Rand on Hume

[SapereAude]

I think I recall reading a couple mentions of Hume in Rand's non-fiction but can't for the life of me pinpoint what she said or where she said it.

My internet searches have not been fruitful.

Does anyone recall her addressing Hume? Have links? Or know what books/article lecture it was contained in?

[Dante]

The only one that comes to mind is in the essay "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"

You might claim--as most people do--that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? "Don't be so sure--nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: "This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. You got that from Plato. Or: "That was a rotten thing to do, but it's only human, nobody is perfect in this world." You got that from Augustine. Or: "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." You got it from William James. Or: "I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does." You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: "Act first, think afterward"? They got it from John Dewey.

[2046]

He's in ITOE in two places I think, but there's not much to it. Just the usual kind of comments Rand makes about other philosophers. He's in OPAR in the section of sense perception. That's all I know off the top of my head anyway.

[SapereAude]

Thanks for the replies.

Welcome any further references anyone can think of.

I've been reading a bit of Hume lately and while he is wrong about a great many things I really do enjoy the way he writes.

[Grames]

When Hume declared that he saw objects moving about, but never saw such a thing as "causality"—it was the voice of Attila that men were hearing. It was Attila's soul that spoke when Hume declared that he experienced a flow of fleeting states inside his skull such as sensations, feelings or memories, but had never caught the experience of such a thing as consciousness or self. When Hume declared that the apparent existence of an object did not guarantee that it would not vanish spontaneously next moment, and the sunrise of today did not prove that the sun would rise tomorrow; when he declared that philosophical speculation was a game, like chess or hunting, of no significance whatever to the practical course of human existence, since reason proved that existence was unintelligible and only the ignorant maintained the illusion of knowledge—all of this accompanied by vehement opposition to the mysticism of the Witch Doctor and by protestations of loyalty to reason and science—what men were hearing was the manifesto of a philosophical movement that can be designated only as Attila-ism.

If it were possible for an animal to describe the content of his consciousness, the result would be a transcript of Hume's philosophy. Hume's conclusions would be the conclusions of a consciousness limited to the perceptual level of awareness, passively reacting to the experience of immediate concretes, with no capacity to form abstractions, to integrate perceptions into concepts, waiting in vain for the appearance of an <ftni_30> object labeled "causality" (except that such a consciousness would not be able to draw conclusions).

"Self"

Prof K: I'd like to ask a question about something which is intuitively obvious to me, but which I couldn't defend in argument: the statement that to be aware of your own consciousness has, as a corollary, that you exist possessing consciousness. How does awareness of states of consciousness have, as a corollary, that there is one faculty, namely your self, which unifies or possesses all these states and processes?

Prof. E: In other words, the question is: why does a series of successive states of consciousness imply an entity, as distinct from just a disintegrated series?

AR: You mean Mr. Hume?

Prof. E: Right.

. . .

whereupon she launches into a long answer

"Sense of Life and the Primacy of Consciousness ":

Man needs a state of psychological integration—of inner unity and, therefore, full certainty. Uncertainty is a dangerous state for man existentially, and unsupportable psychologically. The truly unbearable uncertainty is uncertainty about the validity of one's own consciousness. And since man never learned how to live with a volitional consciousness, how to possess certainty and knowledge without infallibility and omniscience—his most urgent need is the validation of his own consciousness. Therefore, in the absence of a rational epistemology (which is the only solution to this problem) man takes his consciousness as an absolute (uncritically) and fakes reality to fit it—in order not to face the horror of an impotent consciousness; hence, Platonism and other such philosophies. (This is the distorted element of truth in such systems—or the psycho-epistemological need which makes them possible. A great deal of conscious evil and faking for evil motives is involved in the authors of such philosophies, as, for instance, in Hume or Kant.)

Philosophy is the goal toward which religion was only a helplessly blind groping. The grandeur, the reverence, the exalted purity, the austere dedication to the pursuit of truth, which are commonly associated with religion, should properly belong to the field of philosophy. Aristotle lived up to it and, in part, so did Plato, Aquinas, Spinoza—but how many others? It is earlier than we think.

If you observe that ever since Hume and Kant (mainly Kant, because Hume was merely the Bertrand Russell of his time) philosophy has been striving to prove that man's mind is impotent, that there's no such thing as reality and we wouldn't be able to perceive it if there were—you will realize the magnitude of the treason involved.

from The Objectivist Newsletter: Vol. 2 No. 5 May, 1963 or The Voice of Reason

Books: Aristotle by John Herman Randall, Jr.

