Berkeley's subjective idealism and D. Hume's agnosticism.
Berkeley's subjective idealism.
The doctrine created by Berkeley is subjective idealism. Having rejected the existence of matter, it recognizes the existence only of human consciousness, in which Berkeley distinguishes between “ideas” and “souls” (“minds”). His best works, in which he sets out his philosophy, were written by him in his youth, these are “An Experience in a New Theory of Vision”, “Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge”, “Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonus”.
In 1709, Berkeley published his Essay on a New Theory of Vision. When creating this work, Berkeley was most concerned with the need to eliminate the idea of primordial qualities independent of our consciousness, supposedly confirming the reality of matter, namely matter outside the mind. And the primary quality, especially after the works of Descartes, which won universal recognition, is the extension of bodies. Berkeley publishes his “Essay...” specifically to refute the general preconceived (in his opinion) opinion. The result, according to Berkeley, successfully achieved, was to prove that the distance, size and position of objects are not at all the primary, objective (that is, independent of the subject) qualities of objects, but rather our interpretations.
So, the perception of distance does not reflect real distance; such perception does not convey an image of the real world, since the distance depends on the form of activity of the subject. Against this theory of vision we could effectively use the rules of geometric optics, for which space, measured from a distance, would have to be combined with something objective. However, Berkeley reminds us that if these rules were valid, it would follow that everyone's perception of distance should be the same. But obviously this is not the case. The desire to explain vision “through geometry,” according to Berkeley, is just a “fantasy” or “whim.”
It would also be a mistake to believe that the connection that unites visual impressions with tactile sensations relates, if not directly to external bodies, then to the nature of these things. According to Berkeley, the connection between different types of sensations belongs to the realm of logic and objectivity: it is only a matter of experience. Only the human soul establishes a connection between “hints” of diverse content different types sensations. Thus the soul creates “things” and gives form to “objects”. Both tactile sensations and visual representations (images) are signs of the language of nature, which God sends to the senses and reason so that a person learns to regulate his actions necessary to maintain life, and to adapt them to circumstances, so as not to endanger his life. danger. This means that vision is a tool for preserving life, but in no way a means of proving the reality of the external world. According to Berkeley, “objective reality appears to us only on the basis of interpretation, the interpretation of “signs” by sensations, the only ones initially known. And only when we establish a certain connection between different classes of perceptible reflections and consider their corresponding mutual dependence that has developed between them, only then can we consider that the first step in the construction of reality has been taken.”
Hume's agnosticism.
Hume's theory of knowledge was formed as a result of his processing of J. Berkeley's subjective idealism in the spirit of agnosticism and phenomenalism. Hume considered impressions of external experience (sensations) to be primary perceptions, and impressions of internal experience (affects, desires, passions) to be secondary. Considering the problem of the relationship between being and spirit to be theoretically unsolvable, Hume replaced it with the problem of the dependence of simple ideas (i.e., sensory images) on external impressions. Rejecting the reflection in consciousness of the objective laws of existence, Hume interpreted the formation of complex ideas as psychological associations of simple ideas with each other.
The central point of his epistemology - the doctrine of causality - is connected with Hume's conviction in the causal nature of association processes. Having posed the problem of the objective existence of causal connections, Hume solved it agnostically: he believed that this problem was unprovable, since what is considered an effect is not contained in what is considered a cause and is not similar to it.
Rejecting free will from the standpoint of mental determinism, Hume used this conclusion to criticize the concept of spiritual substance. Personality, according to Hume, is “... a bundle or bundle... of various perceptions following each other...”. Hume's criticism of spiritual substance developed into a criticism of religious faith, to which he contrasted the habits of ordinary consciousness and vague “natural religion.”
Agnosticism is the most accurate definition of the main content of Hume's philosophy. The deviation from agnosticism in the Treatise of Human Nature, expressed in the construction of a dogmatic scheme for the spiritual life of man, was undertaken by Hume not with the aim of shaking agnosticism, but, on the contrary, with the aim of implementing the recommendations arising from it. And they consisted in the rejection of attempts to penetrate into objective reality and in cognitive sliding along the surface of phenomena, that is, in phenomenalism. In fact, this is just another name for Hume’s agnosticism, but considered as a method
George Berkeley- English philosopher, bishop (1685-1753).
George Berkeley
« Everything that exists is singular“- he states in the treatise “ On the principles of human knowledge" The general exists only as a generalized visual image of the individual.
Abstract, abstract understanding is impossible because the qualities of objects are inseparably united in the object.
The concept of representational thinking. According to this concept, there cannot be abstract general ideas, but there can be particular ideas that are similar ideas of a given kind. Thus, any particular triangle that replaces or represents all right triangles can be called general, but a triangle in general is absolutely impossible.
As " the most abstract and incomprehensible of all ideas» Berkeley considered the idea of matter or corporeal substance. “Denying it does not cause any harm to the rest of the human race, which will never notice its absence. The atheist really needs this ghost of an empty name to justify his atheism, and philosophers will perhaps find that they have lost a strong reason for idle talk.”
