|
Philosophy
210/310
Early Modern Philosophy
|
Study
Questions for Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Section VIII: Of Liberty
and Necessity
-
What is the doctrine of necessity?
-
Where does Hume think we derive our idea of necessity from? What
two ‘circumstances' have to be the case for us to say of
-
some situation that one event causes (or determines, or necessitates) another?
-
Does the doctrine of necessity apply to the voluntary actions of people?
How so? That is, explain how the two ‘circumstances'
-
fit the case of human action.
-
Hume contrasts the attitude of the ‘vulgar' with that of the philosophers
concerning the ‘contrariety' of events. What is this issue?
How do the philosophers differ from the vulgar on this topic? Which
of these views preserves the doctrine of necessity?
-
Hume examines the inferences that we draw concerning human action.
What sort of inferences is he talking about? Inferences from what
to what? Why is it important for him to address this issue?
-
What is the point of the discussion of the prisoner? (Hint: It's
the same as the point of the cases of the houseguest and the man who leaves
his gold in the train station.)
-
The paragraph on p. 362 which begins "I have frequently considered..."
is an important one. What is Hume up to there? What issue is
he dealing with? What is his point? (The same topic is continued
in the following paragraph.)
-
Why is it that an act of mine still falls under the doctrine of necessity
even though it seems to me that my act is free?
-
What is the doctrine of liberty? Why is it consistent with the doctrine
of necessity?
-
Liberty is opposed to constraint; it is not opposed to necessity.
What does this mean?
-
According to Hume, the doctrine of necessity does not threaten morality
or our ability to praise and blame, but rather morality--including our
practices of praising and blaming--presuppose the truth of the doctrine
of necessity. Explain how this is so.
-
How is it that liberty is essential to morality?
Hume considers a powerful objection in the paragraph which spans pp.
365-66. What is his response to this objection? Is it a good one?