
Why David Hume Is Popular Now - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/blog/why-david-hume-is-so-hot-right-now
======
chiaro
Reposting this terrific (long) article:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-
davi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-
helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/)

Hume, along with the Ancient Roman Stoics and some Taoism, have a good deal in
common (and complement each other where answers may be lacking). They are very
rewarding, read together.

------
keane
I very much agree with the evaluation that philosopher/biographer James Harris
concludes with here: it is easy and extremely common to misunderstand Hume as
a Moral Anti-realist or as a Moral Subjectivist.

Reading David Hume's arguments concerning our ability to locate the source of
morals convinced me of Moral Realism and Moral Objectivity and is what ended
all of my opposition to Christianity. I explain Hume's perspective here:
[http://liamk.org/is-love-real/](http://liamk.org/is-love-real/)

~~~
0134340
Religion just like everything else is a tool for survival, nothing more. Many
religions revolve around disciplinary structures; if you don't do what is
"right", it's typically viewed as not optimal for survival in this world or
what they may view as an afterworld. You seem to put these emotive features of
love, beauty and whatever tickles your fancy as above all when there'd be none
of those observed without the survival of an observer; the Machiavellian means
of survival does have moral validity whether you see it or not.

You generalize atheists and atheism so much as to dilute your target, a common
and cheap practice in debate. Atheism is already diluted enough because it's a
non-belief, nothing else, so there's little target for generalization there
even though you love to employ it in a desperate attempt to find something to
latch on to and debate. And the atheists I know, most are relative moralists.
That doesn't mean they don't think humanity doesn't have a moral compass, in
general, but they tend to mean that there's no facts to demonstrate moral
code, as you just said in your link. There's so much wrong with your arguments
there, I don't know where to start.

~~~
keane
Can you refute the Is-Ought problem or not?

~~~
0134340
Let me put it in simple terms, moral code tends to be derived from a variable
mix of reason and emotion for us. Because pain tends to make us withdraw from
the situation that entices it, we conclude that pain is not something we want,
ie, "bad". No one knows ultimately why we receive negative/positive stimuli
for certain situations but the best we can conclude, morality can be derived
from reason and emotion. If you're assuming morality isn't tied to either and
rather derived from the illogical, mystical, magical, whatever it is you're
implying, then it would be a fool's errand because you can't use logic to
debate illogic. But anyone can claim their moral code or gods are beyond logic
but in this world, to be of value, you need it backed by something more
substantive. Basing your life on that which is beyond logic is a dangerous
game and I'd conclude not morally optimal.

I'd recommend you looking at life more in a thermodynamic fashion. It's
simple, elegant and you have no magical and mystical unproven qualities that
need reconciliation. From thermodynamics, you can learn theorize better to why
life behaves as it does and helps take the mystery out of a lot of it. I'd
argue morality is a thermodynamic function, even. Morality being derived from
pain/pleasure senses, which derive from chemical processes, etc but of course,
no one ultimately knows. But to me, saying "definitions of right and wrong are
not based on the relations of objects nor can be perceived by reason" is
false. Many people who convert to a religion do so because that religion may
make some sort of sense to them. That's one of the reasons I became a
christian early on, because it made some sort of logical sense. Not much but
just enough to lure me in. You can use that tactic with people for all kinds
of uses, to tell just enough truth to get them to believe you and if they like
it enough, you can get away with falsehoods. Many use reason to justify their
statements about how their gods or moral codes don't have to abide by reason,
ironically.

[https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-
theory...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-
life/)

~~~
keane
>> _moral code tends to be derived from…_

No one is foolish enough to deny that various societies develop moral codes,
generally based on their experiences (eg, pain). The question is whether moral
statements (eg, "Humans should not murder") are objective and Real (they refer
to some objective Moral Fact) or whether this was just a delusion we invented
and used to survive.

>> _but the best we can conclude, morality can be derived from reason and
emotion_

No. This is the entire Is-Ought argument. Saying "Hume is wrong" does not
refute Hume. You would need to give a reason.

