sign in sign up
<<
Home , David Hume, John Dewey

Wisdom in

Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 3

5-2017

On .

Tomasz B. Stanek California State University, San Bernardino, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie

Part of the Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Commons

Recommended Citation Stanek, Tomasz B. (2017) "On David Hume.," Wisdom in Education: Vol. 7 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol7/iss1/3

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for in Wisdom in Education by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more , please contact [email protected]. On David Hume.

Abstract After reviewing the (2012) title: Classic and contemporary readings in the of education, a common text for undergraduate and graduate students, I was surprised that the influence and the philosophical imprint of David Hume (who awakened Kant) was missing and omitted. David Hume’s were monumentally important not only to but also to those who would eventually call educational their home. To fill the oid,v I have included my response to the ongoing debates and some of the most intriguing questions regarding Hume’s philosophical stance, his suggestions, and perhaps seeds to those who would build their theories in the nineteenth and twentieth century. My first question for discussion provides a basic attempt at Hume’s position regarding his basic theory of -based causes, the second question ponders his ideas on Socratic concept of akrasia, and the final question deals with Hume’s is-ought concept. What is remarkable about Hume’s contribution to the philosophy of education is his stance on the of solid experience as a way to perceive , constructs, or even the constructivist ideas for linguistics, missing experience, or fallacies.

Keywords David Hume, David Hume and Education

Author Statement Author, Tomasz Stanek, is a recent (2012) Ed.D graduate from California State University San Bernardino's College of Education, a community college teacher and a scholar interested in a variety of research: from history, migrations and diaspora, and modern conflicts ot education and educational theory. Dr Stanek teaches at Chaffey College and lectures at University of California, Riverside Extension School.

This article is available in Wisdom in Education: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol7/iss1/3 Stanek: On David Hume

On David Hume Tomasz B. Stanek After reviewing the (2012) Oxford University Press title: Classic and simplification or explanation of this work, contemporary readings in the philosophy of An enquiry concerning human understanding education by Steven M. Cahn, a common (1748) were misunderstood at first but philosophy of education text for the became monumentally constructive for his undergraduate and graduate students, I closest follower, Immanuel Kant. Simply was surprised that the influence and the put, Hume advocated more for what philosophical imprint of David Hume today is known as a psychological basis of (who awakened Kant) was missing and human and experience-based omitted. David Hume’s ideas were learning or experience-based . monumentally important, not only to He argued that alone cannot Immanuel Kant, but also to those who possibly be responsible for human would eventually call educational knowledge, however it is complementary behaviorism their home. and assists and To fill the void, I have included my . Hume is regarded as one of the response to the ongoing debates and some most influential of Western of the most intriguing questions regarding philosophy. The below reflects the Hume’s philosophical stance, his Humean wisdom and his of suggestions, and perhaps seeds for those the observable world, and is intended to who would build on their theories in the provoke , critiques, and nineteenth and twentieth century. comparisons to those who conduct Although David Hume did not write any research in the field of education and specific chapter on education, his unique human wisdom. approach to human learning makes his I shall organize this account around the philosophy very valuable today. His asking of three questions. The first insights cannot be ignored, just as we question for the discussion provides a cannot ignore for his basic attempt at Hume’s position ‘missing’ notes on . What is regarding his basic theory of experience- remarkable about Hume’s contribution to based causes. The second question the philosophy of education is his stance ponders his ideas on the Socratic concept on the principles of solid experience as a of akrasia. The final question deals with way to perceive reality, Hume’s is-ought concept. Each constructs, or even the constructivist ideas of a particular for linguistics, missing experience, or question is followed by its applicability to fallacies. the field of education. David Hume is known for his radical system of philosophical , Question 1 , and . His stance on the of the innate ideas led him Hume offers two definitions of cause, to the basic assumption that all human as a philosophical relation and as a natural knowledge is ultimately founded in relation. What are we to make of these experience and mainly through causation. two senses of cause — is Hume a realist, Some of his most influential publications, anti-realist, subjectivist, or objectivist? namely, A treatise of (1739) Hume describes two causal processes, and the consequent one that occurs in the outside world, and

