel contemplated
03:02
writing Humes biography though alas he
03:05
never did there's now a substantial
03:08
literature on Hume and one of the best
03:10
books in it
03:11
Humes intentions was written by the
03:14
person who is with me now to discuss his
03:16
work professor John Pass more of the
03:19
Australian National University in
03:20
Canberra but there's a passed ball
03:23
whenever Hume gave a shorter exposition
03:26
of his own philosophy which he in fact
03:28
two or three times did he always put
03:31
fundamental emphases on what he had to
03:34
say about causality that is to say what
03:37
it is for one state of affairs to bring
03:39
about or cause another state of affairs
03:41
the idea being that causality this
03:44
cause-and-effect relationship is what
03:46
binds together the whole of our known
03:49
world and he thought that what he had to
03:51
say about that was the cornerstone of
03:54
his philosophy and in fact it would be
03:57
true to say that it's what he's best
03:58
known for today can you tell us what the
04:01
nub of his argument on that was I think
04:04
I'll try to by means of a practical
04:06
example suppose a small child whose
04:11
parents have always given a soft cotton
04:13
toys that had soft cotton dolls soft
04:17
cotton dog so on and so on everything's
04:20
soft cotton one day somebody gives it a
04:22
rubber ball the child drops the rubber
04:26
ball over
04:27
side of the bed and the next thing he
04:30
notices if the rubber ball bounces
04:33
nothing else and his experiences they
04:35
were bounced before his this ball that
04:37
begins bouncing now the first thing that
04:40
David Hume says it didn't matter how
04:43
long the child had looked at that ball
04:45
turning it over looking at one side of
04:47
another it could never have inferred
04:49
that when it dropped the ball the ball
04:52
would bounce this came to it as
04:54
something it couldn't expect a prior to
04:58
experience now take an adult who's
05:00
watching what happens at this point they
05:04
doubt will say well what has happened is
05:08
the child has caused the ball to bounce
05:11
by dropping it it would say the ball has
05:14
a power which makes it possible for it
05:17
to bounce I'd say there's a necessary
05:20
connection between dropping this rubber
05:22
ball and it's bouncing that's how they
05:25
add up would talk now Hume comes along
05:27
he says well what does the adult got
05:30
which the child doesn't have after all
05:33
all this has really happened is that on
05:37
a number of occasions the adult has seen
05:40
a ball drop and seen it bounce in fact
05:44
it has found this always happens is what
05:46
he calls a constant conjunction so you
05:49
have two things you first of all have
05:50
somebody dropping a ball or doing
05:52
something of that kind
05:53
and then you have bouncing but suppose
05:55
you've seen this a hundred times instead
05:58
of like the child only once what
06:01
difference can this make up well it
06:02
hasn't now seem something it hadn't seen
06:05
before it hasn't seen a mysterious power
06:07
in the ball it hasn't discovered a
06:08
mysterious entity called the necessary
06:11
connection and some sort of peculiar
06:13
property all of the scene is various
06:16
people dropping balls and the balls
06:18
bouncing and yet in fact the adult does
06:21
believe that there's a necessary
06:23
connection between the dropping of the
06:25
ball and it's bouncing where's this idea
06:28
come from because we hear more ideas had
06:31
to come somewhere and he says it comes
06:33
from nothing except the constant
06:37
experience of this constant injunction
06:40
this works upon the mind she says it
06:43
forms the habit in US and expecting a
06:46
ball to bounce when we drop it but
06:48
nothing I was involved in that I could
06:51
put what you just said to us in since
06:53
the gaps tract general terms I think by
06:55
expressing it this way that we can't
06:57
form any conception at all of an ordered
07:00
world without the idea of causal
07:03
connection between things but cause we
07:07
discover when we try as something that
07:09
we can't actually observe we may say
07:12
that event a cause of event B but we
07:16
find when we examine the situation that
07:18
all we actually observe is event a
07:20
followed by event B and there isn't some
07:24
third entity in the situation a causal
07:27
link between them that we observe and it
07:30
won't do to say that our will yes but we
07:33
know that if nth a is because of event B
07:35
because b always it invariably follows a
07:38
because the fact is for example but day
07:41
always it invariably follows night and
07:43
night always and invariably follows day
07:45
but neither is the cause of the other so
07:48
we have this indispensable notion of
07:51
calls which is at the very heart of our
07:54
conception of the world and of our
07:56
understanding of our own experience and
07:58
yet this notion is not validated by
08:01
experience or observation and it can't
08:04
be validated by logic either and by
08:07
