CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
Are we not often at times
shocked by the discovery that what we thought was certain is later proved
dubious and false? If this be a regular occurrence, is it not the case that we
may become suspicious of all claims to certainty? But then, the history of
human opinion rightly forms the most fertile source material for the
development of any theory of knowledge. Yet, no theory or belief has proved so
full of absurdity, that it lacked its own disciples. The history of science is itself
replete with theories priory accepted by the sages of old but later on
discredited.
Philosophers are therefore
concerned with the basis of all knowledge claims, so that they might arrive at
a consensus for judging these claims. For it, much of what had been taken as
certain has instead been proved false or sceptical. Then, what can we really
know and how can we really ever be certain?
Such were the feelings of
David Hume, as he posited his philosophy of “impression and ideas” of which
this work is to throw more light on.
The philosophy of David Hume
then is both an attack on rationalism and a “reducto and absurdum” of
empiricism since the empiricism he defines is one-sided as the rationalism he
attacks. He frankly confessed his dissatisfaction with his position in a
passage which seems to be the starting point for a consideration of the outline
of his work.:
There are two principles which I cannot render consistent nor is it
in my power to renounce either of them, namely, that all our distinct perceptions
are distinct existence, and that the mind never perceives any real connection
among distinct existence.[1]
Thus, the appeal to those
two principles and the understanding of them is the key of Hume’s work. The
first principle, that what we can distinguish in perception is distinguished in
existence is subjective. I rather see it as making the articulations and
distinctions of things depend on the distinctions of the mind. But the second
principle is based on the opposite assumptions.
Hume’s whole account of
causation depends on his perception that causation is not a relation among the
mind’s own ideas, in the sense that it can be got at by any kind of
introspection or reflection. Thus, the result of Hume’s theory of causation
seems to be subjective when he reduces the conception of necessary connection
to a feeling, and this is precisely because he believes that causation is a
relation between real existences and cannot be perceived by the mind. About
causation, he said:
Causation is a relation, which can be traced beyond our senses and
informs us of existence and objects, which we do not see or feel.[2]
In Hume’s philosophy, the
theory of the “association of ideas” plays
the most important part and was the most recognized in the later history of English Empiricism. No wonder Hume
was constantly making association the work of the understanding and through
this theory, he succeeded in narrowing the fundamental principles of knowledge
to mere feeling. His account of the general principle; also lobbied his explanation
of particular instances of cause and effect. Thus, little did he mean to think
that by causation, we only mean constant conjunction, but that we sometimes
infer causation from the observation of only one instance.
In his own period, Hume
affected the inheritance of the Cartesian rationalism into empiricism and made
atomization of perception the very nerve of his philosophy. From this insight,
he viewed every question especially metaphysical and proposed every solution.
It is then our task in this
work, to expose the implications of the concept of his “impressions – ideas”
theory, which evidently forms his basic epistemological stand. We shall
therefore see how plausible they are with a critical mind.
1.1 Statement of the
Problem
The genesis of the history
of philosophy is the treatment of the Ionian philosophers whose main concern
was to determine the basic constitution of the material substances of the
universe[3].
In this immortal search,
Thales posited water, Anaximander posited air, and Pythagoras came up with
units i.e. the mathematical numbers. The departure of Pythagoras and his
subsequent followers was a gathering storm, which ushered in a sharp digression
in philosophical inquiry. Attention now shifted to the problem of change and
permanence. In this pre-Socratic era philosophy was more cosmocentric in
nature.
Plato in the ancient
period posited the world of forms, saying that the real things exist in the
worlds of ideas. Socrates also on his part believes that knowledge is certain,
objective and universal. It is quite possible for man to acquire knowledge. His
was the dialectical method i.e. beginning from particular cases and concluding
with universal knowledge.
In the Mediaeval period,
Augustine toes the line of Plato. Augustine distrusted the senses as source of
knowledge. The senses in his view do not give us certain knowledge. The objects
of knowledge are not the material things of this world, but the external ideas
in the mind of God.[4] St
Thomas is said by some scholars to have succeeded merely in Christianizing
Aristotle. These mediaeval or Christian philosophers were influenced by the
church supremacy at their time.
In this period, the
movement was actually a rebirth of knowledge, a revival of interest and zeal
for knowledge. It began with a renewed interest in Ancient writings and
eventually developed into humanistic and scientific movements, with emphasis on
man rather than God. Two important schools flourished in this period.
The continental rationalists
(Descartes Spinoza and Leibniz) adopted the mathematical method and believed
that reason alone, using the mathematical method can attain truth without the
aid of the senses. They denied that sense perception was necessary in order to
attain knowledge. The empiricists on the other hand, asserted that all-genuine
knowledge derive from sense perception. Neither Locke nor Berkeley was a
consistent empiricist. But Hume was and he brought empiricism to its logical
conclusion.[5] He
tried to portray this by his philosophy of impression and idea. When we
perceive objects, they make impression on us. Ideas are formed from these
impressions. Whether he succeeded in doing this is what we shall be looking at
in this work. We shall be evaluating critically his position about impression
and idea, within which we shall portray the explicit implication of his
position.
1.2 Purpose
My aim or purpose in this
research now is to expose the implications of the concept of Hume’s impressions
and ideas theory. We shall therefore see how plausible they are, with a
critical mind. This work will seek to x-ray the extent to which pure knowledge
can be gotten only through impression or that we can only know something
through experience and without impression, there will be no ideas.
1.3 Scope
This research does not
intend to give an exhaustive study of David Hume’s philosophies. Rather, it
centered on his theory of impression and idea. How he tried to resolve the
diverse conceptions of philosophers on the acquisition of pure knowledge.
1.4 The Methodology of the
Work
In this sensitive
philosophical discourse, we shall make use of expository method in
understanding the notion of impression and ideas and Hume’s argument in denying
and rejecting reason as a way of attaining knowledge. Again, we shall use
critical method in evaluating Hume’s view. In general, the methodology is going
to be scholarly, academic, and philosophical.
This research work is
divided into five chapters. Chapter one deals mainly with the introduction and
the framework of the entire study, chapter two deals with the literature
review. This takes into account the contributions of other philosophers on the
related topic in the various epochs. Chapter three x-rays the Epistemological
foundation of Hume’s philosophy, chapter four centered on the impossibility of
the metaphysics while chapter five gives an evaluation and critical conclusion
to the work.
[1] D. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature ed, L. A.
Selby, Bigge, (London: Ely House, Oxford University Press, 1975), p. 636.
[2] Ibid, Bk 1, Part III, Section II, p.179
[3] E. Anowai, Unpublished Lecture on Cosmology,(Awka: P.J.P.S ,2004),
p.24
[5] J. Omoregbe; Epistemology – A Systematic And Historical Study,
(Lagos, Joja Educational Research, 2003), p. 89.