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2017 1 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 7 [2017], Iss. 1, . 3

the other in our minds. To support this, Hume dissatisfied with just “one Hume provided two definitions of definition” of causation? This is a very causation, which lay at the heart of his important interpretive question for at least philosophical foundation, and represented two . First, I cannot reject him as a different view of the same or anti-realist by of his first definition relation. The in this relation of cause. Second, I cannot ignore Hume’s should be understood as either a claims to the necessity of the second philosophical or natural one. For clarity definition and all that it represents: a in this paper, I simply label the central element of his philosophy of definitions as A, and B respectively. The human learning. first definition (A) of cause was defined by Can Hume be truly defined by the Hume as, “An object precedent and definitions of what is considered today to contiguous to another, and where all the be a realist, anti-realist, constructivist or objects resembling the former are placed objectivist? For the purpose of this short in like of precedency and paper, I will test the following widely contiguity to those objects, that resemble understood definitions. According to the latter” (Norton et al., p. 114). The Stanford’s Philosophical Encyclopedia second definition (B) defined cause as, (SPE), a realist, - in a metaphysical sense, is “An object precedent and contiguous to “one who wishes to claim that apart from another, and so united with it, that the the mundane sort of empirical of the one determines the to dependence of objects and their form the idea of the other, and the familiar to us from everyday impression of the one to form a more , there is no further philosophically lively idea of the other” (Norton et al., p. interesting sense, in which everyday 114). objects and their properties can be said to I believe that Hume supplied two be dependent on anyone's linguistic distinctive definitions of an experimental practices or conceptual schemes”(SPE). method in his own quest to understand By the opposite supposition the anti-realist reality and how that reality was related to rejects realism. A subjectivist doctrine human learning. He has (A) eliminated, points to “knowledge as merely subjective and at the same , (B) introduced and that there is no external or objective human bias (or individual ), by ”(SPE). Therefore, “Our own which the causation could be observed by mental activity is the only unquestionable one definition (A), yet it could not be of our experience”(SPE). According realistically assessed by definition (B), to the Internet Encyclopedia of partly since our own imagination may Philosophy (IEP), the term “subjective” have created such causation. typically indicates the possibility of error. Hume’s fascination with causation as An objectivist, as in reference to objective the basic foundation of his philosophy of knowledge, may simply refer to human understanding, perhaps led him to knowledge of an objective reality by the draw some basic conclusions: (A) perceiving mind. Although this causation occurs as it happens in nature distinction between the objective and (observable or not) and (B) causation subjective reality may create a discrepancy exists as it is observed by the human as illustrated by Locke’s example of the mind. What is perplexing here is the icy and hot water hand experiment. that (A) could not be observed if The above (IEP) definitions attempt to (B) did not come to and, therefore, define Hume’s understanding of how causation may not exist at all. Why was human minds perceive causation between

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol7/iss1/3 2 Stanek: On David Hume

ideas; simple or complex, and how culturally constructed. Not only it is a humans arrive to observe, through holistic experience but one that is heavily experience, the causes and effects and vice influenced by the individual . versa. Hume clearly stated that the first Hume seems to reason from factual definition may identify a relation not evidence derived from nature, according observable or clearly understood to to his two definitions of cause. He did people at the time of . For make a clear distinction, in which, even if instance, the idea that “bad air”, not the two objects in causal relation were plasmodium vivax virus, is a cause of connected to each other, they were still malaria. If something causes malaria in distinct and different. Not only he was a nature, we see its effect. Yet over time, and realist in the observation of nature (what through careful and systematic exists is observable) but also an objectivist experimentation and experience, the true and by removing possible erroneous a priori an intuitive cause may be inferred. For conclusions of causation. Hume assumes example, not “bad air”, but a virus carried that each observation remains distinct. by the mosquitoes, is the cause of malaria. For example, each throw of dice remains The idea of relation or causation existed distinct and not related to the previous. by Hume’s definition A, yet it was not Similarly, five contiguous do until the process of lived experience brought not represent a higher spectrum of about more assurance and vivacity that assurance or probability in which all definition B became suitable. I believe further and potential observation will Hume is very consistent in his of remain the same. resemblance, contiguity, and ultimately I believe that Hume supplied the two causation. Therefore, his two definitions: distinctive definitions as an experimental (A), and (B) were not mutually exclusive. method in his own quest to understand Hume stands by his that reality and how that reality was related to observable causation did not originate in human understanding. He has, (A) reason or a priori knowledge but only in eliminated, and at the same time, (B), experience. The more experience one has introduced human bias, or individual regarding the relations between the ideas, perception, by which causation could be the more refined the idea of causation observed by definition A, yet it could not may have developed. Therefore, it seems be realistically assessed by definition B, that Hume introduced an experimental partly since our own imagination may method by way of these two definitions of have created such causation. For instance, cause, which were based purely on a neatly cut grass in a foreign country may repeated experimentation but not reason suggest to someone who grew up in alone. This means that causation became contemporary California, that lawn central to Hume’s method of explaining equipment caused it (effect). It may, human nature. however, be that this effect was produced Today the concept of experience-based by grazing animals (reality), and not by learning (EBL) encompassed Hume’s some equipment. Thus our imagination early ideas, and assumes that the or habit associated the effect with our experience of the learner inhabits the logical conclusion (cause). The objective center of the learning process (Foley, reality of cause and effect exists in nature 2000). Reflection upon experience objectively but may not be known to becomes the foundation of the learning human mind. The sufficient resembling progress and its . This approach qualities of objects may suffice for also assumes that learning is socially and definition A, yet the demonstrative effect