Berkeley's teachings - subjective idealism . « To exist is to be perceived" The immediate objects of our cognition are not external objects, but only our sensations and ideas; in the process of cognition we are not able to perceive anything other than our own sensations.
Materialistic epistemology, recognizing that our sensations are direct objects of knowledge, assumes that sensations still give us knowledge of the external world, which generates these sensations through its impact on our senses. Berkeley, defending subjective idealistic attitudes, argues that the cognizing subject deals only with his own sensations, which not only do not reflect external objects, but actually constitute these objects. IN " Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge Berkeley comes to two conclusions. Firstly, we know nothing except our sensations. Secondly, a collection of sensations or a “collection of ideas” is what is objectively called things. Things or individual products are nothing more than a modification of our consciousness.
Solipsism- a doctrine that makes the existence of the objective world dependent on its perception in the consciousness of the individual “I”.
This point of view, if adhered to to the end, leads to the transformation of the world into an illusion of the perceiving subject. D. Berkeley understood the vulnerability of such a position and tried to overcome the extremes of subjectivism. For this purpose, he was forced to admit the existence of “thinking things” or “spirits”, the perception of which determines the continuity of the existence of “inconceivable things”. For example, when I close my eyes, or leave a room, the things that I saw there can exist, but only in the perception of another person. But in this case, the question naturally arises: what to do with existence before man arose. After all, even according to the teachings of Christianity, of which Bishop Berkeley was an adherent, the real world arose before man. And Berkeley was forced to retreat from his subjectivism and, in fact, take the position of objective idealism. The creator of the entire surrounding world and the guarantor of its existence in the consciousness of the subject is, according to Berkeley, God.
Traditional theology, according to Berkeley, argues as follows: “ God exists, that's why he perceives things" One should reason like this: “ Sensible things really exist, and if they really exist, they are necessarily perceived by the infinite spirit, therefore the infinite spirit or God exists».
Skepticism of D. Hume
English philosopher David Hume (1711-1766) author " Treatise on Human Nature», « Research on human cognition", in his creative activity paid attention to many problems of history, ethics, economics, philosophy, religion. But the central place in his research was occupied by questions of the theory of knowledge.
Hume reduces the task of philosophy to the study of the subjective world of man, his images, perceptions, and the determination of those relationships that develop between them in human consciousness.
The main elements of experience are perceptions, which consist of two forms of cognition: perceptions And ideas. The distinction between perceptions and ideas is established by the degree of vividness and vividness with which they strike our mind. Impressions are those perceptions that enter consciousness with the greatest force and irresistibility and embrace all our sensations, affects and emotions at their first manifestation in the soul. Ideas mean “weak images of these impressions in thinking and reasoning.”
The reason for the appearance of impressions and sensations, according to Hume, is unknown. It should be revealed not by philosophers, but by anatomists and physiologists. They are the ones who can and should determine which of the senses give a person the most and most reliable information about the world. Philosophy is interested in the impressions of reflection. According to Hume, they arise as a result of the action on the mind of certain ideas of sensations (i.e., copies of impressions, sensations). The order of the sequence of ideas preserves the memory, and the imagination moves them freely. However, the activity of the mind, according to Hume, does not introduce anything new into the source material. All the creative power of the mind, according to him, comes down to only the ability to combine, mix, increase or decrease the material provided to us by external feelings and experience.
Since Hume separates the content of consciousness from the external world, the question of the connection between ideas and things disappears for him. An essential question for further research into the cognitive process is the question of the connection between different ideas.
Three types of associations of ideas are found:
· The first type is association by similarity. By this type of association, we recognize this as if we saw a portrait of a person, then we will immediately revive the image of this person in our memory.
· The second type is associations by contiguity in space and time. Hume believes that if you are close to home, then the thought of your loved ones is much brighter and more vivid than if you were at a considerable distance from home.
· The third type is causality associations. The relationship of space and time, as well as causal dependence, for Hume is not an objectively existing reality, but only the result of a causal relationship in perception.
Hume extends skepticism to spiritual, including divine, substance. In his opinion, it is impossible to discover through experience a special perception of a spiritual substance. Individual impressions are themselves substances and do not need support from anything else. If there were a spiritual substance, it would be permanent. But no impression is permanent.
Hume's skepticism, associated with his refusal to reduce perception, on the one hand, to the external world, and on the other, to the spiritual substance God, is a form of agnosticism.