making us aware of that Hume it seems to
08:11
me has put his finger on a problem to
08:14
which there's still no generally agreed
08:16
solution would you read that yes there
08:19
is people of course try various things
08:20
most of which Hume discusses in the
08:23
treatise and gets rid of someone say oh
08:25
well nature is uniform so for ball
08:28
bounces one will go on bouncing but
08:31
that's only to say that the same cause
08:33
produces the same effect all way so
08:35
that's exactly the thing which has to be
08:37
demonstrated he's begging the question
08:38
thinking the question by saying there
08:40
and this is true he says oh well at
08:42
least it's now more probable that the
08:45
ball will bounce or not but all
08:47
probabilities Hume says are really based
08:49
on our experience of connections so that
08:53
this again is no real
08:54
layout of the of the problem he used the
08:57
same form of argument with another very
09:00
fundamental question than dear that is
09:02
the question of the self of the
09:05
continuity of the self he said that well
09:07
when we take it for granted that we have
09:09
cells that we are continuous cells we
09:13
discover that we can't actually locate
09:15
this self in observation or experience
09:18
but when we look inside ourselves what
09:22
we actually see is individual thoughts
09:25
feelings memories emotions and so on but
09:28
we don't observe some other entity a
09:31
self that has them and this is a very
09:34
disconcerting and startling doctrine
09:37
isn't it what were its implications I
09:40
think one should add that Hume was never
09:43
really quite satisfied with this as you
09:45
said he kept on going back when he's
09:48
give me an account of his theory to the
09:50
doctrine of causality because then he
09:52
felt satisfied he'd done what he set out
09:53
to do he'd shown that there is something
09:56
about our characters human beings which
10:00
compels us to believe that things are
10:01
necessarily connected with one another
10:03
even although we don't observe in the
10:05
world that necessary connection but it
10:08
gets terribly difficult when it comes to
10:10
personal identity it said earlier that
10:12
in respect to ordinary identity what
10:16
happens is something like this actually
10:18
every time we close our eyes something
10:19
to sing in front of us disappears it's
10:22
no longer there is a perception but when
10:25
we open our eyes again this is very
10:27
rapid crude what we see is so similar to
10:29
what we saw before we closed our eyes
10:32
that we confused retreat this as having
10:35
been an experience or identity because
10:37
we because it's so like keeping your
10:40
eyes open all the time and just having a
10:42
single perception now that's all right
10:45
perhaps in respect to the identity of
10:47
other people you might say the same sort
10:49
of thing we see them today and we see
10:52
them tomorrow they're very like one
10:54
another the actions that they perform on
10:56
one occasion have certain sorts of
10:58
causal connections with the one thing
11:00
they have on other occasions but let's
11:03
take ourselves now if you can't say that
11:07
really
11:08
become confused between this succession
11:11
of sections and a strict identity
11:15
because this is shown for some way there
11:17
all the time to become confused and
11:19
that's why Hume says I think this is why
11:21
human says in the long run that he's
11:23
going to satisfy with this miss really
11:25
worried him because he began from the
11:27
assumption that so long as one talked
11:30
only about the human mind and human
11:31
perceptions one wouldn't get into any
11:34
great intellectual problems or any
11:36
intellectual confusions which couldn't
11:38
be easily cleared away one thing that
11:41
what he had to say about cause and what
11:43
he has to say about the self had in
11:45
common is but in both cases he says
11:47
let's look for the actual observation
11:50
the actual experience on which this
11:52
everyday idea is based and in each case
11:56
when we look for them we discover to our
11:58
amazement that they're not there it's as
12:01
if he's trying to base his philosophy on
12:03
fact now is that what he was referring
12:07
to in the famous subtitle to his
12:09
masterpiece of the treatise I've
12:11
actually written it down here he
12:13
describes his treatises an attempt to
12:16
introduce the experimental method of
12:18
reasoning into moral subjects what are
12:21
you trying to make philosophy scientific
12:25
was that his idea but moral subjects of
12:28
course intended very broadly he would
12:30
have included and allowed everything we
12:31
now call politics he would have included
12:35
anything we would call psychology and as
12:38
well as anything we would call moral
12:40
philosophy and he did want to make these
12:43
more scientific in a certain sense than
12:47
they had ever been what he says is that
12:49
when you approach these subjects you'll
12:51
find that people who usually talk
12:54
seriously and take evidence into account
12:56
