My conception of Humean philosophy is totally different from the standard interpretation of that man's thought. One would then assume that it will differ from the conception of you my reader. It then should be very interesting to see what you have to say about my views. Enclosed is an outline of my conception.
1-The standard view, going at least as far back as Kant, claims that for Hume, we are not aware of an external world. All we basically are aware of are subjective experiences, i.e. our subjective perceptions. This view, however, seems wrong. Hume, e.g., repeatedly talks about an external world, not 'bracketing' it as he should if we are unaware of it. Images, e.g, fall on the retina( an object in the external world). Pressure can be put on the eyeball( an object in the external world) creating a double image. By moving an object further and further away from one's body( where both the object and one's body seem to be external objects separated from each other by distance) one will finally only be conscious of an atom. Atoms, for Hume are thus seen as but colored points( objects seen moving away are but colored patches becoming colored points). They make up objects found in the world, e.g, constituents or particles of wine talked about in his essay on taste are such atoms. We have to wonder whether Hume has anything to say about today's science, as Humeans would have us believe, when we realize how different his conception of an atom is from that held by today's physicist. We just have to though, it appears, that Humeans, despite their professed scepticism never have. The brain( again an external object) has ideas embedded within it. One's body( an external object) has secret causes working within it that influence one's mind. But for Hume not only is there such an external world( made up of physical objects and the atoms that compose them) but we are also conscious of such a world. Thus,e.g, Hume talks about us sometimes being conscious of someone else's brain as well as the ideas embedded within it when we slice it up( seemingly implying that for him not only are the brain and ideas physical objects but that it is possible for us to be aware of such externality). Again, in talking about religion, in his 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' he talks about us being conscious of certain external objects, i.e. of living organisms. Still again in his ethics he talks about us being conscious of other people( external objects) as well as animals, e.g. peacocks( other external objects); in his economics he talks about land as property( external object) which we are conscious of; in his politics he refers to consciousness of land( countries occupying pieces of land which we are conscious of) as well as countrymen having the same general character because they are contiguous to each other( external objects are contiguous to each other). Arithmetic is the positive counting of such objects. There is not here, as there is in contemporary math, an awareness of counting negative numbers, or even of nothing repeated any number of times, or of negativities repeated negative times, or of different orders of infinity. Hume's metaphysics, not even recognized by scholars, itself limits his very conception of arithmetic( Hume's conception of arithmetic has not been dealt with by scholars). And thus again we see how limited Hume's philosophy actually is.
Here then is what I believe Hume is saying: a)-the world is in part made up of Berkeleian colored objects some of which we are conscious of. The objects I see are colored. And Hume seems to believe that such colored objects that we see, e.g., someone's brain, exist apart from us thus my belief that he holds to the existence of Berkeleian objects. Space and time only exist in terms of such objects. Distance and motion, e.g, are defined in terms of such objects. Hume here becomes one of the early precursors of Einstein's views on the relativity of motion. There is no absolute framework of motion, no aether, as there is, e.g, with Maxwell. This is one of the few times I find Hume correct. Hume is a nominalist. The only objects there are are these Berkeleian ones. Ideas refer back to them. There thus are no general ideas as there are, e.g, with Plato. b)-Photons are, for him, colored atoms or points. Hume both holds( a contradiction to be sure) that what we see are both images in the retina as well as actual objects. Images are caused by photons bouncing off the retina. The 'images' I 'see' are colored and this can only occur if the photons bouncing off of them are colored. The particles of light are colored points like the atoms found in objects. In fact they seem to be the same identical thing. We today, of course, do not look upon photons as colored points. And thus I find another part of Humean philosophy wrong c)-Ideas are both after-images of images on the retina as well as objects imbedded in the brain( another contradiction which again makes one wonder about the truth of his philosophy). They exist as after-images because ideas are seen to come from impressions and Hume at one point sees such images as impressions. One must, of course, wonder why consciousness is found in images on retinas but not, e.g., always with images on water. Now suppose that I am an optometrist and I see the image on your retina, is my consciousness somehow fused with yours? After all we share the same image on the retina. But enough with such mysticism which Humeans will not accept even if it follows logically from Hume's premises and they, of course, wish to be seen as logical.
