Locke and Hume
Philosophers tend to be of those rare breed of individuals who have their unique outlook on life and on the world in general. When looking at the philosophers who lived around the end of the Renaissance period, common themes of mortality, human nature, and the divine all tend to get blurred into overarching ideologies about the world and the nature of humanity in general. While not all philosophers focus on the same idea of humanity and the human condition, John Locke and David Hume both took particular interest in the ways that humans view themselves, the world around them, and the subject of identity of self in contrast to the universe. Through analysis of John Locke’s perspectives as shown in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
…show more content…
Like John Locke, Hume believed that at birth people were a blank slate in terms of mental perception but his perspective was that humans do have one advantage: reason. Hume believed that everyone has the ability to reason with the natural order of the world and that it is this ability that separates us from other animals. However, Hume argues “against the rationalists that, although reason is needed to discover the facts of any concrete situation and the general social impact of a trait of character or a practice over time, reason alone is insufficient to yield a judgment that something is virtuous or vicious” (Hume’s Moral Philosophy). It is this distinction that separates him from some of his compatriots in terms of what he considers to be the drive of the whole of …show more content…
For each individual, the idea is that there is a strict division in the relation of knowledge and reason. This means that while we might learn a new fact, it is not necessary for the individual to take that into the part of their everyday decision making but, instead, that they must always weigh facts. Hume believed that people act on “passions” and reason is the only protection from acting out without provocation. “The direct passions, which include desire, aversion, hope, fear, grief, and joy, are those that “arise immediately from good or evil, from pain or pleasure” that we experience or think about in prospect” (Hume’s Moral Philosophy). Similarly, David Hume argued that while some will utilize previous experiences to determine how they interact with the world around them, this is not an absolute truth because of the fact that they do not necessarily believe strongly one way or another. Overall, the idea Hume proposes is that by focusing on a specific piece of knowledge and then using a rational approach to determine a course of action can be problematic but that it helps create the sense of identity through action. The idea that he puts forth is that we are the sum of our ability to reason and the knowledge that we have accumulated to help us determine what is the best course of action when our passions dictate
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.
David Hume sought out to express his opinion in which sentiment is seen as the grounding basis for morality. This sentiment is acting as the causal reasoning for why we have morality or act in a moral way. David Hume, as well as Kant, believe that causal necessity governs humans lives and actions. In this essay, I will show how Hume, provides an argument in favor of sentiment being the foundation of our morality, rather than his predecessors who favored reason. To do this, I will begin to outline Hume’s theories, highlighting his main ideas for grounding morality on sentiment and bring up some possible counterarguments one of which being Immanuel Kant's theories and how that might potentially weaken his argument and how the roots of morality
John Locke, Rousseau, and Napoleon all have very different views on what would make a good society. Locke uses a democracy/republican type view that many countries still model after today. Locke’s view on a happy society is the most open and kind to its people, out of the three. Rousseau takes the complete opposite stance from Locke in thinking a more dictatorship government would be what is best for society as a whole as what is good for one person is good for one’s society. Napoleon plays by his own rules with telling people he will follow Lockean like views only to really want to be an absolutist government under his own power. However, all of their ideas would work for a given society so long as they had a set of laws in place and citizens
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
The turmoil of the 1600's and the desire for more fair forms of government combined to set the stage for new ideas about sovereignty. Locke wrote many influential political pieces, such as The Second Treatise of Government, which included the proposal for a legislative branch of government that would be selected by the people. Rousseau supported a direct form of democracy in which the people control the sovereignty. (how would the people control the sovereignty??) Sovereignty is the supremacy or authority of rule. Locke and Rousseau both bring up valid points about how a government should be divided and how sovereignty should be addressed.
Hume distinguishes two categories into which “all the objects of human reason or enquiry” may be placed into: Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact (15). In regards to matters of fact, cause and effect seems to be the main principle involved. It is clear that when we have a fact, it must have been inferred...
Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.
Hume draws this distinction in recognizing further our own subjective and objective world. In this, through our own personal experience we associate certain facts with moral judgments and values. For example, there may be the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, we place a judgment whether we dislike or like the sun rising tomorrow. Hume has merely recognized the distinction between the fact (sun) and values (likes/dislikes) of the sun. Hume’s link between facts and values was a push to further understand moral philosophy and our understanding of it.
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
... Hume proposes attributes a sense of moral responsibility lost in Hume’s interpretation for the doctrine of liberty and necessities, for humans are responsible only for their choices.
“Relations of ideas are indestructible bonds created between ideas and all logically true statements and matters of fact are concerned with experience and we are certain of matters of fact through cause and effect“(Hume Section IV). This proves that the both the mind and body are one because of the cause and effect. He believes that there are connections between all ideas in the mind, and that there are three different kinds. The first is resemblance that describes looking at a picture then thinking of what it represents in the picture. Then there is contiguity looking at something then thinking of about something different. Then there is the cause and effect of something happening to you and then to imagine the pain of the wound. Once again beginning able to look at something and then create an idea from it only proves that without senses we couldn’t just come up with an idea out of the blue.
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.
Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection” (87). In conclusion, I believe that Hume thinks that reason, while not completely useless, is not the driving force of moral motivation. Reasons are a means to sentiments, which in turn are a means to morality, but without reasons there can still be sentiments. There can still be beauty. Reasons can not lie as the foundation of morality, because they can only be true or false.
During the enlightenment era, rebellious scholars called philosophers brought new ideas on how to understand and envision the world from different views. Although, each philosopher had their own minds and ideas, they all wanted to improve society in their own unique ways. Two famous influential philosophers are Francis Bacon and John Locke. Locke who is an empiricism, he emphasizes on natural observations. Descartes being a rationalist focus more on innate reasons. However, when analyze the distinguished difference between both Locke and Descartes, it can be views towards the innate idea concepts, the logic proof god’s existence, and the inductive/deductive methods. This can be best demonstrate using the essays, “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”
Descartes believes that the mind and body are separate of one another causing the problem to form in the transmission of information between the mind and the body. Hume does not conquer this task of mind and body one or separate. He is more concerned with the idea of self and how one is maintained over a period of time. He believes there is no such thing as self. That each moment we are a new being due to the fact that we are forever changing and nothing remains constant within ourselves. Yes, our DNA may be the same but that is not