start making wild statements without any
12:59
real evidence they start preaching at us
13:01
rather than telling us what things are
13:03
like they lay down laws for us rather
13:06
than looking at the facts and that we
13:08
ought to look at the facts in respect to
13:11
political life and human affairs just as
13:14
we do in the Natural Sciences there's an
13:18
implied theory of language and meaning
13:21
daran in this approach that we are now
13:24
talking about because he very definitely
13:27
thought that in order to for a word to
13:29
mean anything at all it had to relate to
13:32
a specific idea and for an idea to have
13:35
real content
13:36
it had to be derived from experience so
13:39
in effect you may say if you want to
13:41
know what a word means look for the
13:43
experience from which it's derived if
13:46
you can't find an experience for an
13:48
observation from which it derives then
13:50
it doesn't mean it that that so there's
13:53
this whole theory of meaning is there
13:55
not underlying the philosophical
13:58
approach that you've just been outlining
13:59
yet he draws distinction he's pretty
14:01
keen on this although he doesn't mention
14:03
it specifically very often between
14:06
talking and thinking we're thinking only
14:10
when we're operating with clear ideas
14:13
which have a real source in experience
14:15
but he suggests that much of the time
14:18
we're talking away and we're using what
14:21
a really completely confused motions
14:23
which have no real foundation and
14:26
experience if he looked at our
14:27
contemporary political life in our
14:29
contemporary talk he'd find I think that
14:31
it was full of nations which people use
14:33
completely unreflecting if you ask what
14:37
the foundation and experience was of let
14:39
us say ideas like social justice or
14:42
ideas like accountability you might find
14:45
it extremely difficult to see what the
14:47
actual factual situation was of these
14:50
we're referring to a concrete what they
14:52
concretely mean and one of his main
14:54
point is we should look and see what
14:56
thing has concrete to mean you'd be
14:58
absolutely horrified by might see what
15:00
mail passes for literary criticism for
15:01
example that was something he was very
15:03
interested in that he thought he had to
15:05
related then he come quickly
15:06
to literature and now it becomes a
15:10
maximun rather bad philosophy full of
15:12
expressions which seem I think would
15:14
very rapidly show have no meaning on his
15:17
theory of meaning it led him to develop
15:19
something with ten socks prefer to be
15:21
known as Humes
15:22
fork instead of any given body of ideas
15:25
when you are approaching it to the first
15:27
time you must ask yourself two main
15:29
questions do these ideas concern
15:33
Anton's effect in which case do they
15:35
rest on observation and experience or do
15:38
they concern the relations between ideas
15:40
as in mathematics and logic if the
15:43
answer to both those main questions is
15:45
no then he says commit those writings to
15:49
the flames because they can contain
15:51
nothing but sophistry and delusion he
15:54
was a great as you have said clearer
15:56
away of intellectual rubbish not only in
16:00
philosophy and politics but in religion
16:03
and all sorts of other fields do you
16:05
think that in the history of philosophy
16:07
that's one of his most important
16:10
function so to speak that he was a clear
16:13
level way of illusions I'm pretty sure
16:16
about that the other thing was that
16:17
there's one particular illusion is
16:19
constantly clearing away and that is
16:22
that we can prove a great many things
16:25
which we daily believe he's constantly
16:28
showing but really we cannot demonstrate
16:30
even such facts as the things exist
16:33
externally to us or that they continue
16:36
to exist when we're not looking at them
16:38
or again that some things are
16:41
necessarily connected with other things
16:42
and this means that he often sounds
16:46
extremely skeptical and indeed he
16:48
sometimes does express himself in a very
16:51
skeptical way but he thinks that is
16:55
impossible for any human being to be an
16:57
all an all-out skeptic inevitably you
17:00
have to believe you have to act like any
17:02
other human being and a certain measure
17:05
of skepticism what he calls mitigated
17:07
skepticism is very useful because it
17:10
prevents you from falling into the trap
17:13
of large ideologies large ideas of every
17:17
sort which have no real foundation
17:19
experience you will say to yourself well
17:20
look I'm not really totally able to
17:23
demonstrate the Sun will rise tomorrow
17:25
perhaps it won't and why should anybody
17:28
that's in that position think that they
17:30
can say something about the total
17:33
existence of the world or some very
17:36
elaborate concept of this kind wouldn't
17:39
it be true to say that his skepticism
17:41
was not actually about the world
17:43
but about the capacities of human reason
17:46
I mean I don't doubt for one moment but
