
Is reason the slave of the passions? - hhs
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/is-reason-the-slave-of-the-passions-philosophy-hume
======
whatshisface
> _But if we are sensible, the pursuit of human happiness, personal and
> collective, remains the goal of most of what we do. Such a basically
> utilitarian ideology requires around it a structure of reasoning, not
> passion, selfish or unselfish._

David Hume's point was that reason alone could not justify the pursuit of
human happiness or anything else, because it only lets you go from one
statement to another, which means you have to start with something like "I
want to be happy" in order to conclude "I want to buy some ice cream." The
contributor writing the dissenting opinion didn't say anything that Hume
wouldn't have agreed with, because they slipped in Hume's passions with the
word "sensible." I think they are debating a non-issue that they don't really
disagree about. Although Hume's point was novel when he wrote it (believe it
or not there were contemporaneous philosophers who did not realize that you
couldn't derive axioms), there is really nobody who thinks anything else
today.

~~~
heraclius
Very few serious philosophers would disagree with Hume. However, I suspect
that many non-philisophers are happy to appeal to reason as a source of
normative beliefs, thus “facts don’t care about your feelings” (well
quite—they are incapable of caring), complaints about the irrationality of
populists, &c.

~~~
yters
Very few modern philosophers, perhaps. Starting at least with Plato, it was
entirely the opposite, that the individual whose passions are completely
controlled by reason is ultimately happy. The individual controlled completely
by his passions is the most unhappy. This is because Plato believed supreme
happiness was found in perceiving the good itself using reason.

Nominalists, such as Hume, don't believe there is such a thing as 'good
itself', and believe all mental abstractions are merely labelings of physical
things. Thus, mental abstractions cannot be the goal of our desire. Only
physical things can be the goal of our desire, and we must necessarily be
ruled by our passions. Note, this was not an innovation on Hume's side. A
number of philosophers before and during Plato's time proposed similar ideas,
such as Epicurus. So, we cannot say Hume came up with a brilliant idea no one
had ever considered before. However, for whatever reason, most of the
philosophers of the Western canon sided with Plato rather than with Hume.
Perhaps because Plato was closer to the truth than Hume.

~~~
woodruffw
> Nominalists, such as Hume, don't believe there is such a thing as 'good
> itself', and believe all mental abstractions are merely labelings of
> physical things. Thus, mental abstractions cannot be the goal of our desire.
> Only physical things can be the goal of our desire, and we must necessarily
> be ruled by our passions.

I don't think this chain of reasoning is consistent with Hume's.

Hume is an empiricist, not a nominalist: he doesn't deny the existence of
abstract categories, only their a priori intelligibility. He also makes direct
reference to non-physical, desirable things (it's been a while, but I'm pretty
sure approbation and praise are his chief examples). We're ruled by our
passions not because our ends are always physical, but because (according to
Hume) (1) reason alone cannot lead us to action and (2) we clearly _are_ lead
to action all the time. Therefore, something else must be driving us.

~~~
yters
In that case he seems to not believe in free will. Free will is necessary to
choose abstract concepts for their own sake, since as he notes only physical
passions can drive us to take involuntary action.

At any rate, it seems to be all part of the same package, at least to me.

As a side point, I've noticed that pretty much all these cutting edge, modern
ideas that we believe have overthrown the ideas of the past were all around at
the same time as Plato. In fact, a number of dialogues deal with debating
concepts such as relativism, scientism, Nietszche's will to power, Kant's idea
that we are trapped by mental constructs, etc. Intelligent design was even a
big thing, and apparently was what started Socrate's on his philosophic quest.

