Hume-origin of ideas

Hume argues that ideas differ from impressions only by being less lively, and that all ideas are copied from impressions. I believe that Hume argues a good point because we only think of things from previous knowledge. As humans, we make judgments based on what we already know. If we didn't, then we wouldn't judge or hold beliefs.

Hume-cause and effect

"our reason, unassisted by experience, can never draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact"

Hume thinks that it is not possible to know cause and effect a priori. To prove this, he uses the example of bread and how it nourishes our bodies. There is no connection between bread and the nourishment it provides for us. From looking at the bread, you cannot tell that if you eat it it will nourish your body, unless you already knew of it nourishing your body. I agree with Hume because if you think about it, you wouldn't know anything unless you gained that knowledge from experience.

Hume Imagination

Hume about talks about our visual imagination. When people talk about people we already know we usually can picture them right away in our mind because of our favorite memory with them. When we think of something spectacular, it takes us a little longer to make up the image in our head. We usually revert to TV or a magazine source we saw. When something is real, we can picture it faster than something that is fiction.

Hume Cause and Effect

I totally believe in HUmes cause and effect beliefs. Hume says that there is a effect for everything caused..If you hear a sound your mind cant help to respond. Even if you dont physically show it your body has mentally responded by not physically acting on the cause. It is pretty much instinct on how this works

Hume- Animals

Hume talks about in one section of his book that we are like animals and we pick up from them and we are exactly like the animals of today. I happen to agree, so what if we can operate a computer or an airplane or learn calculus. It just so happens we have some traits that make us no better than the animals we look down upon. We have taken enjoyment in watching violence and i think thats the same as the animals. I think if we didnt have the laws people would be killing people all the time. I think that Hume is on point when he compares us to the animals

Hume- Miracles

Hume says that he does not believe in miracles. He says that they are from experience and they arent really miracles at all. I happen to disagree. A few years ago my grandma was suppose to die at age 91 she got sick.....she then lived another 10years and died at age 101. I dont think that was from experience. I think Hume is full of it when it comes to this topic.

Hume- Math Sciences

Hume is trying to say when he thinks of mathematical sciences that he enjoys these kind of sciences because there is no telling you if your wrong or right.

"All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, relations of ideas, and matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of geometry, algebra, and arithmetic, and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of the two sides, is a proposition which expresses a relation between these figures. That three times five is equal to the half of thirty, expresses a relation between these numbers"

he is saying well this is the way it is.... 15 is half of 30 and no one can tell you any different. It is just the way of human understanding.

Mathematical Sciences and Truth - Hume

"The great advantage of the mathematical sciences above the moral consists in this, that the ideas of the former, being sensible, are always clear and determinate, the smallest distinction between them is immediately perceptible, and the same terms are still expressive of the same ideas, without ambiguity or variation. An oval is never mistaken for a circle, nor an hyperbola for an ellipsis."

This makes me think of Descartes and how he talked about the same thing.  Math has one answer and we know that is the truth.  In geometry an acute angle is always less then 90 degrees.  One day it will not suddenly change, it will always be that way.  Descartes and Hume's are very similar throughout the book.  They both need the full truth in order to believe it.  Math has steps in how they get the solution.  It shows the evidence and there is a way you can check your answer at the end.  Math is like what Hume was talking about with cause and effect.

Cause and Effect - Hume

We learn from experience when we do certain things the same thing will come right after it.  Hume calls it cause and effect.   If you don't have the cause then the effect does not exist.  We talked about this in class a little bit.  When you snap your fingers you get a sound.  But sometimes it doesn't make the same sound or a sound at all if you don't know how to do it.  I think this theory is right to extent but not all the time.  There is always a cause but there isn't always the same effect.  

Miracles- Hume

When reading the section about Hume's views on miracles it made me really think about it.  He talks about how we shouldn't believe in miracles because there is no proof to actually say they're miracles.  Miracles is learned from experience.  You hear people talking about miracles happening all the time.  For example, my grandpa was supposed to die and all the doctors even said there was no chance of him living.  He is now living a healthy life; he is perfectly fine.  Even though he was on his death bed.  Is that a miracle or is that nature?  Maybe that was just supposed to happen, he wasn't meant to die then.  No one can really believe a miracle happened by hearing it from someone else according to Hume.  How are we supposed to know if it is really true?

In the beginning of the passage in this section he brings up how we can assume that there would be better weather in June then December because we know this by experience.  But we can sometimes be wrong.  This goes back to being a part of nature not a miracle.