17:48
Hume just genuinely did believe that
17:50
there is an independently existing world
17:53
of material objects in space and time
17:55
but causally into relate to each other
17:57
and that we have representations of
18:00
these to our senses and that these
18:02
representations are internal to us but
18:05
give us an act an accurate picture of
18:07
the world around us all that the whole
18:10
common sense view of the world I'm sure
18:12
Hume believed but it seems to me that
18:15
what he was contending was that none of
18:18
this could be proved you couldn't
18:20
actually show you couldn't prove that
18:22
any of this was so and you had to just
18:25
kind of take it for granted in ordinary
18:27
living but I don't think he doubted it
18:29
did he
18:30
I don't think so after all it's
18:32
essential to what he's saying about the
18:34
possibility of constructing a theory of
18:36
human nature and he's able to say two
18:38
things that this this will rest on one
18:40
is our awareness of ourselves and the
18:44
other is at awareness of other human
18:47
beings at experience of other human
18:49
beings well this does imply that human
18:51
beings exist independently of us we're
18:54
not the only being on earth just living
18:56
in a world of his own perceptions there
18:57
are other human beings they behave in
18:59
various ways their behavior has
19:01
particular effects and so on none of
19:03
this does he doubt I think in the most
19:06
serious sense of doubting and did it
19:09
have to be a madman too so but he's
19:12
showing that reason can't prove it but
19:14
he's showing that what we can prove is
19:16
very much less than people believe even
19:19
the most fundamental affairs of life so
19:21
that strict proof plays a very small
19:23
part in human life outside special areas
19:27
like mathematics and he didn't even
19:29
think that was all that important in
19:30
human affairs did you well he really
19:32
felt was the important things well he
19:35
says politics morals literary criticism
19:38
and what he calls logic which is he
19:40
where he uses rather broadly to mean the
19:42
theory of the human understanding
19:43
anything else the sort of thing that
19:45
physicists talk about let us say was no
19:48
doubt important that at the second order
19:50
that to get a clear understanding of
19:53
human beings and of human understanding
19:56
which indeed and necessary preliminary
19:59
even to the soundly based physical
20:01
science that learn to soundly based
20:03
human science and I think he was a
20:05
person to whom what mattered essentially
20:08
we're human beings
20:10
now lots of philosophers haven't been
20:11
like this rather got rid of human beings
20:13
or individual human being and human
20:16
concerned with abstractions like a
20:17
certain that factions apart and trace
20:19
and him talks about these to some degree
20:21
but basically the human being lies at
20:24
the center of his interests and in the
20:25
old phrase he counts nothing human alien
20:28
to him what that brings out is that in
20:30
that theme of subtitle to his great word
20:33
which I read earlier and attempt to
20:35
introduce the experimental method of
20:37
reasoning to moral subjects it's not
20:39
only the phrase the experimental method
20:42
of reasoning that's important which
20:43
everyone has always concentrated on but
20:46
the phrase model subjects he was
20:48
applying it to everything that directly
20:50
concerns human being exactly in my
20:54
introduction to our discussion professor
20:56
possible when I referred to Hume moving
20:58
on from writing philosophy to writing
21:01
history I deliberately used the phrase
21:03
he appeared to turn away from philosophy
21:06
I didn't actually say he did because I
21:09
know that you in your book about Q have
21:11
argued that in fact in his mind this was
21:14
not a turning away at all but a
21:16
continuation of the same concerns and
21:19
I'd like you to expand that a little bit
21:21
well I think in the first place of
21:22
course the use of the word philosophy in
21:25
its very narrow modern sense is well as
21:29
I said very narrow very modern
21:31
philosophy had a much broader sense when
21:33
he wrote and even later
21:35
indeed in Cambridge much later physics
21:37
was called natural philosophy and
21:39
subjects like economics and politics
21:41
were included in moral philosophy and
21:43
that's the very broad sense of
21:45
philosophy that humors working with but
21:47
I think there's another thing he wrote
21:49
these works the treatise especially he
21:52
said as a necessary preliminary to
21:55
working on the subject she took to be
21:57
important morals and politics an
21:59
essential preliminary nobody paid any
22:02
real attention to them he tried to
22:05
present them in a different form as you
22:07
pointed out near introduction in the
22:09
inquiries people did still didn't pay
22:11
any real attention to
22:12
and it would have been absurd for him to
22:14
go on working at seeds it had no real
22:17
critical certain optimum he was quite