Again, they ( the ideas) are seen as physical objects because Hume also sees physical objects as impressions and ideas resembling them must also then be seen as physical things. We thus cannot have an idea of space because space is not an impression, an object or an image. Different conceptions ( ideas) of space which are so important in today's physics thus are alien to Hume's thought. Again, we find ourselves wondering why one should turn to Hume to understand modern science. Impressions(as physical objects) seem to create these other physical objects(the ideas) because they emit photons(atoms) which, because they make up physical objects can themselves create new physical objects( ideas) d)-feelings then are seen as physical fluids moving between physical objects( i.e. ideas). This explains, e.g, how Hume, at the beginning of the Treatise, can talk about the mind being made up of organs( something which scholars until now have been unable to explain). The mind contains fluids in the same way other organs of one's body, e.g., one's heart, do. Such physical fluids then resemble Franklin's electric fluid which moves between objects causing attraction between them without changing their physical appearance. We today, of course, do not see feelings in this way. Another problem I have with Humean philosophy.
2-Again, following Kant, it is held that for Hume causation is a mere product of the human mind and that Hume is sceptical that we can ever truly say anything causatively about the world. This, however, seems wrong. Thus, e.g., Hume talks about the world apart from the human mind as following causative laws. In his essay, e.g., on 'The Stoic' he talks about secret causes working in one's body( apart from anything caused by the mind) making it impossible for one to always act as one should. Hume believes that gravity(a causative law) is working in both the physical and mental worlds. In other words, he believes in the existence of at least one causative3 law, that of gravity. Notice that such a law was found by Newton, i.e., one can be conscious of real causative laws, e.g, about gravity. Forget the fact that Hume really does not understand the nature of causation,e.g,, as seen in his analysis of consciousness, he deals with it incorrectly in a nonmathematical way. Forget that this should again make us wonder whether he can really tell us anything about science. Hume obviously believes in the existence of such laws in contradiction to the standard view of his work. Again in his ethics, he talks about animals, e.g., peacocks, acting on the basis of causal laws apart from anything that the human mind can come up with( e.g., peacocks act the way they do because they are caused to do so by their pride.) Again, in his political theory he talks about secret causes, i.e., ones which are unknown to and thus independent of the human mind' creating religious frenzy. The reason why Hume denies the existence of miracles( exceptions to causal laws) is that he holds that the world outside us is causally determined.
Such causation, however, is often known and is not, in contradiction to what scholars believe,subject to doubt. In ethics, e.g., through sympathy, one is aware of the motives( causes) of other people's actions and can then judge them. In organisms one is conscious of mutual causation of the parts, and, at no point, in either of the above examples, does Hume question our awareness of causation. Hume's philosophy itself is premised on the existence of causative laws we are aware of. Impressions, e.g., are the cause of our ideas. The fear of punishment is the cause of our doing good. Repetition of impressions is the cause of our awareness of causative laws. In comparing society to the self, parents are seen as the cause of their children's existence. And none of these awarenesses are challenged which they would be if the standard view of Hume's philosophy was correct.
The way that I understand Hume's conception of causation: a- it is found in the external world b-one can sometimes be aware of it c-such awareness,however, does not come through the use of logic(Hume's attack upon the rationalist Spinoza in the early part of the Treatise shows this) but rather through feeling(repetition of experiences creates a feeling that the effect willfollow from the cause d-Hume is not sceptical about such an awareness.
3-Hume is not a closet atheist. Rather he is an agnostic. An atheist, e.g., would not say, as Hume does that perhaps the Hindu view of God( so much like Berkeley's) might be correct(seen in his essay on Hinduism which no one reads anyway),that the secret cause causing thingsx to move between the cause and effect might've been given by God( he specifically tells us that his views are not atheistic so unlike those of the 'atheistic Spinoza') His view, by the way, that the secret cause causing things to move between the cause and effect might've been given by God shows that he thought such causation was found in the world and only wanted to explain, through his hypothesis,about God, how this was possible. The fact that Hume, in his 'Dialogues' talks about many hypotheses for the origin of the universe rather shows him to be an agnostic. His attack upon miracles only showing that he does not believe in a theistic account of God. The deistic account of God for him still remaining a real possibility.