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2017 3 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 7 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 3

or experience must be supplied by a vicious circle in that we the process definition B - human experience, however of causation, and trust seems to be the erroneous or subjective. foundation of experience, and not perhaps These two definitions: A, and B, may a reflection of the uniformity of natural also have suggested the difference, in experience. If Hume was a realist by way which Hume satisfied the objectiveness of of natural observations, did he ultimately things as they appear in nature by way of give in to the idea of subjective experience definition A, to a subjective relation of and human understanding? I believe that objects experienced by an individual he did arrive at the point in which the observer through definition B. Thus the logic of two definitions found itself in a or vivacity produced by our own vicious circle of . His imagination by way of previous theory in which observable reality (nature) may suggest a causal finds itself in the eye of a beholder relationship of a lawn mower to short assumes that an observer exists, and any grass, or a grazing goat to short grass by process of causation exists within the way of habits. formulations of human learning. If the first definition was used by In my opinion, Hume was keenly Hume to explain in causal aware of the natural environment and relations in nature, then the second man’s place in it. This fascination perhaps definition of cause was distinctively led him to draw some basic conclusions: designed to apply to satisfy the subjective (A) causation occurs as it happens in processes of human nature. According to nature (observable or not) and (B) Hume, mind conjoins with impressions by causation exists as it is learned by the way of feeling in human imagination of human mind. What is perplexing here is the external objects (Norton et al.). This perhaps the notion that (A) could not be dual approach to causality by Hume was observed if (B) did not come to being. clearly consistent with his basic Therefore, causation may not exist at all. foundations and observations (for This notion was supported by Hume’s instance, missing shade of blue, whether writing and mentioned as follows, “If true the sun will not rise tomorrow, or his causation requires knowable necessary basic distinction between relations of connections, it is the required ideas that ideas to matters of fact), and he realized represent impressions of causal powers in the difficulty of his reasoning for an objects, then there is not true causation at average reader. He clarified in his all” (Norton et al., p. 162). Therefore, the Enquiries, “I know not whether the reader observation of nature becomes the will readily apprehend this reasoning. I observation of human mind. This is a am afraid that, should I multiply words constructivist base or foundation of about it, or throw it into a greater variety Hume’s theory of causation. I assume of lights, it would only become more that nature was real to Hume as it obscure and intricate” (Selby-Bigge et al., appeared and did exist only by way of 79). Since the foundation of his reasoning human observation. regarding “matters of fact” constitutes the I believe that Hume’s two definitions idea of causation with its foundation in of causes account for every logical and “experience” of greater uniformity of realistic possibility in which either nature, nature. For instance, white swans will which is observable, or human mind, form an experience of “swans” and the which expresses , vivacity, or sun will rise tomorrow as it did always. experimentation indicate the same idea. If Hume’s method of induction tends to run there are in fact three relations between

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol7/iss1/3 4 Stanek: On David Hume