Reading through modern philosophy strikes me as pretty mundane, and it seems
as if these modern philosophers were really myopic and either never read
classic philosophy (most probably did) or just picked out the pieces they
liked and ignored the counter arguments. Then they get paraded around as if
they are brilliant innovators to an audience that doesn't know any better.

~~~
woodruffw
> In that case he seems to not believe in free will. Free will is necessary to
> choose abstract concepts for their own sake, since as he notes only physical
> passions can drive us to take involuntary action.

Hume argues explicitly for free will via compatibilism. The SEP has an
excellent summary of the argument[1], but in sum: what matters for moral
responsibility is hypothetical liberty. Our ability to will (undisputed by
Hume) grants us HL.

The interplay being passions (physically ended or otherwise) and
voluntary/involuntary action in Hume's account is complex and can't be
accurately reduced to a deflation of free will.

> As a side point, I've noticed that pretty much all these cutting edge,
> modern ideas that we believe have overthrown the ideas of the past were all
> around at the same time as Plato. In fact, a number of dialogues deal with
> debating concepts such as relativism, scientism, Nietszche's will to power,
> Kant's idea that we are trapped by mental constructs, etc. Intelligent
> design was even a big thing, and apparently was what started Socrate's on
> his philosophic quest.

I think this is a misapprehension of Modern (i.e., 17th to 19th century)
philosophy. Modern philosophy is _explicitly_ a rediscovery and re-evaluation
of Classicial philosophy, having been largely lost to (or dogmatized within)
the Western world. Overarching ideas follow suit; Hume, Kant, et al. make
explicit reference to their forebears. And that's not to say that Modern
philosophy lacks in innovation: there is no appreciable equivalent to Kantian
duty, Millian global happiness, Cartesian skepticism, &c in Classical
philosophy. Modern political theory doesn't exist without natural law, &c.

FWIW, I don't think that "scientism" is an intelligible subject within modern
philosophy: it's only within contemporary philosophy that we've really begun
to develop a formal account of what science actually is. Hume, Kant, and
contemporaries don't have a rigorous concept of science discrete from the
general practice of philosophy in the natural domain.

Similarly for Socrates and intelligent design: I'm guessing you're referring
to his teleological claims. But keep in mind the historical context: the Greek
religion was explicitly concerned with dividing the natural world into the
domains of anthropomorphic gods, and Hesiod's Theogony was already 200+ years
old by Socrates' time. Given this and his reference to pre-Socratic thought on
teleology, it's unlikely that he had anything resembling contemporary
creationism in mind.

> Reading through modern philosophy strikes me as pretty mundane, and it seems
> as if these modern philosophers were really myopic and either never read
> classic philosophy (most probably did) or just picked out the pieces they
> liked and ignored the counter arguments. Then they get paraded around as if
> they are brilliant innovators to an audience that doesn't know any better.

What audience? I was educated in philosophy, and I certainly wasn't taught (or
primed) to treat Modern philosophers as brilliant innovators _in contrast_ to
Classical philosophers. On the contrary: _both_ groups were held in extremely
high regard, and Classical philosophy remains central to contemporary ethics
(see Anscombe, Arpaly, and other revitalizers of virtue). Formal logic is
introduced with Aristotle. Ontology is introduced with Plato.

In any case, it's important to _not_ interpret the different eras of
philosophy as existentially clashing with or ignoring the others. The history
and development of philosophy is a unified one.

[1]: [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-
freewill/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/)

~~~
yters
Compatibilism is not libertarian free will, which is what most people mean by
"free will".

I've seen quite similar concepts to the ones you mention re: Kant, Mill,
Descartes, etc in different Platonic dialogues. So, they are maybe micro
innovative, but not in a big picture sense.

By "intelligent design" I mean Socrates began his quest looking for a
philosopher that could explain the world in terms of 'why' orchestrated by an
overarching mind, instead of 'how'. From Phaedo,

"One day I heard someone reading, as he said, from a book of Anaxagoras, and
saying that it is Mind that directs and is the cause of everything. I was
delighted with this cause and it seemed to me good, in a way, that Mind should
be the cause of all. I thought that if this were so, the directing Mind would
direct everything and arrange each thing in the way that was best."

Socrates goes on to find out Anaxagoras is blowing smoke, and in general is
displeased with the scientism of his day, where everyone explains the world in
terms of 'how' instead of 'why'. So, he then goes about questioning all the
contemporary philosophers to see if any are able to articulate the kind of
explanation he's looking for, and for the most part (except for Diotima) they
are unable to give a satisfactory explanation.

~~~
n4r9
> Compatibilism is not libertarian free will, which is what most people mean
> by "free will".

I think you've said something similar before, but it's a dubious claim.
Philosophers spend their lives figuring out what we "really mean" when we use
certain terms, and most of them are inclined towards a compatibilist
interpretation.

Going back to when you brought up free will (I'm still not sure why you did!),
instead of saying

> In that case he seems to not believe in free will

for clarity, you should have said

> In that case he seems to not believe in libertarian free will

But this is a given. Determinists generally do not believe in libertarian free
will.

