- What do you find confusing or difficult to understand in the text?
- What questions do you have?
- What issues does it raise that you hope to discuss in class?
- What in the text strikes you as particularly interesting?
Deadline: Monday (1/28), start of class.
7 comments:
In part two, Cleanthes presents a design argument to prove the existence of a deity. His argument relies on an analogy between order in the natural world and the order that arises from human activity. Cleanthes suggests that the world can be thought of as "one great machine" (15) that is ordered and consists of natural processes that we can observe. Because both natural and human processes serve some end, Cleanthes claims that the natural world reflects the intentions and activity of a creator.
Although Hume raises interesting theological points, my main interest in this argument concerns why he decided to include it in his work. Was this a popular approach used during the Enlightenment by people who argued for the existence of a deity and people's ability to comprehend the deity's actions? Is the idea that the world is a set of machines that serve final causes a product of the Enlightenment or does it offer insight about important developments during this era? Philo offers a thorough response to Cleanthes' argument, so I would be interested to know if others think Hume uses Philo and Damea to engage Enlightenment views that have been employed to defend old institutions.
I hope that we can discuss Hume's actual opinion on the matter. He decides to format his work in such a way that it is hard to discern what he really believes. He uses the arguing characters as a disguise for his true intent. Does anyone have an idea as to which side he favors?
I also think it's interesting that Hume chooses to write through a dialogue of fictional characters rather than an essay-form like Kant used. It reminds me of how we discussed that the author of Eloisa to Abelard uses a different setting in order to say something about his opinions on his own society without risking that be he may be accused of doing so. I think it's very interesting to learn the boundaries of discussion about God during this time period.
I, personally, have never taken a philosophy course and find the language confusing. I'm not quite sure I understand the difference between an a priori argument and an a posteriori argument and why the distinction is such a big deal to the characters and Hume.
What I found fascinating was Hume's ability to view the Christian sects objectively, within their historical context, and thus capable of being compared to the theology of the Classical period. Such capacity for being able to compare religions and seeing them on equal footing intellectually was a rare trait during the time period, given the near-bimillennial stretch of time under which Christianity had held such a strong grip on the continent from which Hume was writing. Even now we view works like the Odyssey which tell tales of the Gods of the Classical world as literature while maintaining some distinction between that and the Bible, which fulfills basically the same function.
As for Dema's question, yes this conception of God was quite common in the time. Enlightenment thinkers were more often than not Deists rather than Christians, beholden to the concept of what is called the "watchmaker God". This conception sees God as a master craftsman who created the universe as he saw fit, put it into motion, and moved on to other things. Thus, the way the world itself was crafted would be seen as the best way to understand a God who may no longer be personally invested in the goings on of the realm of humans.
Hume's way to reason and us logic through conversations of what I presume to be made up characters was interesting. The dialogue between each of them proved to be efficient but also what was interesting at different points of the argument, the characters would be in agreement with the speak. Also, the arguments that they made help further their argument or make them think about another position. Connecting this to our public and private reasoning, this seems to be a either a public or private form of reasoning, in the sense of the story. The conversation between these three individuals could be private if they are only disclosing their way of reasoning to each other. It is a form a public because Hume wrote this for other individuals to read and to express their feelings toward it. In the reading, I believe it was the character Philo who said, "We are like foreigners in a strange country, to whom everything must seem suspicious, and who are in danger every moment of breaking the laws and customs of the people with whom they live and talk." I feel that this is a true statement in regards to ones ability to know things. We feel the need to only deal with specific things that we know, but when it is something that is outside our comfort zone we stray away form it.
Having read Hume's other works, I find it interesting that he is able to hold the view that he does on religion. He feels very strongly that we are limited as humans and that reasoning is something that is purely a human quality, yet he holds onto the idea that we can know that there is a deity. I feel that this reflects strongly of the time period and the common theme of deism that arose with the new science, somewhat of an in between for strong theism and secularism.
What I found to be most interesting in Hume's writing is, as was mentioned in earlier blog posts, his ability to think objectively concerning religion. The idea that religion was an objective set of beliefs that could be unique to every individual was a concept not yet widely accepted in the time Hume was alive, and so to be bold enough to share such opinions was rare. However, I have am left with cofusion on what Hume actually believes to be true in terms of religion, what is his objective stance on the issue?
Post a Comment