1. A prominent figure in British philosophy is David Hume (1711-1776). Hume developed the subjective-idealistic concept, continuing it in the direction of agnosticism (a doctrine that denies, in whole or in part, the possibility of knowing the world). When asked whether the outside world exists, Hume answered evasively: “I don’t know.” After all, a person is unable to go beyond his own sensations and understand anything outside himself. Reliable knowledge for Hume can only be logical, and the subjects of research that concern facts cannot be proven logically, but are deduced from experience. Hume interpreted experience as a stream of “impressions”, the causes of which are unknown and incomprehensible. Since experience cannot be justified logically, experimental knowledge cannot be reliable. Thus, in experience we are first given one impression of a certain phenomenon, and then another. But from the fact that one phenomenon precedes another in experience, it is logically unprovable that one (the first) is the cause of the other. From this Hume concluded that it is impossible to know the objective nature of causality. Denying objective causality, he, however, admitted the presence of subjective causality in the form of the generation of ideas (memory images) by sensory impressions. The existence of a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be proven, since what is considered an effect is not contained in what is considered a cause. The effect is not logically deducible from the cause and is not similar to it. Hume was right that the sequence of events in time does not mean the existence of a cause-and-effect relationship. In the end, having lost all grounds that could testify to us about the reliability of knowledge, Hume was forced to assert that the source of our practical confidence is not theoretical knowledge, but faith. So, we are sure of the daily sunrise. This confidence comes from the habit of seeing a given phenomenon repeat itself. Thus, having posed the problem of the objective existence of cause-and-effect relationships, Hume solved it from the position of agnosticism.
2. In England 17th–18th centuries. idealistic sensationalism developed, the most prominent exponent of which was J. Berkeley (1685–1753).
Being a staunch supporter of religion, Berkeley criticized the concept of matter. He argued that the concept of matter is general and therefore false, since it is based on the assumption that we can allegedly abstract from the particular properties of things that make up the content of our sensations and form an abstract idea of “matter in general” as common to all our sensations substrate. Distraction, according to Berkeley, is impossible because the qualities of objects are inextricably linked in an object. The human mind can consider separately from others only those qualities with which they are united in some object, but without which they can actually exist. Thus, one can imagine a head without a body, a color without movement, a figure without weight, etc., but one cannot imagine a triangle in general, that is, a triangle that is neither greater nor lesser, neither equilateral nor scalene. In other words, there is not and cannot be an abstract idea of a triangle, but there is only an idea of a triangle with certain specific properties. We do not perceive matter as such, but only individual properties of things - taste, supply, color, etc., the perception of which Berkeley called “ideas.” The things around us exist as ideas in the mind of God, who is the cause and source of earthly life.
Berkeley's subjective idealism lies primarily in the fact that he seeks to prove that existence as such and existence in perception are identical. "To exist is to be perceived." The immediate objects of our cognition are only our sensations and ideas, and in the process of cognition we are not able to perceive anything other than our own ideas. Berkeley argues that the cognizing subject deals only with his own sensations, which not only do not reflect external objects, but actually constitute these objects. Thus, Berkeley comes to two subjective idealistic conclusions. Firstly, we do not know anything except our sensations. Secondly, the totality of sensations is what is objectively called things. It turns out that things or individual products are nothing more than a modification of our consciousness. The result of D. Berkeley’s subjective-idealistic theory of knowledge was solipsism - a doctrine that makes the existence of the objective world dependent on its perception in the consciousness of the individual “I”.
But according to the teachings of Christianity, of which Bishop Berkeley was an adherent, the real world arose before man. And Berkeley retreated from his subjectivism and took the position of objective idealism. The creator of the entire surrounding world and the guarantor of its existence in the consciousness of the subject is God. Sensible things cannot exist except in the mind or spirit. And it is no less clear that these ideas or things perceived by me exist independently of the specific soul. They must therefore exist in some other spirit; therefore, there is a spirit that at every moment causes those sensory impressions that a particular person perceives. Thus, the English bishop not only refutes materialism, but, using subjective idealistic methodology, builds an original version of the proof of the existence of God.
George Berkeley (1685-1753) born in Ireland, graduated from the University of Dublin. Studied mathematics, ancient and modern foreign languages, organized a philosophical circle. After graduation, he was a teacher of theology and Greek and Hebrew languages. In 1709 he was elevated to the rank of deacon of the Church of England. From 1713 to 1734, as a house priest and secretary to a diplomat, he made a number of trips around Europe. He lived in America for several years for missionary purposes. In 1734 he was elevated to the rank of bishop and appointed bishop of Cloyne (Ireland). Of the works written by Berkeley, the most famous was his main work - "Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge" (1710), in which he develops his philosophical system of subjective idealism. In defense of the main ideas contained in this work, in 1713 he wrote a popular work in which he sought to refute the objections raised against his philosophy. He publishes this work under the title "Three Conversations between Hylas and Philonus."
Already during his studies and after, in the first years of teaching in Dublin, Berkeley was faced with rapidly spreading anti-scholastic philosophical ideas (such as Bacon or Descartes), which was facilitated by the successes of new natural sciences. Berkeley saw that along with this, concepts questioning religion were also spreading, often in hidden form. Therefore, already at this time he intensively advocated in defense of religion. He carries this thought through all his creativity and devotes all his strength to it.