objects, as Hume noted: resemblance, followed customary practices and habits contiguity, and cause-effect, then these through which a careful analysis could be observations relate to nature. What was reconstructed. Practice and experience left, in Hume’s understanding, was the was the reflection of human learning, philosophical or psychological field of which mirrors that of Hume. A causation experienced by human mind? I Skinnerian approach to behaviorism believe Hume was erroneous on purpose assumes that habits and customs are by introducing philosophical bias or error conditioned responses to the experienced to his discussion on causality. He did, environment. In fact, these responses perhaps, seek answers or discussions from could be trained as one may train for a the community to remedy the test. The problem here is, as pointed out implicit errors of subjectivity of human by Hume and supported by Dewey, that experiences and how the world should be the “objective” qualities of a test become observed empirically. too distant to the contextual of These above formulations suggest that social, cultural, emotional, creative Hume could be a constructivist, since he dimensions of learning (Reich et al., 2016). accounted for human understanding of A typical example of such “objective” nature, and he safeguarded subjective learning is for example, a “one-size-fits- human experiences and habits too, and all” approach or teaching towards the test. retained them within the second definition The deductive characteristic of this limited of cause. With each example throughout methodology does not allow for educative the Treatise or Enquiries, Hume suggested growth. It is almost as if one shaved a objective reality, examined the subjective coconut to get to the pre-optioned price, reality, and reexamined the imperfections as opposed to a process of cultivation of a for both cases. garden with some coconut trees among Lastly, Hume’s definitions of cause others - not merely for its fruit but also were the basis for his understanding of for the anticipated excess surplus of other the human mind. I believe that the notion fruits, vegetables, and unknown of reality that exists in nature, regardless possibilities. These unknown possibilities of human perceptions, and the reality are only assumed through a “one-size-fits- constructed by the human perception may all” approach, such as the Organization be at odds, even if the object observed for Economic Co-operation and remained the same. Therefore any Development’s (OECD) (PISA) testing. theories, constructs, or narratives created Educators assume that standardized by people in human understanding may as testing is a predictor of an inductive well be only perceived as causal relations surplus of students’ success. Some of but not necessarily true. For instance, a these philosophical conclusions, I believe, “one-size-fits-all” test approach in identify two important conclusive points: education, , climate cycles, 1) wrongly interpreted predictive qualities , and so on. of too few observations to explain the , in and Education, phenomena, as in a “one-size-fits-all” criticizes most philosophical in approach, and 2) the experience of an education, such as those of: Locke, individual observation should stand as Rousseau, Kant, Fichte, and Hegel, unique to the observable, and any “especially with regard to their implicit theories, constructs, or narratives created ” (Reich et al., 2016, p. 998). by people in human understanding may as Dewey rejected an a priori element of well only be perceived as causal relations Locke, Rousseau, and Kant and closely but not as necessarily true. After

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2017 5 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 7 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 3

reviewing a Deweyan approach to the virtue of reason argued by . philosophy of education it is remarkable Hume delegates reason as doubtful, blind, how Hume’s 1740s approach to learning inconstant, and deceitful to passions through experience resonates with defined as “the internal impressions we Dewey’s education philosophy of 1900s. feel and are conscious of, when we knowingly give rise to any new motion of Question 2 our body or new perception of our mind” (Norton et al., p. 266). In addition, Hume declared in 1739 that, "Reason as the basis for informed and correct is, and ought only to be the slave of the decisions argued by Socrates, are rejected passions, and can never pretend to any by Hume, who states that even, other office than to serve and obey him” “demonstrative reasoning (math) never (p. 174). How would he answer Socrates's influences our actions, but only directs claim that no one ever knowingly does our concerning causes and wrong? effects; which leads us to the second In the famous Protagoras, operation of the understanding” - Socrates asserted that, “No one goes prospects of and (p. 267). willingly toward the bad” (p. 124) nor ever Hume that reason’s role is simply knowingly does wrong. As an intellectual that of assistance and not the originator in to whom knowledge was a virtue, and this decision-making, and, “This is from the virtue was an integral part of knowledge prospect of pain or pleasure that the (episteme), Socrates believed that all aversion or propensity arises towards any reasonable decisions were based on the object” (p. 267) through processes of motivation of gain and benefit to the cause and effect and experience. Since decision maker, however they may seem reason only assists with the connections to others. He argued that even bad required for causal affects, reason alone decisions, as seen by outsiders, originated can never produce or prevent any action with some calculated benefits, however that is formed primarily by impulse of short-lived. Miscalculation is possible and passion. As a consequence, Hume often occurs and could be comparable to proclaims that, “Reason is and ought only the miscalculations of the size of objects to be the slave of the passions, and can seen from a distance. In this example, no never pretend to any other office than to one intends to commit error that may be serve and obey them” (p. 268). harmful as a consequence, but at the same One of the greatest differences time, no one possesses the correct between the Socratic and Humean knowledge to make a totally error-free approach is the role of reason, virtue, and decision. This skill could be learned or knowledge in the process of influencing taught, Socrates argues, and thus logically motives of the will. What sets them both explains that virtue and knowledge could apart is the fundamental approach, in be acquired, therefore, the harmful effects ancient and , to the could be remedied by knowledge and combat between passion and reason. education. Socrates argues for reason and knowledge Unlike Socrates, Hume argues, “that in decision-making, while Hume for reason alone can never be a motive to any passions by way of subservient reason’s action of the will; and that it can never assistance. Hume uses reason as an oppose passion in the direction of the instrument to figure out causation, which will” (Norton et al., p.260). This stance is is the foundation of Hume’s human very anti-intellectual and a counterpoint to understanding. Practically speaking of