4- Hume is not a hedonist as is commonly believed. This can be seen, e.g. in his essay on 'The Epicurean' where he talks about one's goal being to achieve only moderate pleasure; elsewhere when he talks about pain and tells us that a moderate amount of pain must be found even within his ideal man, in his politics where his ideal person is not given over to religious frenzy( lack of frenzy seemingly not linked by him to pleasure; showing seemingly that for him his ideal person is not just seen as one who maximizes pleasure). I rather see Hume's ideal as being linked with his belief in the existence of the four humors(yes in his treatise he talks about, not only the existence of such humors but also of animal spirits: surely not the view of someone who 'brackets ' reality) The four humors are: pleasure,pain, vivacity, and the ideas. A proper ballance between them becomes for Hume the ideal which one should strive for. The phlegm would be the ideas. Hume felt he was too phlegmatic, to caught up with ideas, too sluggish. The blood would be the pleasures. Blood goes on a circular path in the body so does pleasure in the mind. Beginning in the idea which one sees as pleasant, it moves back to the self where it then becomes a passion moving again back to the idea. Pain becomes melancholy. Melancholy is painful and so, of course, is pain. Vivacity is choler. The person caught up in a religious frenzy has fantasies so vivid he takes them as real. He is a choleric personality, i.e. he is fiery,hot-tempered and thus a danger to the very existence of the state. Vivacity also is the philosopher's stone, i.e. that which creates the other humors. Thus both pain and pleasure are themselves vivid and the impresssion(containing vivacity) itself creates the idea. The philosopher's stone makes life itself possible and Hume's very use of the word 'vivacity' or 'liveliness' seems to show that he saw it as the philosopher's stone (continued in http: //www.oocities.org/robertfeinstein2003/Mypage html and later in http://www.oocities.org/robertfeinstein2003/countryside2 html) If a person in a dream resembles,as Hume would argue, a real person might he also be conscious and if he's conscious, do I have a right to keep him imprisoned in my brain? Can a car in my dream crash as a real car can? And if it can crash will my brain catch fire. i.e. if I put oil into it? By the way, if I could run my dream car without putting expensive oil into it, why couldn't I do the same with a real car? After all, for Hume both are physical objects only differing in terms of their vivacity. I'm sorry to bring up my personal worries. And you don't even know me. Anyway back to analyzing Hume which I will continue to do in the next section(I already gave the number for it) But before I do so, can anyone tell me whether one's idea of vivacity is itself vivid? And if it is vivid is it still an idea? Hume, in his essay on the Perfect Commonwealth talks about democracies like the Commonwealth engaging in wars that finally destroy themselves. One wishes that the 'Neo-cons" who run the U.S. Government read their Hume. One wishes that they also read their American history(e.g., the Mexican War, Spanish American War and various Indian episodes which to the natives must have seemed like wars). One also wishes that Hume had something to say about how America could get out of Iraq(even though he is as logical and as comprehensive as Hegel both him,Hegel are, like all of us, extremely limited despite what Humeans,Hegelians might think. Why every philosophy must be limited as is every philosopher. I know, e.g., that I have no answer as to how the U.S. could get out of Iraq). Now on to the rest of the story. Hume often sees many causes leading to effects(e.g., in probability). One here wishes more people were Humeans. Surely, e.g., given how complex people actually are and how many people were in on the decision to invade Iraq, there must be many causes for the American invasion of Iraq(e.g., to protect Saudi oil from an invasion from Saddam's Iraq, to spread democracy and thus make the world more peaceful despite the history of democratic America and despite the torture used by the Americans, to do God's work who seems by the way to be a follower of Thomas Jefferson,fear of what Saddam's Iraq might do in the future, Saddam trying to kill Bush Sr. which no doubt soured Junior toward him, protecting Israel which,no doubt was bothered by Saddam giving money to the families of suicide bombers). Surely those who believe like Michael Moore in only one cause(e.g. oil) have to be wrong even though he made a good film. Again Hume talks about conflicts amongst religions as nullifying their claims(miracles). One has to wonder then about the claims of some Jews,Moslems that members of their respective faiths and only such members should rule over Palestine,Israel. But enough with trying to show the relevance of Hume. We must return to our story. And we will. But not yet. How can Hume with his concept of a continuous nation passed on from parents to children deal with modern nations with people leaving becoming citizens of other nations? When dealing with parents as the cause of their children's existence where, in an age of contraception, is the impression of the cause? "Hey, wait a moment, when I allowed my five year old son, to go to the Yahoo sites, it never entered my mind,that he would pick-up porn. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Now you will get on to your fifth point or else I will shoot you"(continued on http://www.oocities.org/robertfeinstein2003/Mypage.html