From the previous philosophical tradition, D. Berkeley was influenced by the ideas of D. Locke related to the theory of knowledge. The starting point of his concept is Locke’s distinction between primary and secondary qualities.
If D. Locke recognizes the objective existence of primary qualities (prevalence, weight, etc.), and understands secondary qualities as depending on “the abilities of our human organs,” then D. Berkeley considers all qualities to be secondary. He makes great efforts to show that those properties that D. Locke defines as primary qualities, i.e., which, according to Locke, are inherent in the things themselves and thus have an objective character, are in nature such the same as secondary qualities. He argues that gravity and all spatial properties and relationships are essentially determined by the faculties of our senses. He shows that even such a simple spatial property as magnitude is more likely a process of our perception than has an objective character. According to Berkeley, the same object seems large to us (at a small distance from it) and small (at a large distance from it). From this he deduces that the idea of size and distance arises on the basis of an inductive conclusion based on sensations that are mediated various organs feelings.
Everything we know about material objects, says Berkeley, comes down to sensations of size, shape, hardness, color, smell, taste, etc. Nothing else is hidden behind the concept of an object. Consequently, what we call a thing is nothing more than the totality of our perceptions. Here is Berkeley's characteristic argument. “I see this cherry, I touch it, I taste it, and I am convinced that nothing can be seen, felt, or tasted, therefore it is real. Eliminate the sensations of softness, moisture, beauty, astringency, and you will destroy the cherry. Since it is not a being distinct from sensations, the cherry is nothing more than a combination of sensory impressions or ideas perceived by different senses; these ideas are united into one thing (or have one given name) by the mind, for each of them is observed accompanied by the other.”
Thus, everything that really exists exists only as a fact of our consciousness . Commenting on this point of view, I. Kant once wrote: “It is impossible not to recognize as a scandal for philosophy the need to accept only on faith the existence of things outside of us and the impossibility of opposing any satisfactory proof of this existence if anyone decided to question it.”
"Esse est percipi." Berkeley comes to the fundamental idea of subjective idealism: “In reality, an object and a sensation are one and the same and therefore cannot be abstracted from each other.” He identifies the properties of external objects with the sensations of these properties. This leads to the famous formula: “Esse - est percipi” (“To exist is to be perceived”). At the same time, Berkeley claims that his philosophical position frees people from the duality of reality into objective and subjective worlds.
Next, Berkeley turns to the concept of matter. He reasons as follows. In the common understanding of matter, it is thought of as the common thing in things and as the basis, “support” of things. But, says Berkeley, “the general idea of beings seems to me the most abstract and incomprehensible of all ideas.” There is also no clear meaning in the concept of material substance (“support”). “However, why should we bother to reason about this material substrate or bearer of the form of movement and other perceptible qualities? Does he not suppose that they have an existence outside the spirit? And isn’t this a direct contradiction, something completely unthinkable?”
Based on the basic tenet of sensationalism that knowledge arises from experience, Berkeley argues that in experience we deal only with individual things. As for general ideas, they are only names. It is impossible, says Berkeley, to imagine a triangle that would not have a certain appearance, that is, would not be either acute or rectangular, etc. There is no triangle in general, there are only individual triangles. There are many words and expressions in language that lack clear and precise meaning and obscure the truth. These include the concepts of substance and matter. Like other abstract concepts, they are devoid of objective meaning. Berkeley repeatedly emphasizes that general ideas have no real content, that a person in his consciousness must and can operate only with singularities.
Summarizing his criticism of the concept of matter, Berkeley writes: “If what you mean by the word “matter” is only an unknown carrier of unknown qualities, then it makes no difference whether such a thing exists or not, since it in no way concerns us.” .
So, matter does not exist, but individual things exist as combinations of individual sensations. At the same time, Berkeley repeatedly says that the existence of things lies in their perceptibility, that “things perceived in sensations do not have an existence different from their perceptibility.” “Their esse is percipi, and it is impossible for them to have any existence outside of spirits or thinking people who perceive them... But what is the world in which we live? Is it really just sensations and nothing more? It would be strange, to say the least." Berkeley talks about the existence of many souls experiencing their sensations. The soul is the bearer of ideas. But where do ideas come from and why do they change? Answering this question, Berkeley writes: “I assert, just like you (this is an appeal to materialists. - V.I.), that since we are affected by something from the outside, then we must admit the existence of forces located outside (us) , powers belonging to a being different from us. But here we differ on the question of what kind of powerful being this is. I affirm that this is spirit, you are matter.” And the spirit is God. So, the souls of people exist, God exists. But what about sensory things?
If you strictly follow the principle “Esse - est percipi”, difficulties may arise. This is, first of all, a question about the unity of things. If existence consists in perceptibility, then it turns out that when we are in different time We perceive a thing with the same sense organ or with different sense organs and at the same time experience different sensations, then things have a completely different existence. An oar lowered into the water is perceived differently by sight and touch. The flame that is visible and pleasing to us with its pleasant warmth now and that burned us painfully a minute ago, when with our eyes closed we brought our hand too close to the same burning hearth, is various items essentially. A fly observed with the naked eye and then through a microscope is two different flies.
