David Hume, An Inquiry concerning Human Understanding (1748)

David Hume (1711-1776)

Click here for the entry on Hume from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Overview

Hume, like Locke and Berkeley, is an empiricist. He uses empiricist principles to launch an all out attack on
theology, philosophy, and science. He contends that the basic concepts and principles of theology,
philosophy, and science are not rationally justified. Much of what has passed for knowledge, Hume argues,
is nothing more than worthless speculation.

There are two general aspects to Humes philosophy:

1) Hume is an epistemological skeptic. He contends that the empirical principles of Locke and Berkeley
inevitably lead to skepticism. Just as Berkeley tried to show that the notion of matter is unintelligible,
Hume tries to show that the notions of self, cause, and external objects are likewise
incomprehensible. He also tries to show that science (as represented by the work of Isaac Newton)
ultimately rests upon principles that are not rationally justified.

2) Hume is a naturalist. He shows how certain beliefs naturally arise through non-rational psychological
processes. So, Hume replaces rational justification with natural (psychological) explanation. Although
beliefs about the self, causation, and external objects cannot be rationally justified, they can be
psychologically explained. His point is that, given our psychology and the nature of our experience, we
must believe certain things. For example, we must believe that an external world exists. Since we
must believe these things, it is pointless to ask whether these beliefs are justified. Rather, we should
focus on trying to explain why we must believe these things.

Ultimately, Hume lays out a whole new course for philosophy. (More on this below.)

Humes Two Formulations of the Empiricist Principle (Section II)

Formulation One: Genetic Empiricism

This is a thesis about the origin (genesis) of our ideas. It answers the question, where do our ideas come
from?

In short, all the materials of thinking are derived either from outward or inward sentiment. The mixture
and composition of these belongs alone to the mind and will. Or, to express myself in philosophical
language, all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones. (p.
539)
Every idea is either:

i) derived from a corresponding experience, or

ii) composed of simpler ideas, each of which is derived from a corresponding experience.

For example, I have the idea of the desk in the front of our classroom. What is the source of that idea?
That idea is derived from my desk-experience (seeing and feeling that desk). I also have the idea of a
unicorn. I have never experienced (seen or touched) a unicorn; so, what is the source of that idea? The
idea of a unicorn is composed of two simpler ideasthe idea of a horse and the idea of a hornand I
have experienced a horse and a horn. So, just like my idea of the table is rooted in experience, my idea of a
unicorn is also rooted in experience.

Formulation Two: Meaning Empiricism

This is a thesis about the meaning of our language. It answers the question, what do terms (words) mean?

"When we entertain, therefore, any suspicion that a philosophical term is employed without any meaning
or idea (as is but too frequent) we need but inquire from what impression is that supposed idea derived?"
(p. 540-41)

Every meaningful term can be defined either:

i) ostensively, i.e., exemplified by an experience, or

ii) in other terms that can themselves be defined ostensively.

Suppose someone asks me, What does the word desk mean? I can point to the desk in the front of our
classroom and say, That is what the word desk refers to. Now suppose that someone asks me, What
does the word unicorn mean? Since unicorns dont exist, I cannot point to one and say Thats what it
means. But what I can do is point to a horse and a horn and say Unicorn refers to that (point to horse)
plus this (point to horn).

Humes point is that words are ultimately defined in terms of experiences. If a word cannot be defined in
terms of some experiences(s), then that word is literally meaninglessit is simply jargon, as Hume puts
it.

Humes Application of his Empiricist Principle to the Notion of Mind or Self (Mental Substance)

Many philosophers and ordinary people talk about the mind or self. There is a whole sub-field in
philosophy known as the philosophy of mind. The basic question is, what is mind and how does it relate to
body?

Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley all believed that minds (mental substances) exist. According to these three
philosophers, the mind is a mental substance that contains or houses our ideasthe mind is sort of
like a bucket that contains our ideas.

Hume asks, do we really understand what this means? According to Humes Meaning Empiricism, the
word mind must be definable in terms of some experience(s); otherwise, the word mind is
meaningless. But, Hume argues (see footnote on p. 531-32), there is no such mind-experience. Since
minds are supposed to be immaterial (non-physical), we cannot experience a mind with our senseswe
cannot see, feel, hear, taste, or smell (yuck!) a mind. And when we introspect (look inwards), we are
simply aware of our ideas, not of some container or house of these ideas. (Consider Descartes Cogito
ArgumentI think; therefore, I am. Descartes argument implies that when he looks inward, he is aware
of two distinct things: 1) his thoughts, and 2) his mind (I). Now, Hume says to Descartes, When I look
inward, I am certainly aware of thoughts, but I am not aware of this mind (I) that youre talking about.)

Given Humes Meaning Empiricism, since the word mind cannot be defined in terms of any experience,
the word mind is literally meaninglessit is mere jargon (gibberish). Remember that Berkeley argued
that the notion of material substance (matter) is unintelligible. Hume completely agrees with
Berkeleys analysis on this point. But Berkeley still believed that there are mental substances (minds).
Hume thinks mind is just as unintelligible as matter.

Humes Bundle Theory of Mind (Self)

Recall that on Berkeleys analysis, an ordinary objecthe used the example of a cherryis simply a
bundle or collection of ideas that exist in some mind. According to Hume, the mind or self is simply a
bundle or collection of ideas (thoughts).

Pseudo-Problems

Hume believes that many philosophers (particularly rationalists, but often empiricists, too) are engaged in
groundless speculation. They are using jargon or gibberish. They use terms, like mind, that literally
have no meaning. Hence, the philosophical questions associated with these termslike What is mind and
how does it relate to body?are pseudo-problems. That is, they are not real problems at all. Because
these pseudo-problems are literally gibberish; we will never be able to solve them (since there is no
problem, there is not solution). So, Hume is able to explain why philosophers have not made much
progress in their debates over thousands of yearsthey have not made progress because they are trying
to solve pseudo-problems.

A New Direction for Philosophy

Hume believes that empiricism entails that philosophers should move in a totally new direction. For
example: He believes he has shown that our belief in the mind (a mental substance that contains or
houses our ideas) is not rationally justified, since the very idea of the mind is nonsense. So, philosophers
should stop speculating about the mind. The interesting question, Hume thinks, is this: Why do we believe
so strongly that we do have minds, given that this belief is not rationally justified? Hume is encouraging
philosophers to look for a natural (psychological) explanation for our belief in the mind. In short,
philosophers should stop doing philosophy as it has traditionally been done and should start doing
psychology. Philosophers should ask: what is it about our psychology and the nature of our experience
that leads us to think that we have minds? Hume himself does not offer a well-developed answer to this
question. He does engage in some speculation. He suggests, for example, that our ability to recall past
experiences (our memories) leads us to believe that our thoughts must be stored in a container.