22:18
convinced he was right in terms of his
22:21
own views about things
22:22
it was perfectly proper for him then to
22:24
go on writing essays on politics writing
22:27
history writing about economics I think
22:30
about the population of the ancient
22:32
world and discussing all these broad
22:35
issues literary criticism again which
22:37
had always regarded a central it would
22:39
have been idiotic for him to have
22:41
continued all his life with what he
22:43
regarded as being only preliminary to
22:46
these centrally important inquiries
22:48
because all of it was in his eyes what
22:51
one might roughly call social philosophy
22:53
wasn't it in some formal and in a very
22:56
broad sense is what we were now called
22:58
social philosophy but the first part one
23:00
might very crudely call Humes
23:02
methodology of the social sciences it
23:04
ran beyond that but it's as if the
23:07
social scientists were to spend all his
23:09
life talking about his methodology and
23:11
never actually doing any social science
23:13
and him would have felt the same way if
23:14
we'd spent all his life talking about
23:16
his methodology he said it's all the
23:18
logic that's really needed and indicated
23:20
and that gone on to do the actual work
23:22
that he thinks was the greatest
23:24
consequence now underlying this very
23:26
broad concern with human affairs there
23:28
was a theory of human or a conception
23:31
anyway of human nature and you referred
23:34
to that actually a few minutes ago in
23:35
our discussion can you now bring out
23:37
what that conception of human nature was
23:40
well it's a long story because really
23:43
most of his subsequent work is a study
23:45
of human nature in action in practice
23:49
the qantas thing he never doubted was
23:51
that there was such a thing as human
23:53
nature and this is a point at which he
23:55
differed from Locke Locke had been
23:57
particularly intent on getting rid of
23:59
the conception of original sin this was
24:01
fundamentally important to him we see
24:03
what a religious thinker as well as a as
24:05
well as a philosopher and he had argued
24:08
the timid beings are born into the world
24:10
with minds which are like blank sheets
24:12
of paper and then in his works on
24:14
education for example the suggestion was
24:16
but you could turn human beings in any
24:19
direction you want to and many of the
24:21
later thinkers of the French
24:23
enlightenment and really running on even
24:25
to
24:25
to modern Marxism have taken the same
24:28
sort of view that at least society is
24:31
the thing that makes human beings what
24:33
they are and Hume didn't think that he
24:37
says that he thought this was a
24:38
ridiculous view that human beings do
24:40
have angers fears all the rest our
24:46
affections which are innate which are
24:49
inborn in them and which are constant
24:52
throughout human history human in
24:54
different societies and they had
24:56
different forms and some of them may be
24:58
strengthened in some weakened but there
25:00
is a permanent human nature there in
25:02
which the passions are central striking
25:05
I think in most of the thinkers of this
25:07
period that they put an emphasis on
25:09
passions and interests in a way in which
25:13
many subsequent philosophers have not
25:15
there are of course important exceptions
25:17
to that part of the basis for what he
25:19
had to say about human nature being
25:21
always the same was his deep learning in
25:25
the classical languages
25:26
wasn't it he he was deeply and widely
25:29
read in Greek and Latin literature and
25:32
history and what struck him one of the
25:34
things that struck him about those times
25:37
was that human behavior in very
25:40
considerable detail had been just the
25:43
same 2,000 years before the time he was
25:45
reading when he saw it around here as he
25:47
saw it around him in his own time yes he
25:50
was particularly understood in writers
25:52
like Cicero and in what Cicero said
25:54
about human nature and human beings and
25:56
human society and he thought it wasn't
25:58
so difficult in century England the
26:00
material beings were still behaving in
26:02
much the same kind of way it was the
26:05
Latin writers rather than the Greek
26:06
writers who to clean first him at that
26:09
level he constantly produce Israel so
26:12
that was some of the evidence that he
26:13
would have given for there being a
26:16
permanent human nature but also when he
26:18
writes about let us say the natural
26:20
history of religion it's again on the
26:22
assumption that human beings have been
26:25
much the same been faced by the same
26:27
threats the same anxieties it had much
26:29
the same ideals
26:30
throughout history even in much Ilia
26:34
societies and the Greek and Roman
26:35
society not only of assumption is it I
26:37
mean he tries to demonstrate this with a
26:38
great deal of effect
26:39
for example a car should demonstrate by
26:41
sex for example but it is all the same I
26:43
think to some measure something that he
