In “What is Enlightenment?” Kant defines Enlightenment as “the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred minority.” Other Enlightenment principles are also evident in his essay such as a belief in constant progress, the value of reason, an emphasis on the mind and equality.
But there is more going on in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion than philosophical reasoning. It has aspects of humor and it is hard to see a simple conclusion or someone who is definitely right. As we discussed in class, it is as if Hume is playing a three dimensional philosophical game with himself.
Given that Hume is using techniques other than simple reason (for example, the characterisation of the interlocutors), are his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion still an Enlightenment text? What role do these other non-rational elements play in the rational discussion?
Deadline: Friday (3/4), start of class.
9 comments:
Given that Hume incorporates humor and that at the end of the text there is no clear "winner" to the argument I think that this text is still an enlightenment text. One of the ideas that came out of the enlightenment era was that absolutes could not be trusted. The enlightenment authors often came to conclusions but sometimes did not and this was considered progress from the old way of doing things (accepting the Church or Monarch's absolute right to be right). Thus out of the enlightenment era we see not only texts like Hume’s that have no definitive answer but revolutions against absolute rule and doubt in anything that claims to be absolute. While science was moving forward and discovering new truth is the arts was deciding that there was no one right way to do things and that, the less absolutes in rules of form for poetry or theme for literature the better in terms of the arts and soft sciences (which were not called by that name until later).
Although we see Hume's work punctuated by moments of humor and emotion, these instances are not entirely disconnected from the parts of his dialogues that present arguments based largely on reason. For example, the beginning of Part 10 presents a reflection by Demea on how miserable the human condition is. He explains that religion is a response "to appease those unknown powers whom we find, by experience, so able to afflict and oppress us" (58). His description offers valuable insight into how people react to their conditions, but it is less reliant on constructing formal arguments and is more of a psychological assessment.
But Hume does not allow this brief break from argumentation to remain disconnected from the larger discourse. In fact, he uses it as a transition to his discussion of evil and suffering. Hume achieves this shift through Philo's response to Demea's thoughts. Philo even states that understanding the relationship between evil and religion requires "a talent of eloquence and strong imagery" (58). Despite his praise of emotional insight, Philo reverts back to reasoning and offers an argument that question the ability of religious design to account for evil. He thinks anthropomorphizing a deity raises further questions about the deity's power or intentions, none of which can be satisfactorily answered.
Hume's writing exhibits many qualities that are emblematic of the Enlightenment's emphasis on reason, but these facets do not come at the expense of other considerations such as humor and emotions. He may have recognized that some of the arguments for design would not rely exclusively on reason, but rather on intuition and emotion. The non-rational elements Hume includes allow him to engage these arguments while also presenting responses that more closely approximate formal reason.
I agree with Margaret that Hume displays Enlightenment thought through the text's conclusion without definitive answer. As Kant stated in "What is Enlightenment," there are those among the masses who think for themselves and will spread rationalization, "each person's calling to think for himself." In Dialogues, Hume has thinkers focusing on what has been brought about as absolute, approaching God's existence with reason rather than blind faith. Although there is no "simple answer," Hume introduces rational doubt and fleshes out individuals taking a step from their "self-incurred minority."
I also agree that Hume's work is considered an Enlightenment. Back in Hume's period, the existence of God was considered a matter of faith rather than reason. And I feel that Hume challenges this idea through his dialogues. Although Cleanthes argues for the existence of God, it is not really based on his religious faith but more on intelligent reasoning. So in a way, through Cleanthes, Humes is challenging the Church's take on God's existence, which was what was more of an accepted view by society. But during the Enlightenment period, Hume and others found courage to question the Church's traditional ways.
At the beginning of Part XI, Philo says, “…therefore, without any ceremony, I shall deliver what occurs to me with regard to the present subject” (67). I find this humorous because the three characters prelude all of their arguments with pomp and ceremony. They use the most roundabout descriptions and analogies possible. I agree this is an enlightenment text because it takes up issues reasonably, theoretically and philosophically, constantly trying to find the correct answer, but I don’t find its description of itself at all rational. He goes on to describe a possible rational being, “…if a very limited intelligence whom we shall suppose utterly unacquainted with the universe were assured that it were the production of a very good, wise, and powerful being … Supposing now that this person were brought into the world, still assured that it was the workmanship of such a sublime and benevolent being…” (67-8). Philo is so excessive in his abstract description of his scenario, it makes it hard for a reader to follow it with any seriousness. He makes almost impossible assumptions. And then he re-iterates himself in excess. In his same descriptive paragraph he twice states the assumptions of his fictional being with “limited intelligence.” It is aggravating to me as a reader. Nothing in his described scenario has changed, so why should the description of the imaginary assumptions of the imaginary being change? Hume beats us over the head with his descriptions for no conceivable purpose. So although I would consider this text enlightenment era-worthy, it’s arguments are circuitous and in-conclusive and over-all, not very enlightening.
I think that Hume underlines Enlightenment throughout his text because he never gives a clear, consise answer to his argument in the end but still states that we live in an "age of enlightenment" rather than an "enlightened age". However, I believe that this supports what Kant thinks, "as matters now stand, a good deal more is required for people on the whole to be in the position, of using their own understanding confidently and well in religious matters, without another's guidance" (p.603). Depending on the other non-rational elements are significant in rational discussion simply because they contribute to the issues in the "enlightened age" but it does not creat the foundation for it.
The fact that Hume gives no clear "winner" in the discussions about religion allows this text to be one of Enlightenment.
For one to be Enlightened one must seek the truth, and without an author telling the readers what is true or what is the right answer, readers are able to freely ponder questions posed by the author.
An argument can be made for whether or not Hume is an Enlightened person, but his work is ambiguous enough and yet very specific in order to allow readers this freedom to seek the truth - making it unquestionably an Enlightenment text.
I agree with Rachel. Before I had taken this class, all I really knew about the Enlightenment was that the idea of God was questioned and pressed upon more than it ever had been. Different religions emerged and faith in general was put in the hot seat. This text, although it does use humor, does not seem to ever have a definite answer to such questions and seems to contradicte itself a bit, is a text of the enlightement.
The enlightenment was very much about challenging ideas that people had previously taken for granted, which is exactly what Hume's whole idea behind Diaglogues Concerning Natural Religion is.
I agree what appears to be a general consensus on the Enlightenment-ness of Hume's Dialogue. Hume's interlocutors illustrate the ability of the mind to entertain a number of point of views. Each of the characters represent a different approach to understanding religion and so this dialogue can be seen as a discussion between Hume's different thoughts. This can be thought of as reason.
However, I really liked how on page 11 Hume writes "that a little philosophy makes a man an atheist; a great deal converts him to religion. This statement has a romantic feel to it. I think atheism is kind of a arrogance in human reason, believing only what can be seen. Obviously God is not visible to us. But if you dwell on thoughts of the nature of God for long enough, you come to the conclusion that human reason is simply not enough and and an appreciation of the unknowable will manifest. This is religion, in some sense.
Post a Comment