~~~
yters
Libertarian free will goes hand in hand with being able to choose abstract
ideals over physical passions. I bring it up because it explains why Hume
diverges from classical thought on the proper role of reason and passion.

~~~
n4r9
I think I understand that. Hume didn't (to my mind) advocate that passions are
physical, but he did claim that they are at the root of all choices and
actions.

Going back to something you said previously, could you point m in the
direction of where Epicurus has written similar ideas to Hume's?

~~~
yters
Here is a similar point to Hume's, that the mind's function is not to seek
abstract ideals, but to optimize for pleasure. This sounds, to me, the same as
saying humans are ultimately guided by passions, not by reason.

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/)
"The function of the human mind — that part of the soul that is located in our
chest — is not to seek higher things, but to maximize pleasure and minimize
pain. That is its entire objective; the risk (a substantial one) is that it
may miscalculate, since it is subject to false beliefs and errors in cognitive
processes."

~~~
n4r9
Thank you. It's fascinating that people used to consider the chest as a seat
of higher thought. I guess even now we strongly associate it with emotions.

Based on that article I would say Hume's overall body of work is by a wide
margin more contemporary than Epicurus' if not more subtle and sophisticated.
The passions-slave-reason quotation is really only a tiny part of his writing.
For example, Hume provides an intricate and judicious account of epistemology
in which causality is reduced to a kind of anthropic pattern-recognition. This
reconciles his account of psychology with the enlightenment understanding of
the scientific method, which did not exist at the time of Epicurus.

------
HNLurker2
This reminds me of schopenhauer will as a representation. Very pessimistic
saying that the will to live is primal and intelligence secondary to fulfill
the first. I am surprised you talked about Kant and Hume but never mention
Schopenhauer (lack of expertise by author?)

------
atulatul
This point was also deliberated in "The Righteous Mind". May be worth a read.

Plus, I like the observation from Maugham's Of Human Bondage: The submission
to passion is human bondage, but the exercise of reason is human liberty.

[https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-
Relig...](https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-
Religion/dp/B008OEMNNQ)

[https://www.amazon.com/Of-Human-
Bondage/dp/B004N59WMK/](https://www.amazon.com/Of-Human-
Bondage/dp/B004N59WMK/)

------
mbrock
It sort of seems like philosophers tend to fetishize either reason or emotion
or both, and maybe underestimate some more basic aspects related to attention
and caring. I think Heidegger had some critiques like this. When I go about my
normal life I am typically not driven by tendencies that are clearly rational
or emotional but more kind of a mundane absorption with motivational roots in
past decisions and events. I am also absorbed in various structures that shape
the "grammar" of my behavior, exemplified by language and society. My capacity
for "reason" goes up and down depending on my mental health, my attention
span, my general clarity of presence; the same is true for "emotion." And
philosophical reason is quite different from everyday planning and executive
function. You could argue that dopaminergic activity in the prefrontal cortex
is a "passion" while it is also the substrate of the ability to be reasonable.
I don't have a clear point here but something seems sort of silly and old-
fashioned about this debate.

~~~
rdiddly
It's old-fashioned because it's from Plato. It would probably help a lot to
unlearn that.

------
GnarfGnarf
The human race perpetuates because of the insanity induced by hormones.

~~~
el_dev_hell
Seems to work pretty well for an insane/chaotic system.

------
devoply
When your main mode of political reasoning is reasoning about myths that you
compartmentalize... It's obvious that in terms of politics there is no reason,
it's simply what you or your society want to believe to justify what you want
to do... and what you want to do is what you desire. And what you desire is a
function of your passions.

------
kd5bjo

      I will do what I will do
      And what I do shows me
      what I want to do.
    
      I am but an adviser to myself,
      Trusted but reluctantly.