Reviewed by Ayn Rand

Blaming the epistemological chaos of modern science on the influence of Newton's mechanistic philosophy of nature, he writes: "It is fascinating to speculate how, had it been possible in the seventeenth century to reconstruct rather than abandon Aristotle, we might have been saved several centuries of gross confusion and error .... Where we are often still groping, Aristotle is frequently clear, suggestive, and fruitful. This holds true of many of his analyses: his doctrine of natural teleology; his view of natural necessity as not simple and mechanical but hypothetical; his conception of the infinite as potential, not actual; his notion of a finite universe; his doctrine of natural place; his conception of time as not absolute, but rather a dimension, a system of measurement; his conception that place is a coordinate system, and hence relative. On countless problems, from the standpoint of our present theory, Aristotle was right, where the nineteenth-century Newtonian physicists were wrong."

Objecting to "the structureless world of Hume in which 'anything may be followed by anything,'" Professor Randall writes: "To such a view, which he found maintained by the Megarians, Aristotle answers, No! Every process involves the operation of determinate powers. There is nothing that can become anything else whatsoever. A thing can become only what it has the specific power to become, only what it already is, in a sense, potentially. And a thing can be understood only as that kind of thing that has that kind of a specific power; while the process can be understood only as the operation, the actualization, the functioning of the powers of its subject or bearer."

Omitted lots of appearances in the Letters where the name of Hume comes up but without elaboration, presumably because both the writer (Rand) and the addressee knew what was meant and why he was relevant. Peikoff mentions him a lot throughout OPAR and Ominous Parallels, and he appears in "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" essay.

[SapereAude]

Thanks Grames, very useful.

While I understand Rand's animosity towards his errors I can't bring myself to condemn him utterly.

To me it seems he can be viewed more favorably if one doesn't view him as a Philosopher in the serious mode but rather an avid amateur. If this sounds stupid contemplate this- the home cook who decides to open a 5 Star Restaurant. Does his utter failure due to being out of his depth take away from the fact that he was quite good at what he did until over reaching himself?

Some of his writing is enjoyable and some of his observations quite apt.

"The heroes in paganism correspond exactly to the saints in popery, and holy dervises in MAHOMETANISM. The place of, HERCULES, THESEUS, HECTOR, ROMULUS, is now supplied by DOMINIC, FRANCIS, ANTHONY, and BENEDICT. Instead of the destruction of monsters, the subduing of tyrants, the defence of our native country; whippings and fastings, cowardice and humility, abject submission and slavish obedience, are become the means of obtaining celestial honours among mankind. "

Part X - With regard to courage or abasement

I have trouble condemning completely the mind of the man who wrote this.

[Grames]

To me it seems he can be viewed more favorably if one doesn't view him as a Philosopher in the serious mode but rather an avid amateur. If this sounds stupid contemplate this- the home cook who decides to open a 5 Star Restaurant. Does his utter failure due to being out of his depth take away from the fact that he was quite good at what he did until over reaching himself?

That is a non-objective assessment of his actual degree of influence on the subsequent course of philosophy. He is still considered a 5-star cook, and his recipes are still copied the world over. Don't be tempted to down the road of "bad philosophers are not philosophers at all."

[SapereAude]

That is a non-objective assessment of his actual degree of influence on the subsequent course of philosophy. He is still considered a 5-star cook

But why should I take how the world views him into account in my assessment of his writing?

I certainly don't take the view mainstream academia has of Rand into account.

[Grames]

But why should I take how the world views him into account in my assessment of his writing?

I certainly don't take the view mainstream academia has of Rand into account.

Objectivity. It was in reaction against Hume's radical skepticism which purported to be scientific that Kant responded with his own reinterpretation of it meant to be scientific, in order to defend religion. Hume is a historical fact and part cause of what has happened in philosophy. Facts count, not mere views.

All Rand has going for her is that she is right, which is difficult for people to evaluate without reading her. If she were three hundred years in the past the world was changed because of her and there were philosophical schools descended from Objectivism then she would be on a much firmer ground as a philosopher of note, for those who can only tell importance by counting noses.