26:45
thinks is you can't seriously question
26:47
although as I many subsequent writers
26:49
and Locke before him have seriously
26:51
questioned when one looks at you from
26:54
the standpoint of our time I think one
26:55
is very struck by the sort of modernity
26:58
from our point of view very much of it I
27:01
mean he was centrally concerned with
27:03
this problem of the self well some of
27:05
the best philosophy that's been done in
27:07
Britain in recent years has been about
27:09
problems of the self scientists in the
27:13
twentieth century have been deeply
27:15
powerful especially in their thinking
27:17
about quantum physics about the presence
27:20
or absence of causal connection and only
27:23
yesterday so to speak the logical
27:25
positivists or at least the chief
27:27
representative of logical positivism in
27:29
the english-speaking world a jair we're
27:32
constantly talking about how much they
27:34
owed to hume and how almost everything
27:36
there is constantly saying that almost
27:38
everything he has to say has previously
27:41
been said by q1 comes up against this
27:44
modernity to us again and again and one
27:48
of the 20th century problems of
27:50
philosophy that he is credited with
27:52
having formulated for the first time is
27:55
the famous problem of induction isn't it
27:58
that is to say that the theological
28:01
basis on which scientific theories were
28:04
traditionally said to rest can you tell
28:06
us a little about that well it's very
28:09
closely related what I said previously
28:10
about causality go back to my baby is
28:13
dropping this ball out of the well I
28:16
suppose it does this on Monday night
28:18
does it on Tuesday and it doesn't know
28:20
where to stand and dust on Thursday
28:21
every tire clubs for the ball bounces
28:25
then certainly he would say it comes to
28:27
believe that whenever it drops the ball
28:30
the ball about it comes to expect the
28:33
ball to bounce whenever it drops it but
28:37
suppose we ask why because all this
28:39
happen is the same thing as has occurred
28:41
on many occasions but we all know quite
28:44
well
28:45
the things can occur on many occasions
28:47
and then on some occasions and they
28:50
don't occur anymore
28:51
there's a change
28:53
the way things happen who have been
28:54
accustomed to relying on these
28:57
regularities but the regularity breaks
28:59
down now all of human saying is we can
29:02
never be quite sure that this won't
29:05
happen in respect to any regularity
29:08
whatsoever there's no way of arguing
29:12
from the premises that things have
29:15
happened in a certain way on very many
29:17
occasions in the past to the conclusion
29:19
that they're bound to happen in exactly
29:21
the same way in the future and of course
29:24
the point here is that every scientific
29:26
law is an unrestrictedly general
29:28
statement which is said to rest on a
29:31
number of particular observations or
29:34
experiments or instances and the logical
29:37
link can't be made there's a marvelous
29:40
example of this enacted in the history
29:43
of philosophy itself in logic books in
29:45
some logic books of the Middle Ages one
29:48
sentence that was used as an example was
29:50
all swans and white and of course for
29:52
literally thousands of years there'd be
29:54
swamp that any Western man had ever seen
29:56
was right and there must have been
29:59
millions of instances of white swans and
30:01
not a single counter example but in the
30:04
18th century when Western man discovered
30:07
your country Australia for the first
30:10
time Europeans or black swans and it's a
30:14
Marmot illustration of the fact that
30:15
however many thousands or millions of
30:17
times a particular thing has been
30:19
observed and found to be so and so it
30:22
does not follow from that that the next
30:25
one will be and therefore this is the
30:28
logically important point no finite
30:30
number of specific observations can ever
30:33
logically entail an unrestrictedly
30:36
general for universal conclusion but all
30:39
scientific lore of that character and
30:41
therefore they are not logically
30:43
entailed by the observations that are
30:46
supposed to be their basis and this is
30:48
an exclusive insight isn't it I mean it
30:51
seemed to people to knock away the
30:53
foundations of science as they
30:55
understood it if I think it's more more
30:58
widely agreed by scientists themselves
31:00
that scientific propositions are in some
31:04
major hypothetical
31:06
many very firmly based ones have been
31:09
over throughout in the past people used
31:11
to say that Einstein didn't overthrow
31:13
Newton
31:13
he simply produced a more general theory
31:17
of which Newton's theory is part but
31:19
that's not really true there was
31:20
something as a mutant said that have now
31:23
been shown to be false and Newton was
31:26
for a long time the supreme example of a
31:28
kind of certain demonstrative side
31:31
Bertrand Russell in his famous book a
31:33
history of Western philosophy after he's
31:36
