Total Skepticism | A Treatise on Human Nature | David Hume | Philosophers Explained | Stephen Hicks

In this work, David Hume(1711-1776) argued that there were no rational grounds on which we could ever justify induction, causation, rational moral principles or a sense of self. He talked instead of constant conjunction, bundles of sensations, custom, mental habit and the passions.
His skeptical ideas have had a lasting effect in the history of philosophy. He inspired Immanuel Kant to awaken from his "dogmatic slumbers".
Timestamps:
00:27 The text
02:31 The sorry state of philosophy
03:48 Empiricism
07:24 Nominalism
14:31 Empiricist criterion of meaning
16:12 Cause and effect? Identity?
24:03 Inductive generalization
28:45 External world? Self?
31:51 Are moral principles based in reason?
38:15 God?
39:13 Why do we believe in such things?
42:21 What should we do?
44:49 Should we dispense with philosophy?
46:20 "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions."
48:54 Summary
Philosophers, Explained covers major philosophers and texts, especially the great classics. In each episode, Professor Hicks discusses an important work, doing a close reading that lasts 40 minutes to an hour.
The playlist of current videos can found here: • Philosophers Explained
Stephen R. C. Hicks, Ph.D., is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, USA, and has had visiting positions at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., University of Kasimir the Great in Poland, Oxford University’s Harris Manchester College in England, and Jagiellonian University in Poland.
Other links:
Explaining Postmodernism audiobook: • Explaining Postmoderni...
Nietzsche and the Nazis audiobook: • Nietzsche and the Nazi...
Playlists:
Education Theory: • Education Theory
Entrepreneurship and Values: • Entrepreneurship and V...
Nietzsche: • Nietzsche

[@cryptoemcee]

Thanks! I enjoy this series.

[@Hope20249]

I was just reading John Henry Newman considering Hume, then this video popped up. Great to listen in here, so clear. Many thanks.

[@burnonedown2day]

This was informative! Thanks 👍

[@Jules-Is-a-Guy]

Thanks Professor Hicks, I read some excerpts of Hume when I took some college classes, but this analytic summation is more exculpatory. It strikes me that, were I to pinpoint my own implicit philosophical perspective, it would probably most closely resemble Humean empiricism. To incorporate popular culture, my favorite film is probably the neo-noir Memento. The film explores precisely these ideas, likely drawing on Hume's work. The protagonist internalizes ideas, by literally taking and collecting pictures. He relies on these mementos as a guide, but self-deception is a major factor. He relies on some memories, but they are distorted, fragmented or misleading. Nevertheless, despite flaws in both inductive and deductive reasoning, the character essentially labors to apply the empirical method as consistently as possible. The audience, via a clever technical filmic retrospective, gradually learns that he is not purely "acting on instinct," although he propounds as much, and thus perhaps feigns a degree of nihilism. To also incorporate a sociological element, (and without subscribing to, nor wishing to expound any kind of robust Marxist analysis,) it is typical of the noir genre to discuss social class. Interestingly combined with the above philosophical considerations, it is implied that the upper class involves a sense of history, and an opportunity to recognize oneself in that shared story. This framing entails an ability to 'remember' oneself, and therein, connotes a well-formed identity as the ultimate determinant of high social class. The lower class has little context for societal engagement, a fragmented and fractured life experience, a lack of continuity and comfortable predictability, and a lack of perspective on oneself. The protagonist previously had the ability to retain clear recollections, and lived life within the context of a reassuring narrative, involving place, relationships, and a career. Subsequently, he descends to a lower social class, thus a commentary on the state of the society and the country over the past several decades is also present. Having descended in such a fashion, the optimal direction of travel for the protagonist, the audience, and for society as a whole, is backwards. Although this aspect resembles a Conservative trope, to nostalgically pine for a previous era, undoubtedly a sociopolitically bipartisan sentiment can be abstracted from this particular work. Although the character's clear sense of self and continuity have been lost, it is through an incremental, vicarious recapitulation of previous events and experiences, that a coherent rendering of a complete narrative arc is reestablished, and transmitted to the audience. It is perhaps always through a similar process, that people recognize themselves, analyze and understand the world, and ultimately engage with society.

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

Other episodes in the *Philosophers, Explained* series include: 31. Bertrand Russell on the Value of Philosophy 32. Derrick Bell on Racial Realism 33. Jacques Derrida on Insanity versus Reason 34. Michel Foucault on Power and Sexuality 35. Francis Bacon on the New Philosophy and Science

[@cas343]

Hi Stephen I love your work. Do you have an opinion on Johnathan Pageau and his view of the Enlightenment?

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

@@cas343 : I'm not familiar with it beyond a FB post he made, in response to someone else. Has he published on the Enlightenment?

[@cas343]

@StephenHicksPhilosopher I wish I could give specific statements, but I'll generalize a couple of his interviews like the one below: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGSneWifaaxmp5osi=LDwNu4b_9YeKTnyE He's critical of the anti-rational, anti-modern, counter-enlightenment thesis. In essence, it's the old package deal of enlightenment/secularism and skepticism. In my view, Pageau riding the wave of mysticism that tends to pop up after skepticism has done its job. I suspect the balance of criticism of the enlightenment will shift rightward as the postmoderns lose influence.

[@jimsteele9559]

No wonder Hume and Rousseau were friends with their living by passion, emotion etc. Then Hume found out what that life leads to when Rousseau went mental on him. I was hoping for a talk on a priori synthetic truth, but not happening I guess. Oh well. Still, good talk.

[@johnbrown4568]

Hume…The anti-philosopher. The father of absurdity perhaps?

[@jocr1971]

the father of pointing out absurdity