Topics Philosophers

Question David Hume said of Berkeley that his arguments are irrefutable but his conclusions unacceptable --- or so I am told. Is this true, and if so, where can I find it? If it is true, isn't it a remarkably succinct statement of bigotry?

Accepted:
February 24, 2006

Comments

See the note to page 122 of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. He writes '...the arguments admit of no answer and produce no conviction.' The point is not quite what you take it to be. Hume is considering the nature of scepticism (here he considers Berkeley to be a sceptic), and he claims it to be perfectly possible rationally but perfectly impossible psychologically. 'Conviction' is a psychological claim, about what I expect to happen next, for example.

Your notion of bigotry is interesting. Why is Hume not just being stubborn, even pig-headed? Broadly speaking, it is because he believes that reason, on its own, is quite useless. Its purpose is to help us analyse our experiences, and modify our beliefs on that basis. Reason, for Hume, serves experience and the psychology of conviction, rather than the other way around. Since he is always happy to look at new empirical evidence, he certainly hasn’t got the closed mind of a bigot. It’s just that he has no truck with the pure, empty reasoning that he sees in sceptical writers.

Question David Hume said of Berkeley that his arguments are irrefutable but his conclusions unacceptable --- or so I am told. Is this true, and if so, where can I find it? If it is true, isn't it a remarkably succinct statement of bigotry? Accepted:February 24, 2006

Question David Hume said of Berkeley that his arguments are irrefutable but his conclusions unacceptable --- or so I am told. Is this true, and if so, where can I find it? If it is true, isn't it a remarkably succinct statement of bigotry?

Accepted:
February 24, 2006