If we proceed from such a “splitting of things,” it will lead us to complete chaos and loss of orientation, which must be avoided. Therefore, says Berkeley, people connect different combinations of sensations, and then indicate this connection with a verbal sign (“this oar”, “this fire”, “this fly”, etc.). “Men combine several ideas, which are obtained either by different senses, or by the same sense at different times or in different circumstances, and which are observed to have some natural connection, either in the sense of coexistence or in the sense of succession; People put all this under one name and consider it as one thing.” Note that Berkeley is forced to talk about “natural connection,” which contradicts the principles of his teaching.
Next, the question arises about the continuity of the existence of things. Do things exist when a person does not perceive them? In general, if we consistently apply the principle “esse est percipi”, it will lead us to solipsism , i.e. the point of view according to which only the thinking subject is an undoubted reality, and all other individuals and objects exist only in his consciousness. A. Schopenhauer once remarked that only an insane person can be an extreme solipsist, recognizing the reality of only his own “I”.
To avoid solipsism, Berkeley speaks of the “possibility of perception” (esse est posse percipi). A thing continues to exist even when it is not perceived by a person, but only the possibility of perception exists. “When I say that the table on which I write exists, it means that I see and feel it; and if I left my room, I would say that the table exists, meaning by this that if I were in my room, then I could perceive it.”
Berkeley goes on to refer to other people's perceptions as the basis for the existence of things. But this is not last step. If people are unable to perceive something, it can exist in the consciousness of God. “The act of creation is that God wants those things that were previously known only to him to become perceived by other spirits.” Turning to God, Berkeley leaves the position of subjective idealism in favor of objective idealism.
Berkeley says that he accepts "common sense." He allows his readers to speak in Everyday life about things that exist outside of us, and even to use the word “matter”, but this is only a condescending concession to “the opinions of the crowd”; in fact, we must not forget that “matter” is just a word, and “things” are combinations of sensations.
David Hume (1711 - 1776) born in Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland. Received a relatively broad philosophical education. He was a librarian, spent some time in the state diplomatic service, and finally worked as a university professor. Of Hume's philosophical treatises, the most famous is the work "A Study of the Human Mind". But, although this work contains the basic philosophical principles of Hume, it did not receive any response in England. Among his compatriots he was better known as the author of the History of England, as well as for his works on the history of religion (Natural History of Religion).
The starting point in Hume's philosophy is the fact that sensations and emotional experiences are immediately given to us. Locke saw the source of our sensations in the real outside world, Berkeley - in spirit or God; Hume - consistent agnostic
, therefore rejects both of these options. In principle, we cannot resolve the question of the source of sensations. Our mind operates only on the content of our sensations, and not on what causes them. “By what argument can we prove that the perceptions of the spirit must be caused by external objects, quite different from these perceptions, although similar to them (if this is possible), and cannot be generated either by the activity of the soul itself or by the inspiration of some invisible and unknown spirit, or by some other reason even more unknown to us?
People, by virtue of their innate instinct, are ready to believe their feelings, to believe the existence of things. However, according to Hume, this instinctive belief is not amenable to rational justification. And in general, “nature keeps us at a respectful distance from her secrets and provides us with only a knowledge of a few superficial qualities, hiding from us those forces and principles on which the actions of these objects entirely depend.”
Hume agrees with Berkeley in criticizing the concept of matter. He says that "it is impossible to prove either the existence or non-existence of matter." But where do our ideas about material substance come from? This relates to the question of the causes of our perceptions. Thus, for example, when I receive the impression of a lamp standing on a table being lit, I believe that the impression of the lamp is determined by the material object called the “lamp.” And people believe that in addition to the world of sensory perceptions, there is a world of things, material substance. But, says Hume, “As to the idea of substance, I must confess, that it is not furnished to the mind by any sensations or feelings; It has always seemed to me that this is only an imaginary point of connection of different and changeable qualities.”
For Hume, the existence of both material and spiritual substance as the cause of perceptions is doubtful. What remains is our mind, our Self. But what is our Self? I am not some kind of substance. What is called reason, according to Hume, is a set of our impressions and ideas; “mind” is just a convenient term to designate such a set. The result is some kind of strange picture of the world, where there are no objects or subjects, but only a certain flow of impressions and ideas. But, however, this flow of impressions occurs in a person, a subject. The subject has impressions and mental formations derived from them.
"Impression"- these are sensations, emotions (“calm” and stormy), experiences of a moral and aesthetic nature. In addition to impressions there are ideas - images of memory, products of imagination, concepts. "All simple ideas copied from impressions." More complex ideas are formed through the association of impressions.