Animals- Hume

In the section "Of the Reason of Animals" Hume is comparing how we are alike animals and so are children and philosophers.  Usually when we observe animals we see them do a lot of things we can't explain.  We say that they do these things because of "instinct" or innateness.  From what I read Hume is saying we are like animals and we have sort of the same connection.  I really don't agree with this.  I think as humans we usually learn from others more then instinct and innateness.  Animals are just born with knowing what to do in certain situations.  I think we are very different then animals.

Visualizing - Hume

"I hear a present, for instance, a person's voice, with whom I am acquainted; and the sound comes as from the next room.  This impression of my senses immediately conveys my through to the person, together with all the surrounding objects.  I paint them out to myself as existing at present, with the same qualities and relations of which I formerly knew them possessed.  These ideas take faster hold on my mind, than ideas of an enchanted castle."- Hume

What I got out of this passage is Hume is talking about our visual imagination.  When people talk about people we already know we usually can picture them right away in our mind of either the last time we saw them or a favorite memory with them.  When we think of an enchanted castle like Hume said, it takes us a little longer to make up the image in our head.  We usually think of one from TV or a book we saw.  When something is real, we can picture it faster than something that is fiction.  

Hume- Billiard Balls

"If I see a billiard ball moving towards another, on a smooth table, I can easily conceive to stop upon contact." - Hume

"...we should endeavour to define the feeling of cold or passion of anger, to a creature who never had an experience of these sentiments." -Hume

Both of these passages seem to explain what I'm about to get at.  Of course we all have played pool before and know what usually happens when you hit the cue ball into another ball.  The cue ball usually stops once it hits the other ball. But looking at the second passage, what if a person who hasn't played or seen anyone else play think?  Would you think the ball would stop or keep going with the other ball?  Or does it matter what way you hit the ball or on what angle?

Same thing with the second passage, if we explained these type of feelings to someone would they how to distinguish the difference between the two of them if they experienced it?  Or the other week we talked about if someone who was born blind, only knew the feeling of a circular object but would they know it if they all of a sudden could see without feeling it?  I'm not sure if they could.  Eventually I think they would learn what it was but not right away.  The same goes for explaining the feelings.

Locke- Innate Ideas

On the discussion of innate "unlearned" ideas, Locke talks about moral knowledge. I feel that the basis of life is innate. No one told the world how to reproduce themselves until our populations are over populated. No one tells mothers that if there baby is in trouble to come fierce at whoever is making the trouble. No one tells the childrens minds how to automaticaaly do certain things for themselves. I feel that it ties into who we are as people from our self identity.

Locke- Self Identity Book 2

"Another occasion the mind often takes of comparing, is, the very being of things, when considering anything as existing at any determined time and place, we compare it with itself existing at another time, and thereon form the ideas of identity and diversity."

Basically i feel Locke is trying to explain how memory works. He says we use all our memories when within place, time, and what you are doing. I feel that its like this, basically our mind id a little more tricky, Memories happen in the mind, all the events in our head are scrambled all over your head and you have to try and figure all the memories that are scrambled and put them into a story. This is what i think a modern translation would be to Lockes statement on page 241

Locke - Book 2 Self Identity

"Another occasion the mind often takes of comparing, is, the very being of things, when considering anything as existing at any determined time and place, we compare it with itself existing at another time, and thereon form the ideas of identity and diversity." (Locke 241)

I remember a couple weeks ago we talked about this exact thing in class.  How do we really know our memories our real?  Or how we know what person we are?  Locke is trying to say when we remember things we did 30 minutes ago and see us in that memory, we assume, well that is me, so that is my identity.  Sometimes our older memories get confused with stories other people tell us or we see old pictures.  Our memories are always getting tampered with.  Personally, I believe I am me because I can remember exactly what I was doing 5 seconds ago, typing this blog and the proof is right before me.  So therefore, this is my identity.    

Locke - Book 2 Innateness

"That if a child were kept in a place where he never saw any other but black and white till he were a man, he would have no more ideas of scarlet or green, than he that from his childhood never tasted an oyster or a pine-apple has of those particular senses." (Locke 61)

Of course the person would have no memory of the colors because he never had saw them.  But when you place him in a world full of color he would realize something was different.  He wouldn't know what to call them but he would know that they weren't black or white.  Eventually, he would learn what the colors were.  I guess this would have to prove that colors aren't innate.  They are taught to us by others and stored in our memories.  If we never learned anything, how could we remember it again?