>> _looking at life more in a thermodynamic fashion_

Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period.

>> _But to me, saying…is false._

As expected, that's not a refutation.

>> _That 's one of the reasons I became a christian early on_

In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than
dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of
logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept
further.

~~~
0134340
You capitalize "truth" in other comments and say we should seek it yet you
don't realize this endeavor is also prone to the is-ought problem. Because man
seeks truth, does that mean he should morally seek it? The principle you
adhere to destroys itself with even the faintest intellectual rigor. The more
you try to make logic of illogic, religion, the more it waters down your
version of truth. It happened to me also. What I then believed as a Christian
became so watered down that it was far and away anything resembling
Christianity.

>>Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period.

Yes, it can. Whatever the material is derived from, it's chained to a more
objective link. So yes, you can use relative morality to argue that it, in
itself, has objectivity. For example, someone higher in rank says Saturday is
a day off yet he gives the order to his inferior that he can then order that
Saturday can be either. You have relative order coming from objective order.

>>In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than
dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of
logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept
further.

Ah, the old 'because you don't believe, you haven't been spending enough
decades of your life exploring the religion I want you to believe in'.
Meanwhile, hundreds of other religious people want me to explore their
hundreds of gods and hundreds of interpretations through hundreds of years of
philosophical wankery. I just could as well say you haven't explored atheism
enough and that's why you haven't arrived to it.

~~~
keane
> _You capitalize "truth" in other comments and say we should seek it yet you
> don't realize this endeavor is also prone to the is-ought problem. Because
> man seeks truth, does that mean he should morally seek it?_

You're right that if the reasoning given for seeking, knowing, or relying on
truth was "because man seeks truth" this would be an invalid reason, subject
to the Is-Ought problem. But that's not the reason I encourage you to know
truth.

> _The more you try to make logic of illogic…_

As far as Christianity, there seems to be sort of a divide between a Western
tradition that intended to show Christianity as ultimately reasonable (ie,
scholasticism in the Church of Rome, the Church of England, many Protestant
denominations) and groups that sort of just admit the system is fundamentally
unreasonable and mystical such as the Orthodox, Roman mystics like John of
Ruusbroec, Baptists, and Pentecostals. I sort of side with the latter.

> _Yes, it can.…_

It metaethics, an individual human's decree/decision is subjective. Maybe
start by looking at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism)

> _I just could as well say you haven 't explored atheism enough and that's
> why you haven't arrived to it._

"I used to be a nihilist but then I thought, what's the point?"

------
ewjordan
"...the existence of the self, a subject that’s still scientifically
unsettled."

Shit like this, philosophers, is why scientists don't (and can't, and
shouldn't) engage. The words to use are "scientifically undefined", not
"scientifically unsettled" \- you can't just argue over definitions for
centuries and then blame science for that fact that none of you can agree on
what you're talking about, if anything.

You enter the realm of science when you have a testable hypothesis, not just
some vague idea that reeks of dualism that you can't conceive of not being a
"real thing", like consciousness or self.

~~~
pboutros
I would attribute the (mis)use of that word a little bit more to the author of
the article, and a little bit less to 'centuries of philosophers' \- many of
whom were scientists.

~~~
smt88
To add on to that: science is based on philosophy, and philosophy also tells
us where the limits of science are (see: Problem of Induction).

By using the scientific method, scientists are taking a strong philosophical
stance (and certainly not a universal one) whether they like it or not.

------
godembodied
What is disturbing about this is that Hume or any other philosopher is popular
because people today agree with him. There were other philosophers who lived
during Hume's lifetime, but they are not popular. Why? Because people today
don't agree with them. So, what is popular from the past are things or
philosophers that have similar views of people today.

Basically, we like Hume, because he confirms what we already believe.

If Christianity was very dominant, then Hume would not be as popular.

What this shows you is that idols are not chosen by looking whether they have
anything insightful or true to say, but how well they conform to current
dogmas.