Concept "association" , i.e. the connection between mental phenomena (sensations, ideas, feelings, ideas, etc.), consisting in the fact that one of the mental phenomena entails another, is central to the epistemology of D. Hume. Hume distinguishes three types of associative connections: by similarity, by contiguity in space and time, and by cause-and-effect dependence. Association by similarity occurs, for example, when, having seen a certain person, we remember other people who are similar to him. The association by contiguity in space and time is that “the thought of an object easily transports us to what is adjacent to it.” An association by cause-and-effect will occur, for example, when, upon seeing a son, we remember his deceased father as the “cause,” even if the son’s external resemblance to his father is small. Thus, if we believe that A is the cause of B, then in the future, having received an impression from B, we will remember A. (It may also be the other way around - when experiencing the idea of A, the idea of B appears).
The Problem of Causality. It is important to find out where this scheme of causal, i.e. cause-and-effect, connection comes from: And the cause of V. Hume poses and considers three questions: 1) do objective causal connections exist and can we firmly know about their existence; 2) why people are convinced of the existence of objective causal relationships and what is the mechanism for the emergence of this psychological belief; 3) what is the basis for the belief in the necessary existence of cause-and-effect relationships?
Answering the first question, Hume considers the existence of objective causal connections doubtful. It is impossible to prove their existence either a priori (lat. a priori– before experience), i.e. by logical deduction of consequences from causes, nor a posteriori (lat. a posteriori– from experience). A priori, the existence of a causal relationship cannot be established, since “the effect is completely different from the cause and, for this reason, can never be discovered in it.” For example, the concept of rainy weather does not follow from the concept of wind. What about the a posteriori proof?
Hume says that a causal connection includes three elements: a) spatial contiguity of cause and effect; b) contiguity in time, i.e. the precedence of the cause to the effect, and c) necessary generation.
What do we have in experience? “Objects that have similarities are always connected to similar ones - we know this from experience. Consistent with the latter, we can define a cause as an object followed by another an object, and all objects similar to the first are accompanied by objects similar to the second. In other words, if the first object did not exist, then the second would never exist.”
In experience we deal only with the contiguity of phenomena in space and time; the necessary generation is not revealed in experience. “All phenomena appear to be completely separate and isolated from each other; one phenomenon follows another, but we can never notice the connection between them; they apparently connected but never happen connected together". Since in experience only the succession of phenomena in time is given, and the necessary generation is not given in experience, then the very existence of causality is not revealed in experience.
But people constantly fall into the illusion of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” (“after this, therefore, because of this”). Why? We are given various impressions in chronological order. The same impressions are repeated: first A, then B. As a result of repetition, we get used to the sequence of impressions and expect such repetitions in the future. A person first appears habit to the appearance of B after A, then expectation this and finally faith that it will always be like this. “Reason can never convince us that the existence of one object always includes the existence of another; therefore, when we pass from the impression of one object to the idea of another, or to the belief in this other, it is not reason that prompts us to do so, but habit, or the principle of association.”
People mistake the repeated appearance of B after A as a necessary generation. It seems to them that there is a principle of uniformity of nature. “Our idea of necessity and causality is generated solely by the uniformity observed in the actions of nature, where similar objects are always connected with each other, and our mind is driven by habit to infer one of them when the other appears.”
But the principle of the uniformity of nature, says Hume, is something very doubtful. Transferring the order of facts of the past to the order of similar facts of the present and future is not a scientifically based technique. Hume ironically notes that people who take repetition for necessary generation , are like animals falling into the same error. So, the chicken believes that since every time after the mistress appears in the poultry yard, grain appears, it means that the mistress is the cause of the grain, and what is the chicken’s “disappointment” when one day, instead of grain, she encounters a knife, sending her into the hands of the cook.
But, although there is no reason to recognize the objectivity of causality, in practical life Hume considers it acceptable to believe in the existence of causal relationships. “If we believe that fire warms and water refreshes, it is because a different opinion would cost us too much suffering.” It is difficult to give up a habit that plays a big role in people's lives. "Habit is a great leader human life. It is only this principle that makes experience useful to us and encourages us to expect in the future a course of events similar to that which we perceived in the past.” The end result is that one should behave as if causality does exist.
Denying the objective existence of causality, Hume recognizes causality in the sphere of consciousness. Causality here exists in the following form: the generation of ideas by impressions, the associative interweaving of ideas with each other and with impressions, the formation of decisions by motives preceding them. At the same time, Hume believes that in the sphere of consciousness there is no free will, strict determinism reigns. Causality here is the “compulsion of the spirit” to move from one perception to another.
After consolidating its class rule and establishing peace with its former opponents, the English bourgeoisie, represented by its ideologists, retreats from empiricism, which tends to materialism, and moves to the position of subjective idealism.
George Berkeley
One of its ideologists was George Berkeley (1685 - 1753). His philosophical works are considered by domestic historians of philosophy as a reaction to the democratic teachings of the previous time. He saw in atheism a great danger to the minds. As a clergyman, he opposed materialism.