said something about Humes doctrines on
31:39
these various fundamental things that
31:41
we've considered a cause-and-effect
31:43
relationship the nature of the self the
31:47
inductive basis of scientific laws
31:49
Russell then goes on to say that in many
31:52
of these respects we still haven't got
31:54
beyond him that he pointed out very
31:58
fundamental problems but no one has yet
32:01
solved this is true because secretly
32:03
through that played out pointed out very
32:05
fundamental questions that nobody as yet
32:07
saw because unfortunately it's much
32:08
easier in in philosophy to ask questions
32:12
great difficulties than to produce
32:14
solutions but I think one crucial thing
32:18
that Hume is the question she asked I
32:20
think was also called Plato were very
32:23
fundamental ones so that we can say that
32:25
if a person doesn't take Humes question
32:28
seriously he can't really be counted as
32:30
a philosopher yes these are absolutely
32:32
fundamental to what philosophy years
32:34
aren't days yes they aren't
32:35
fundamentally they're not the only
32:37
issues with the president but they have
32:39
done to mental issues what sort of a man
32:42
was he I get the impression when I read
32:45
his work and I've been rereading it so
32:47
this discussion just recently I get the
32:50
impression of a kind of massive humane
32:52
this which is enormous ly attractive yes
32:56
I his friend Adam Smith said he came as
32:58
near to perfection these sort of
32:59
respects of any human being possibly
33:02
could and biographers have explored his
33:04
life in great detail I don't think
33:06
anything found a single example of a
33:09
mean or a malicious action it
33:12
occasionally timid well not unnaturally
33:15
he had views about religion which were
33:17
scarcely popular in the society in which
33:19
he was
33:20
in education a little design but this is
33:23
a form of sin if it is that which I can
33:26
easily forgive but he doesn't ever act
33:30
meanly or maliciously and I'm quite sure
33:32
that if there was a sort of celestial
33:35
philosophers parterre dinner party it's
33:38
David he might want to sit next to I I
33:41
think in many ways plato was the greater
33:43
philosopher but it's David Hume I would
33:45
want to sit next to and I think almost
33:47
everybody else would he had this warm
33:50
humanity he was without pretensions it
33:54
was a man of very considerable personal
33:56
courage he was dying of cancer in his
33:59
last year's he still received his
34:01
friends as usual he knew or believed in
34:04
you that he was certainly not immortal
34:06
but this did miss tell him in the least
34:08
it's very much disturbed possible when
34:10
Boswell interviewed him towards the end
34:12
but he managed to retain that sort of
34:14
equanimity and a moderation and every we
34:17
also do which was his own idea on yeah
34:20
and his style has had great influence
34:23
hasn't it I mean I mentioned earlier in
34:25
this discussion to 20th century British
34:27
philosophers both of them famous a jair
34:30
and Bertrand Russell who have been
34:32
consciously influenced by the Hume way
34:35
of doing things and they've been many
34:37
others yes well he did places great
34:41
emphasis on clarity and indeed on
34:43
elegance I recently heard clarity and
34:47
elegance referred to as old-fashioned
34:49
virtues which nobody now attempts
34:51
that's certainly Erin russell attempt
34:54
with them and certainly humor template
34:56
them and he said a certain pattern of
34:59
british philosophizing which one tries
35:02
to be clear one tries to be critical one
35:05
tries not to make large assumptions
35:07
unclosing look all the while at what one
35:09
doing in a critical spirit and one tries
35:12
to tie it up to what actually happens in
35:16
the world humans approach does raise one
35:18
important difficulty doesn't it you
35:22
refer to the fact that he stresses that
35:24
most of the things that we take for
35:26
granted we don't actually know and can't
35:29
prove can never prove
35:32
that being so how are we to distinguish
35:35
between the sort of view that it's
35:37
reasonable to hold and the sort of view
35:40
that it's unreasonable to hold what then
35:43
becomes the criteria of a reasonable
35:47
man's belief this is a very difficult
35:50
question at times whom seems to be
35:53
saying nothing more than that well in
35:55
general it's much more sensible to rely
35:56
on constant conjunctions and on me a
35:59
chance he gives rules for judging of
36:01
cause and effect and other times he
36:03
seems to suggest there's really no
36:05
answer to this question but that is
36:07
something that I think would satisfy
36:09
nobody and one might say that is the
36:11
principal problem that Hume said I
36:13
referred to it in a way a little while
36:15
ago we agree let us say that scientific
36:20
laws are not demonstrable in the strict
36:24
sense why however it is still far better
36:28
to depend on these in our practical
36:31
affairs of life than in some silly idea
36:34
