HOME TOP COURSES MINDFULNESS Follow

Zat Rana
Playing at the intersection of science,
art, and philosophy. Trying to be less…
Sep 26 · 6 min read

Source

David Hume: Why You’re

Probably Wrong About
Everything You Know
. . .
If you judged David Hume the man by his
philosophy, you may judge him as disagree-
able.

He was a Scottish philosopher who epito-

mized what it means to be skeptical — to
doubt both authority and the self, to high-
light Baws in the arguments of both others
and your own.

By all measures, however, in spite of his

Derce attacks on all forms of dogma and
certainty, it appears that in his personal
life, he was a kind and thoughtful and ad-
mirable character. If we follow the trail of
words from those who knew him, almost all
had wonderful things to say.

Hume managed to accomplish something

rare with his philosophy: Not only was it a
robust theoretical framework for making
partial sense of reality, but it helped him
live well, too.

It wasn’t necessarily that he didn’t face his

own challenges or that things were always
easy for him (he was actually chastised dur-
ing his time for his non-religious ideas), but
somehow, he was able to come out on the
other side as someone who could rise above
such things.

It’s relatively rare to Dnd historical Dgures

that show this kind of synergy in their intel-
lectual and their personal life, and it’s even
rarer for them to be as historically impor-
tant as Hume.

Some people argue that the philosophical

skepticism he applied was of the extreme
kind, but if we take a closer look, it’s pretty
clear that Hume knew when to balance it
with practicality.

His story shows how we may learn to do the

same by accepting doubt (by acknowledg-
ing our own ignorance) and living well in
spite of that fact.

See The Limits of Reason

and Logic
Ever since the days of the ancient Greek
philosophers, in one way or another, many
subsequent thinkers have fallen into two
camps of thought: rationalist and empiri-
cist.

This distinction has been more apparent

since Rene Descartes helped revive modern
philosophy, but the conBict has always ex-
isted at the core of our inquiry. In simple
terms, it’s an argument about whether
knowledge is gained through reason or
sense experience.

While there are compelling cases for one,

the other, and even both simultaneously,
Hume, who was an empiricist, was the Drst
to show the Baws in a purely rationalist
model.

He understood our mental perception of

the world as created by two things: ideas
(thoughts) and impressions (sensations
and feelings). But he made the argument
that the ideas could only ever be derived
from our impressions, and thus they
weren’t ever independent at all.

Beyond that, various mental facilities trans-

late our impressions into ideas, and quite
often, this is done in a way that leads us to
contradictions and logical fallacies. Even
the principle of cause and eQect (the
bedrock of reason), he argued, could be
doubted by mere argument.

We don’t ever observe or deduce something

causing an eQect, but rather, we fall into
habits of thought that are reinforced into us
because they anticipate a probabilistic con-
nection.

While Hume understood that in practice

the principle of cause and eQect was robust
enough to rely on, as even he did, his argu-
ment made it clear that reason and logic
aren’t everything.

In fact, taking it further, he showed how

even his own philosophy could be doubted,
and how impossible it was to derive any
sort of certainty about our conceptual
knowledge.

He still stood by his empiricism, but the

point was to illustrate how skepticism could
poke holes in anything, and how uncertain
we really are about pretty much every-
thing.

Live With Conceptual

Contradictions
If the hold of skepticism is so strong, the
obvious questions naturally arise: How ex-
actly are we supposed to live if we can’t be
sure of anything? What’s the point of all of
this inquiry?

The point is that skepticism helps us de-

stroy bad ideas so that we can make them a
little better. At the same time, however,
there comes a time when this kind of skep-
ticism has done its work, and this is when
we have gotten to the common-sense ideal
of good enough.

In his masterpiece An Enquiry Concerning

Human Understanding, Hume famously
made this exact point, saying:

“Be a philosopher; but, amidst all

your philosophy, be still a man.”

This has commonly been associated with an

early kind of pragmatism (a philosophy
birthed a century or so after Hume’s time)
that argues against the notion of seeking
absolute truths about reality and its con-
tents and just living in a way that works,
practically and meaningfully.

There is some merit to this interpretation,

of course, but it’s important to note that
Hume still valued the conceptual and the
philosophical. He just knew when and
where to draw the line.

By using abstract reasoning that isn’t de-

tached from reality and by respecting cer-
tain facts, we can make distinctions
between right and wrong, and we can live
in alliance with them.

But at the end of the day, we all have to

deal with a world in front of us that de-
mands a kind of attention that transcends
the concepts and ideas that we spend our
time thinking about.

Philosophy may give us insight into how

best to think, and even some exposure to
what kind of life is preferred, but the day-
to-day business of living goes beyond mere
philosophy.

Unforgiving skepticism is self-defeating. A

balanced version of it, however, does have a
place. It reminds us to exercise both cau-
tion and modesty so that we can actually
improve.

Make Judgments as a
Spectator
The one domain of philosophy where the
conceptual is valuable and that consistently
contributes to how we live is the domain of
ethics: the study of right and wrong con-
duct.

Naturally, Hume had a lot to say about

ethics. While he was okay embracing an in-
nocent pragmatism in some parts of his life,
he did think that there was a moral way to
live.

His argument, again, began from the per-

spective of an empiricist. He saw reason as
being bound by the inputs of sensations
and feelings, which meant he denied that
rationality could ever on its own motivate
us to act in a way that can be considered
truly moral.

The root of our morality, according to

Hume, is our moral sentiments: We have
innately programmed feelings that tell us
when we are acting in a way that is virtuous
or vicious.