Berkeley, in his essays “An Essay on the Theory of Vision” (1709), “A Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge” (1710) (main work), “Three Conversations between Hylos and Philonus” (1713) and others, reveals his philosophical system of subjective idealism.
The uniqueness of D. Berkeley’s philosophy lies in the fact that he sought to protect religion from materialism. To this end, he interprets the ideas of materialism in a subjective-idealistic spirit. Agreeing that a person comprehends the world with the help of sensations, he turns them into the basis not only of knowledge, but also of our worldview. In Berkeley's understanding, sensations are the only reality with which the cognizing subject deals. According to Berkeley, only sensations exist, and matter does not exist. She is the prejudice of materialists. Specific material things are, according to his ideas, modifications of consciousness.
In Berkeley, subjective idealistic assumptions are supported by objective idealistic ones. The cause of ideas formed on the basis of sensations, in his opinion, is God. His philosophy was sharply criticized by materialists. Controversy with Berkeley in subsequent times revealed the shortcomings of the ontological and epistemological ideas of subjective idealism.
David Hume
The English philosopher, historian and economist David Hume (1711 - 1776) seemed to sum up the evolution of British philosophy from empiricism gravitating towards materialism to Berkeley's subjective idealism. He became the progenitor of most of the philosophical teachings of the next two centuries. The main work of D. Hume is “A Treatise on Human Nature” (1739 - 1740). For a number of years he was in the diplomatic service. In Paris, he found a favorable reception from French materialists in 1763 - 1766.
Hume as a philosopher was influenced by Berkeley's ideas. However, unlike Berkeley, a militant champion of idealism and religion, Hume is a skeptic. The Edinburgh thinker seeks to avoid the extremes of Berkeley's philosophy and open conflict with the conclusions of natural science.
Like Berkeley, Hume proceeds from the fact that the source of knowledge is in the sensations or impressions of the subject. However, Hume considered Berkeley's view that the source of sensations was an omnipotent being or deity unacceptable. At the same time, he referred to the fact that no human experience can prove the existence of a deity. Meanwhile, for Hume, the idea of materialists, according to whom sensations are the result of the interaction of man and the objective world, is also unacceptable. He argues that the human mind is inaccessible to anything except images and perceptions. Hume believed that a person is not able to establish any relationship between an image and the object that gave birth to it.
As for the causal connection of phenomena, in his opinion, if it exists, it is unknowable. He believed that the source of knowledge about the order of things is not theoretical research, but faith. According to Hume, the results of the efforts of philosophers demonstrate only the blindness and weakness of the human mind. The underestimation of the importance of scientific knowledge and the exaggeration of the role of common sense on the part of the Edinburgh thinker is a peculiar reaction to the excessive claims of reason and science in the era of enlightenment, when it is then discovered that they cannot fulfill their promises.
Hume's skeptical philosophy makes a concession to agnosticism, which rejects knowledge of the world or doubts that a person is capable of having knowledge about the world.
Historical meaning D. Hume's philosophy lies in the fact that his skepticism forced philosophers who lived after him to continue understanding the theory and psychology of knowledge, as well as direct efforts to study ethical problems.
Philosophy in France
While in the British Isles public consciousness, and with it philosophy moved further and further away from the mentality of the period of revolutionary transformations; different processes were taking place in France. In the middle of the 18th century. France was on the eve of a revolutionary situation, and this determined the features of its philosophical life.
The philosophy of the 18th century, dominant in France, is called the philosophy of enlightenment. “The period of its development can be conditionally limited to two dates: the year of the death of Louis XIV (1715), which put an end to the era of “brilliant” absolutism, and the year of the storming of the Bastille (1789), after which life made new demands on philosophy.”
This culture cultivated common sense, which consisted in a person’s ability to think independently, appealing to the knowledge accumulated in society, common practice and the guidance of the rules accepted in a given environment for the benefit received. The common sense of that time focused on the affirmation of private interest, “reasonable egoism,” and the condemnation of everything that seemed to hinder the movement of society towards a prosperous state. As noted in the 2nd book of “History of Philosophy: West - Russia - East”: “The cultivation of such a special human ability as common sense, more broadly, the ability to judge, is the merit of the Enlightenment, who thanks to this gave Western civilization the idea of a perfect personality. This is also the specificity of French educational philosophy.”
Charles Montesquieu
Charles Montesquieu (1689 - 1755) was one of the first figures of the French enlightenment. Already his essay “Persian Letters” aroused considerable interest among readers, and his work “The Spirit of Laws” (1748) placed him among the outstanding minds of his time. He opposed despotism and insisted that it was not human thoughts that diverged from existing beliefs and institutions that should be punished, but actions. Montesquieu promotes the principle of complete religious tolerance. He believed that the state structure and social consciousness do not depend on otherworldly forces. He explained the differences in social structure, as well as the peculiarities of the intellectual make-up of peoples, by the peculiarities of the climate of the countries in which they lived.