that someone thinks up in a best-seller
36:36
I think that what Hume had to say about
36:39
all this is very germane to the ideas
36:41
about science that most people have
36:44
today in the twentieth century my
36:47
impression is that most people including
36:48
most well-educated people have the idea
36:51
of science but it consists of a body of
36:53
known of demonstrated proved certainties
36:57
and that the growth of science consists
37:00
in adding new certainties to the body of
37:02
already existing ones anybody who has
37:06
that view of human knowledge or that
37:08
view of science really has a very
37:10
fundamental lesson to learn from Hume
37:12
don't they I mean human retains his full
37:15
power to disconcert today doesn't yes
37:19
Hume is an extremely disconcerting
37:20
thinker I think it's still true in
37:24
respect to science that science does
37:26
make certain there's all sorts of things
37:27
we know about the world we didn't know
37:29
before scientists got going but
37:32
certainly when ronnapee for example
37:34
think of science or something there is
37:35
no room for the imagination at all and
37:38
that's new I believe that you have all
37:40
sorts of need for the imagination if
37:41
you're writing a novel or writing a play
37:43
but when you're doing
37:44
sighs it's just a question of going into
37:47
a laboratory and seeing what happens now
37:49
this is nonsense any kind of scientific
37:52
work above the most fulfilled
37:54
it's an enormous feat of the imagination
37:58
if you take contemporary cosmology for
38:00
example it's so this is admittedly a
38:02
very extreme example it's an
38:05
extraordinary imaginative lead the same
38:07
is true of things like DNA genetics any
38:10
of the great discoveries require not
38:12
merely careful work in laboratory so
38:14
this is essential and careful thinking
38:17
at all levels but also a capacity to
38:21
make imaginative lives and it's
38:23
interesting that in Hume the idea of the
38:25
imagination constantly realises of
38:28
beings of central importance the
38:30
imagination who thinks is essential to
38:33
all our thinking about the world even
38:35
what we call our perception of facts
38:38
there is always an element of the
38:40
imagination at work and the centrality
38:42
of the imagination is one of the things
38:44
I find most fascinating and David Hume
38:47
it's directly to main to what you've
38:49
just said that the greatest of all 20th
38:51
century scientists Einstein once said he
38:53
said in 1928 I remember he made the
38:55
remark but he would never have dared to
38:58
overthrow the science of Newton can't he
39:02
not read Hume well I'd like to I'd like
39:05
to finish our discussion really by
39:07
asking you to say a little more about
39:08
the influence of Hume on major thinkers
39:12
subsequent to him he did you've already
39:14
referred to his influence on calm too I
39:16
think most philosophers would regard as
39:19
the greatest of all philosophers since
39:20
you what was his influence on cons I
39:25
think that count and like we British
39:29
critics of Hume really did see what Hume
39:31
was about he sorry had to do philosophy
39:34
in a quite different kind of way if he
39:37
was going as he wants to do to answer
39:39
here and particularly to get rid of what
39:41
he took to be skeptical elements in Hume
39:43
he had to say that really our perception
39:48
of the world is a quite different kind
39:50
from the social thing that human his
39:53
predecessors have taken it to be we
39:55
don't humor always presumes
39:58
have isolated perceptions simply
40:01
following one another we are from the
40:04
beginning aware of things as being
40:06
causally connected closely linked with
40:09
one another one gets encounter of a
40:11
great emphasis on the creative power of
40:13
the mind as well suggestions this order
40:15
is imparted posed by the mind and that
40:18
leads in the direction that you wouldn't
40:20
have life it leads in the direction of
40:21
subsequent German idealism in the
40:24
direction of writers like Hegel but
40:27
can't did see you didn't hear that if
40:28
you've started with empiricist
40:30
assumptions Hume then posed problems
40:33
that on empiricist assumptions you
40:35
couldn't answer at the head field and
40:37
Khan's solution was to reject the
40:39
assumptions and and start holding you
40:42
approach he does see I think the
40:44
essential thing that if you begin from
40:48
the position that what we're aware of
40:51
our isolated events whether in our own
40:54
mind with their perceptions or on the
40:56
surface of a scheme or in the world you
40:58
cannot create out of them simply as your
41:01
sole material the kind of ordered world
41:04
which in fact we experience in our daily
41:07
life well to continue the discussion
41:09
beyond this point would take us into a
41:11
discussion of calm so I think we will
41:13
stop there thank you very much indeed
41:15
professor possible thank you
41:19
[Music]</p>

<p>English (auto-generated)</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>