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol7/iss1/3 6 Stanek: On David Hume

Hume, human reason only enables the Hume rejects the assertion that necessary connections needed for is born from reason or that it is a behavioral mechanisms or learning. At the product of reason alone. He continues same time, reason is part of the that vice and are not found in practicality of the process in which some causes and effects but only in the decisions may be deemed by reason as sentiments of the observers. His unreasonable. Therefore, causation or discussions on demonstrative reasoning experiences may be re-examined by this described the relations of ideas but not reasonable process. This perhaps could virtues or vices, which are not part of the be learned but mostly experienced to ease process of resemblance, contiguity, or or to facilitate the causation process. I cause and effect. His anti-rationalist believe that Hume’s theory of behavior approach is best illustrated by his motivation or action as he defined it lies in representation of argument in which his basic mechanical foundations. By this, passions, volition, and actions can be I mean the very behavioral-like conditions neither reasonable nor unreasonable. of the mechanisms of how humans Since reason cannot provide action, understand and behave, such as; morality then must be somehow causation, experience, motivation toward connected to passions that generate pleasure, and aversion from pain. His actions. This is a very important assertion approach deems reason partly needed to by Hume who disconnects reason from sort out the unknowns or uncorrelated morality. Hume agrees that people will from the greater mill of causation. commit to some obligations by way of the Hume’s approach reminds me of a blank simple mechanism that assumes a certain canvas of human mind or a computer degree of reward (pleasure) or pain if without software, which only becomes action is not taken or taken to a certain something after some initially injected or expectation. He rejects Hobbesian experienced new data in order to make societal obligation or action of some sort sense of undoubtedly chaotic streams of of intuitive thinking bound by the social foreign and unrelated information. Since covenant but agrees that some could do it Hume rejects a priori construction of to satisfy their appetites of passion or self- human mind, this approach leaves him no . This is not to say that Socrates room to consider human reason in and Hume are in concert here. Socrates broader terms. Socrates, on the other confronts the idea of innate hand, attempts to build a cognitive world by human mind, and argues that such is with human reason as virtue (knowledge) purely done out of ignorance of . at its center. He does not have to reject Hume, on the other hand, rejects the reason as secondary to human passion, general consensus that people may be do- since his theory is not based in the gooders by reason alone, and introduces mechanical concepts of ideas, self-interest as if in a contractual impressions, connections, or causality. relationship that posits trust and The Socratic approach to lived experience predictability that could be rewarded or is purely complementary to its influences punished through pain and pleasure. In on the cognitive abilities of human mind. fact, I believe that Hume follows closely It is reason and knowledge to which Newtonian principles by way of finding experience is complementary and often causes for everything that happens necessary. If lived experience is missing, concerning human mind. Hume does not which it may be, the equivalent may treat virtues as some sort of a priori be learned. instinct or understanding delivered and

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2017 7 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 7 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 3