It is totally understandable that the lay public judge who is a philosopher by whether or not her books are found in the philosophy section of the bookstore, but professional philosophers should be held to the standard of knowing what they are talking and writing about. That is why you can disregard the bulk of academic opinion of Rand as non-objective.

[Dante]

Some of his writing is enjoyable and some of his observations quite apt.

"The heroes in paganism correspond exactly to the saints in popery, and holy dervises in MAHOMETANISM. The place of, HERCULES, THESEUS, HECTOR, ROMULUS, is now supplied by DOMINIC, FRANCIS, ANTHONY, and BENEDICT. Instead of the destruction of monsters, the subduing of tyrants, the defence of our native country; whippings and fastings, cowardice and humility, abject submission and slavish obedience, are become the means of obtaining celestial honours among mankind. "

Part X - With regard to courage or abasement

I have trouble condemning completely the mind of the man who wrote this.

I would keep in mind that it is much easier to correctly criticize the wrong-headed views of others than it is to originate correct ideas of your own. With quite a few historical thinkers, I tend to find myself agreeing with their writings when they reject those who came before them, but wincing when they put forth their own thoughts on the matter. Criticizing the church is fairly easy, after all.

[SapereAude]

Grames,

Gotta get back to work. Thirsty people on the horizon.

Will explain my reasoning when I can get back on.

[softwareNerd]

Here are some more quotes, thanks to the Objectivism-CD:

When Hume declared that he saw objects moving about, but never saw such a thing as "causality"—it was the voice of Attila that men were hearing. It was Attila's soul that spoke when Hume declared that he experienced a flow of fleeting states inside his skull such as sensations, feelings or memories, but had never caught the experience of such a thing as consciousness or self. When Hume declared that the apparent existence of an object did not guarantee that it would not vanish spontaneously next moment, and the sunrise of today did not prove that the sun would rise tomorrow; when he declared that philosophical speculation was a game, like chess or hunting, of no significance whatever to the practical course of human existence, since reason proved that existence was unintelligible and only the ignorant maintained the illusion of knowledge—all of this accompanied by vehement opposition to the mysticism of the Witch Doctor and by protestations of loyalty to reason and science—what men were hearing was the manifesto of a philosophical move-merit that can be designated only as Attila-ism.

Prof. E: In other words, the question is: why does a series of successive states of consciousness imply an entity, as distinct from just a disintegrated series?

AR: You mean Mr. Hume?

Prof. E: Right.

AR: Read the chapter on axiomatic concepts. You don't need "intuition" here, you need to remember very clearly the fallacy of the "stolen concept." What do you mean by a "series of states of consciousness"? Anyone who offers that argument to you is guilty of the crudest form of concept-stealing. There is no such thing as a state of consciousness without the person experiencing it. What does one mean by "state of consciousness"? A state of a faculty possessed by an entity. Consciousness is not a primary object, it is not an independent existent, it's an attribute of a certain kind of existents.

I was, therefore, shocked to see that you list Hume and Kant among the philosophical ancestors of capitalism. Capitalism cannot exist, nor survive, on a foundation of irrationality—and the two arch-destroyers of reason in modern history are Hume and Kant.

(... Hume was merely the Bertrand Russell of his time)

Edited January 14, 2011 by softwareNerd

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

To me it seems he can be viewed more favorably if one doesn't view him as a Philosopher in the serious mode but rather an avid amateur.

Oh my God...

[SapereAude]

Oh my God...

Really?

In Rand's own words (bold mine):

"If you observe that ever since Hume and Kant (mainly Kant, because Hume was merely the Bertrand Russell of his time) philosophy has been striving to prove that man's mind is impotent, that there's no such thing as reality and we wouldn't be able to perceive it if there were—you will realize the magnitude of the treason involved."

If you have another interpretation of her words I'm happy to hear it. What I gather from the quote is that she considers Hume less dangerous and less morally evil because she views him as a mere dilettante.

So why the snideness? I already stated clearly in my first post that I know him to be wrong but something being wrong does not entirely negate the value of studying it. To say there is no value in studying something one knows is incorrect is to state that I should just take Rand's word for it that he in wrong. That would be second-handed would it not? I want to read him and know first hand what his errors were and why he failed.

There is value to be gained in studying things we disagree with. And one need not to do it sneering all the while. One can read the works of a mistaken thinker and learn from where their mistaken premises take them over the edge into immorality.

So again I ask... why so snide?

Edited for typo

Edited January 14, 2011 by SapereAude