We have an urge to balance our own self-

interest with the interest of the group we
identify with. And because we care about
our group, we can feel sympathy, and thus
act morally.

Given that we live in a world in which we

interact with more than just our intimate
group of friends and family, the test for a
moral action is relative to a common point
of view.

For example, if you are interacting with an-

other person and there is an unbiased spec-
tator there to witness it, then your actions
can be judged to be either virtuous or vi-
cious based on how this sympathetic spec-
tator feels about what has taken place
between the two people.

Hume essentially makes the case that this

common, unbiased spectator exists within
us, too, and that’s why purely selDsh behav-
ior, even with a stranger, isn’t in our own
self-interest.

If we weren’t self-interested, our ability to

survive would suQer. But at the same time,
if we are too self-interested, we ignore the
fact that we can’t survive without other
people, either.

All You Need to Know

It’s often said that philosophy teaches you
how to think. But what it doesn’t always
teach you is how to live. And in practice,
they are two very diQerent things with two
very diQerent goals.

Even today, David Hume is the thinker that

most living philosophers feel they best
identify with. He practiced skepticism, but
he also wasn’t afraid to stop it from getting
in his way.

To doubt is to be human. We learn when we

accept uncertainty, and we grow when we
self-correct. Skepticism is a state of mind
that allows the right kind of doubt to Bour-
ish.

It’s easy to see the world as you want to see

it. But it takes boldness to try and see it as it
is.

. . .

The internet is noisy

I write at Design Luck. It’s a free high-
quality newsletter with unique insights
that will help you live a good life. It’s well-
researched and easy-going.

Join 50,000+ readers for exclusive

access.

Philosophy Life Culture Life Lessons

Self Improvement

9.7K 33

Zat Rana
Medium member since May 2017
Playing at the intersection of science,
art, and philosophy. Trying to be less
wrong. www.designluck.com.

Personal Growth Follow

Sharing our ideas and
experiences.

More from Personal Growth

Marcus Aurelius: How To Live Without
Fear

Harry J. Stead
9.8K
7 min read

More from Personal Growth

How to Make a Dent in the Universe

Zat Rana
9.4K
6 min read

More from Personal Growth

There Are Two Ways To Think — One
Doesn’t Work

Maarten van Doorn

3.7K
4 min read

Responses

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Senthil Kumaran Arivanantham

Sep 26

So it’s all about “Trying to

be less wrong”! ;)
76 1 response

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

James M. Ridgway, Jr.

Sep 26

Nice article, Zat. Hume seems to un-

derstand the need for a balanced ap-
proach to life. Emotion is a double
edged sword as is rationality. All this
is further clouded by our hardwired
base ego to win at all costs. The bot-
tom line I suppose is to avoid being
dead right, and that’s not easy.

68

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Daniel Kim
Sep 27

We have an urge to balance our

own self-interest with the interest
of the group we identify with.
And because we care about our
group, we can feel sympathy, and
thus act morally.

do we really care about the group, or

ourselves? perhaps the beneDts of be-
longing to the group lead us to “care”

17 1 response

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Jacob T. Murphy
Sep 26

But at the end of the day, we all

have to deal with a world in front
of us that demands a kind of
attention that transcends the
concepts and ideas that we spend
our time thinking about.

This is a very true statement! One

that many of us, myself included, can
often forget at times in our analysis of
day-to-day life.

Thanks for the reminder!

14

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Ted Jones
Sep 26 · 1 min read

The other good thing about Hume is

that he wasn’t wedded to a dogma. If
you’re trying to argue against skepti-
cism (in the sense in which Hume was
a skeptic) then you have to build your
philosophy on a foundation you don’t
dare question. You have to race past
your unexamined premises (as
Descartes did) or bury everything in
language (the way Kant did).
Read more…

15

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Drew Murphy
Sep 26 · 1 min read

“While there are compelling cases for

one, the other, and even both simulta-
neously, Hume, who was an empiri-
cist, was the Drst to show the Baws in
a purely rationalist model.

He understood our mental perception

of the world as created by two things:
ideas (thoughts) and impressions
(sensations and feelings). But he
made the…
Read more…

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Michael Moan
Sep 27

If only more people viewed the impor-

tance of philosophy in this way! The
layperson might stop asking how you
can “use” philosophy and realize that
someone did very well.

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Rowland Clay Johnsto

Sep 27 · 1 min read

He saw reason as being bound by the

inputs of sensations and feelings, which
meant he denied that rationality could
ever on its own motivate us to act in a
way that can be considered truly moral.

Great article, Zat. It’s humbling to

spend time with Hume’s thoughts,
and the limits of reason set for mod-
ern Humanism its…
Read more…

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Bheemaray.K. Janagond
Sep 27

Skepticism shows the right path out

of reasonable doubt. Philosophy
guides us to think rightly. Scholarly
blog post.

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Eve Simoni
Sep 27

ohh the good old “reason is the slave

to the passions”. Even though I don’t
agree 100% with that statement, it is
much interesting to argue the excep-
tion to the rule (is it even slightly pos-
sible to change our minds based on
reasoning?) than to object the oppo-
site.

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Anita Jovic
Sep 26

Still my favourite author ☺ Thank

you Zat Rana.

21

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Graham Pemberton
Sep 26

Interesting. But it’s not clear that

Hume was all that good in noticing
the Baws in his own arguments, even
if he advocated it.

35

Applause from Zat Rana (author)

Andrea Koutifaris
Sep 27