implanted by , and he explains them and it is doubtful that Socrates could as a in need of finding cause accept such mechanics in the human will. to an effect. What guides Socratic concepts in which Hume could certainly respond to “no one knowingly does anything wrong” Socrates that human emotions are is a greater argument of self-betterment. contiguous and depend on signs of a In Humean philosophy this a priori sentiment sent from one to another concept of ubiquity of morality is replaced (Norton et al., p. 238). In such a way, we by the mechanics of copied impressions, do feel sentiments, not goodness which, in turn, are agreed by the as described by Socrates. Since Hume acceptable, since morality, as it is known defines as the propensity to act, to Socrates, does not exist in Hume. The all communication and clues from the dichotomy of the battle between reason outside world are just indications from and passions does not exist in Hume’s others. Therefore, decisions and will writing, and no amount of learning or bring action from passions based on the knowledge will change that, instead, the sentiments received. Reason, only sorts idea of the liveliness (vivacity) of the out the irregularities resulting from the impressions create a sentiment that is differences between our sentiments and morally neutral, a dramatic change to that those exhibited or experienced by others. of Socratic thinking. Lastly, I believe, that Simply, Humean process is very similarly to Socrates, Hume asserts that mechanical, it excludes a priori morality human understanding or will is to that Socrates believed was heavily vested the concept of the prevalence of self- in human behavior, and strictly depends interest in Socratic understanding, and the on sentiments, or impressions’ clues from pleasure in Hume’s writing. others. If others are immoral and act out Therefore, the greater morality is created of viciousness, Humean process would by copying the impressions from people copy this behavior, however around, which become lived experiences contradictory, and provide action similar in Humean understanding, therefore to that observed. Hume states that the morally accepted as normative. In such greater concept of morality does not exist. way, virtue is created by the copying We are merely copying each other. After mechanism, impressions, resemblance, reading Treatise I and II, what I believe is cause and effect, and greater reward of a difference, between Hume’s and pleasure or penalty of pain, but not reason Socrates’ positions on the fundamentals of alone. I think Hume would reject the human will, is to do with the mechanics of Socratic concept of a priori morality and behavioral and cognitive process. To goodness as if implanted by God or Hume, reason is secondary to passions, nature, and he would defend the while to Socrates reason and virtue are the Newtonian mechanism of causality in catalysts for everything that follows. I nature as the only way to derive assert that Hume expects all human about human understanding. to resemble each other in all The teaching of underlines functions of life, including that of reason, exactly this idea, where an a priori concept therefore, the impressions of ideas shared of ethics is absent among students, and a between humans and the vivacity and new normative morality is built by feeling they produce vary in individuals experience, and more like a social policy. based on their sentiments. This In this process, a student assumes that contradicts Socrates on the basis of an a ethical behavior is an institutional policy priori concept of goodness and morality, that may or may not be applicable outside

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol7/iss1/3 8 Stanek: On David Hume

of the classroom’s frameworks. I believe, established experience of felt lack of that students’ ethical behavior varies responsibility and accountability by the depending on the level of experience, students reinforces the motivation to institutional proximity, and social cheat as a socially “constructed” clue from adaptability of learned ethics. the environment. An approach of The implications of Humean Akratic originality through which a meaningful approach to the field of education could new project or essay on the information suggest that cheating, for example, may gathered by the writer in the form of not be immoral or set within individual observations, interviews, or experiments boundaries of morality but as a product of could generate a new “constructed” . practice or a . For instance, new Therefore, a whole set of newly exposure to newly introduced “morality “constructed” assignments based on a boundaries,” where cheating is not new set of guidelines could reset the allowed, creates new sets of parameters of expectation of the norm. Using oral morality to which an individual will adjust. critique, reflectivity, an ongoing revision The initial punishment for “cheating” process of improving the final product of becomes immoral as a to a project, including its public presentation the prior experience, assuming cheating could break the cycle of plagiarism. This was prevalent and somehow acceptable in is to say that the entire nature of the the past, and any consequence of past assignments should reflect the new cheating in the newly constructed morality Bloom’s-like taxonomy approach. of “no cheating” cannot be held against the individual where it becomes itself Question 3 illogical. After all, Hume insisted that, just because we have experienced five What is Hume claiming in the famous consecutive occurrences of white swans, it is-ought passage of Book III, Part 1, does not mean that the next swan to be Section I? Is he claiming that you cannot seen will in fact be guaranteed to be white. get an ought from an is (R. M. Hare calls This logic if applied to cheating instances this "Hume's ") or is he claiming or investigations among students assumes something altogether different, even illogical assumptions that past experience contrary to this? How does his position will inference the future. It is easier to relate to the statistical sampling debate in assume that cheating “morality” is socially the field of education? constructed, and has nothing to do with The famous passage representing the an innate human sense of morality, at least last paragraph of Book III, Part I, Section in Humean meaning. According to I, of Hume’s Treatise has been analyzed Strom’s (2008) study quoting Sommers and discussed by many who either find and Satel (2005), “Dishonesty in school is the Humean approach to human morality merely a reflection of the broader erosion contradictory or completely consistent of ethical behavior which has become with [Hume’s] “notions on the commonplace in that tend to imperfections and narrow limits of human support self-centeredness over concern understanding”(p. 301). In this short for others” (p. 107). Another observation analysis, I argue that Hume attempts to in the same study suggests that, “Teachers discredit the doctrines and the of are partially responsible because they orthodox religious beliefs. What Hume ignore evidence of character failure and says is: choose not to hold students accountable” In every system of morality, which I (p. 107). In light of Strom's study, the have hitherto met with, I have always

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2017 9 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 7 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 3

remarked, that the author proceeds limiting for human free understanding and for some time in the ordinary way of include among others: religious ethics’ reasoning, and establishes the being of “Ten Commandments,” the dualities or a God, or makes observations dichotomy of arguments from Descartes, concerning human affairs; when of a and even Newtonian principles. Hume sudden I am surprised to find, that argues that the deductive qualities of the instead of the usual copulations of are too rigid, and bound , is, and is not, I meet with already by an arbitrary limit, therefore no that is not connected unfree and not open enough to with an ought, or an ought not. This experiment. The skeptical approach to change is imperceptible; but is, the scientific method, in Hume’s however, of the last consequence. For estimation, delivers unbounded as this ought, or ought not, expresses possibilities, including the basic some new relation or affirmation, this understanding of morality and perhaps - necessary that it should be observed God. I believe, Hume hints at the and explained; and at the same time possibility that the only reality that exists that a reason should be given, for is one that is perceived by our senses, what seems altogether inconceivable, experiences, and causation. For instance, how this new relation can be a take for example saying that God exists deduction from others, which are equals a statement of fact or self- entirely different from it … I shall explanatory demonstration that the presume to recommend it to the existence is true. Hume cannot reader; and am persuaded, that this demonstratively prove that God exists small attention would subvert all the (for instance, 2+2=4) but he insists, likely vulgar systems of morality, and let us because of his critics, that the complex see, that the distinction of vice and world that exists is a demonstrative fact virtue is not founded merely on the on its own, fully observable and relations of objects, nor is perceived experienced in reality, therefore created by by reason. (p. 302) supreme or intellect, and most A typical interpretation of this passage likely God. Hume’s calibration of this is that morals come from the matters of fact statement could be interpreted by the and any immoral act, such as a murder, is following: if God is believed to exist, and reasoned to be wrong. One can also infer all signs point to (reality that morals are not part of the matters of of the world), therefore God ought to exist fact, and morality is simply arbitrary and by habitual belief () or the found in the relations of ideas. Although experience of the world. If experience is this may sound utterly confusing and the only way to understand, and a concept contradictory to most readers of Hume, I of God may be experienced by habit, it is believe that Hume pragmatically delivers only natural for our senses to experience his skepticism towards the narrowness of God. This does not demonstrate God’s human or societal “systems” of existence by Hume’s method, instead, we understanding. Hume attempts to only know particular impressions, beliefs, demonstrate that the only principles or and causations of the idea of God or “systems” available to people are religion. In a similar way, a missing shade discovered by his non-codified principles of color may be reproduced or even of association: resemblance, contiguity, experienced by an individual by way of and causality. Most codified principles resemblance or habit, even if such shade with which Hume did not agree are too of color does not exist. I believe that

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol7/iss1/3 10 Stanek: On David Hume

Hume fully demonstrated his point here For Hume, morality is a fully practical and on (non). experience-based affair that sanctions, I make sense of Hume’s position on conforms, or motivates behavior. In my morality from the perspective in which opinion, this mechanical approach to the moral code (virtues and vices) ought or morality creates an idea of program-like is are bound within the matters of fact. Only behavior, and generates a notion of a experience, and not a priori knowledge can passive mind that only reacts to determine the understanding by way of perceptions and impressions. Hume habit and causality. This skeptical modifies Locke’s idea of “tabula ,” approach builds up understanding by not and Berkeley’s conclusion of “to be is to deducing from the established principles be perceived,” and formulates a skeptical (for example, Catholic ethics) but by platform in which “no ideas are innate”. forming from bottom up vis a vis the This assertion is monumental for Hume, Humean trivium (resemblance, contiguity, and a foundation for behaviorism in the causality). Hume argues that we cannot field of education. Therefore, all learning prove the a priori morality, and is experience-based. Human learning, for he implies that only experience, or its lack, Hume, exists in a loop of exposure, makes our own perception of belief. experience, and habit. Although Hume There is no set standard of morality did not write on education in particular, among rational beings, thus a savage he did describe a Skinnerian theory of behavior elsewhere may be just as learning. It has no a priori construct, normative as attending church services in therefore, all that is known is simply . The morality, as Hume sees it, reproduced, learned, and generated based is as fluid as the breadth of our experience on the senses and causal relations. A with or without it. For instance, most person can have an idea of an apple or a would agree to call a patricidal murder an tree, but human understanding can also immoral act, but not many could see a erroneously imagine (relate) a mermaid or parity of that act to a patricide between an a unicorn, that become habitually real yet oak tree and its sapling. do not exist. Hume presents a valid What I find contradictory is Hume’s logical argument in which the existence of Enquiry position on belief in a divine judge God could be comparable to that of the and its sanctioned effects on morality existence of a mermaid or a unicorn, and (Selby-Bigge, 1996, p. 147). In Enquiry, the only skeptical methodology to find the Hume states that having the idea of the truth is the experience alone. final judgment [religiously speaking] If Hume himself commits inferences creates the impression of necessity, pain from is to ought on several occasions and or pleasure, and certain fulfilling moral at the same time suggests that an ought conduct. This naturally does not prove cannot be derived from an is, could the that God is and exists, but it insinuates key to decipher what Hume really meant posterior belief that God ought to exist (a be based on the argumentation and its contradiction). moral or ethical acuteness? When I believe that Hume, through his combined with Hume’s fork, the ought-is systematic skeptical critique, attempts to designation creates a problem in which discredit the doctrines and dogmas of there is a possibility of no moral orthodox religious belief. He cannot do it knowledge. Morality is not self- openly by proclaiming that God is dead, demonstrative as it is not universal, but a but he does it through a kitchen door - his morality could be experienced, yet lack of piety and clever attacks on . questioned based on the individual

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2017 11 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 7 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 3

experience. If such possibility exists from ground up a new experimental according to Hume, the is-ought statement method of human understanding that is creates a contradiction that threatens the based solely on the mechanical premise of validity of morality or ethics by implying the perceptions and human experiences to subjective and arbitrary judgments. The include his position on religion. The logic of this argument rejects the experience-based approach to education, argumentation of ethics as the key to this in the postmodern sense of riddle. understanding, drives and exposes human- The of Hume seeing the centered accounts of human experience, idea about the idea, lies in the fact that which may not be universal, and applies ideas are not there to be discovered but to them to the greater understanding and be used as tools of experience in order to developing of our educational . understand the world. Collectively, ideas We teach and test ourselves to avoid is to become social tools and entirely ought errors through evidence-based dependent upon people and their research. While we rely on the statistical environment of which morality, ethics, or inferences of the future or sampled religion becomes a human creation. Since observations, our limited approach relies all ideas, according to Hume, are based on heavily on the Humean ought to, rather -world experience, a new reality of than is. By analyzing this third question, I today’s social media tools, such as, cannot help but to stress the importance gathered information on trends, fashion, of a qualitative approach to educational art, and meta-data “re-create” the research, where a single observation or a perceived world. By eliminating objective piece of evidence is analyzed for the knowledge, Hume attacks the permeated qualities that are observable without “objectivity” as the basis for traditional committing the inferential “ought” of philosophical and scientific discourse and probabilities that tend to fit or diminish introduces a new creative approach. The the “is”. The “affinity of researchers” experience-based approach, and not the with certain kinds of people, designs, data, universally held norms, are, according to theories, concepts, or explanations Hume, the truest reflections of reality (Norris, 1997) introduce biases, which are (human and nature centered but not embedded in the exact process described superstitious or religious). by Hume. Consequently some biases, Overall, Hume is remarkably including “the sampling of , places, pragmatic, he relies on coherent accounts events, people, issues, questions and the of human experience, he excludes the balance between the dramatic and the possibilities of erroneous turns, such as; mundane,” find their way into research as the superstitions or unfounded unavoidable and reflective of is to ought connections “oughts from is,” and builds errors (p. 174).

References Hume, D. (1996). Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the Cahn, S.M. (2012). Classic and contemporary principles of morals. (3rd Edn.) Oxford, readings in the philosophy of education. New UK:Clarendon Press. York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hume, D. (2000). A treatise of human nature: Foley, G. (2000). Understanding adult a critical edition. Oxford, UK: Clarendon education and training. Sydney, Australia: Press. Allen & Unwin.

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol7/iss1/3 12 Stanek: On David Hume

Moseley, A. (Ed.) (2017). The Internet Segvic, H. (2009). From Protagoras to Encyclopedia of Philosophy. : essays in ancient moral philosophy. Norris, N. (1997). Error, bias and validity Princeton, NJ: Princeton University in qualitative research, Educational Press. Action Research, 5 (1), 172-176. Strom, P.S. & Strom R.D. (2007). Reich, K. Garrison, J & Neubert, S. Cheating in Middle School and High (2016). Complexity and Reductionism School. The Educational Forum, 71 (2), in Educational Philosophy—John 104-116. Dewey’s Critical Approach in Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) (2012). The Stanford ‘’ Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Reconsidered. Educational Philosophy and Ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford Theory, 48 (10), 997-1012. University Press.

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2017 13