C. Montesquieu is considered the founder of geographical determinism, since he made the cultural development of peoples strictly dependent on the geographical conditions of their existence.
Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
François Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694 - 1778) had a great influence on the ideological life of France in the era under consideration. He went down in cultural history as one of the greatest writers in France. And although he did not create any special philosophical system, nevertheless, his criticism of religion, despotism, official state security installations, outdated ethics and morality played a positive role in the emancipation of minds.
Voltaire was a supporter of the teachings of I. Newton. In his works “Philosophical Letters” (1734), “Metaphysical Treatise” (1734) he defends the ideas of atomism and determinism. He believed that knowledge stems from sensations.
He opposed B. Pascal and J.-J. Rousseau, who contrasted unspoiled nature with culture. According to Voltaire, a return to primitive culture is unnatural. He believed that a civilized person is in greater harmony with nature than a savage.
Voltaire believed that the driving factor of history is the struggle of opinions that mediate the actions of people. He believed that history was not subject to laws.
In the field of ethics, Voltaire struggled both with the doctrine that insists on the innateness of moral ideas in humans, and with the ideas according to which these ideas have a conditional, conventional nature.
Etienne-Bonneau de Condillac
One of the most thorough and systematic minds of the French enlightenment was Etienne-Bonneau de Condillac (1715 - 1780). His development as a philosopher was greatly influenced by the ideas of D. Locke. In his main work “Treatise on Sensations” (1754), developing the sensationalistic theory of knowledge, he derives all human knowledge from sensations. Rejecting the Cartesian theory of innate ideas, Condillac believed that the development of human abilities is determined solely by experience, exercise, and education. Contrary to Locke, who considered reflection an independent source of knowledge, Condillac proves that reflection is based on sensations and is a secondary level of knowledge derived from them. Caudillac's merit was that he added an element of rationalism to sensationalism, insisting that sensations must be expressed in a language that has a certain logic.
Condillac, in his essay “Treatise on Systems” (1749), expressed a lot interesting ideas related to system analysis, which has become an important means of scientific analysis of reality in our time.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The most influential thinker of the French Enlightenment is Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778). He was born in Geneva. His youth was spent in poverty and wandering. He made his debut short essay“Discourse on the Sciences and Arts” (1749), written for the prize of the Dijon Academy. To the question asked by this academy: “Have the successes of the sciences and arts contributed to the improvement of morals?” Rousseau answered in the negative.
Significant milestones in Rousseau’s work related to philosophy were “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Between People” (1755), “On the Social Contract” (1762), “Emile, or on Education” (1762), “New Heloise” (1761).
According to Rousseau, the source of inequality is natural inclinations, but in a civilized society there is also social inequality, which is associated with the emergence of private property, which is the cause of all social ills and misfortunes. He drew attention to the antagonism and inconsistency historical development society.
According to Rousseau, the arguments of rational egoism push people to conclude a social contract at the moment in time when they enter the stage of civil status. However, the original contract has ceased to be true and therefore justice requires breaking the old contract, since the rich have usurped power and turned it to their own benefit. It is necessary to conclude a new, now fair agreement. The means of establishing a new treaty can be revolution and even dictatorship when the fatherland is in danger. However, popular sovereignty and the people's right to power, according to Rousseau, must be inalienable. Popular sovereignty is understood by the thinker as the right to the adoption of laws by the people, on the basis of a permanent plebiscite, or popular poll, operating in the state, on all serious issues of civil life. For the correct use of their sovereignty, the people must be enlightened. Morally educated people will change society not on the paths of revolutionary struggle, but on the paths of timely establishment of harmonious relations in the world.
Starting around the middle of the 18th century. In France, a galaxy of Enlightenment thinkers appeared, many of whom were also remarkable representatives of philosophical materialism. French materialism of the 18th century. - a new historical stage in the development of philosophy, significantly different from previous materialist teachings. French materialism absorbed much of what had been accumulated by both materialism and idealism. He based his conclusions on the achievements of science as a whole. This materialism was atheistic.
French materialism
The prerequisites for materialism, to one degree or another, had already taken shape by the 18th century. The philosophical systems of F. Bacon, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, R. Descartes, B. Spinoza, I. Newton and some other thinkers of the New Age, as well as the Renaissance and Antiquity, played a big role in this.
The establishment of the position of materialism in the French Enlightenment is associated with the aggravation of socio-political relations in Europe in the 18th century.
However, French philosophers were not the first in the development of materialist views. A few decades earlier, the English thinkers J. Toland (1670-1722) and J. Collins (1676-1729) came up with similar ideas.
Despite this, French materialism is of outstanding historical significance because it:
- opposed the medieval and all those institutions that bore the stamp of anti-humanism of the Middle Ages;
- substantiated his worldview and human interests.
French materialism tried to bridge the gap between nature (flora and fauna) and man.
Representatives of French materialism
The most prominent representatives of French materialism were La Mettrie (1709 - 1751), Holbach (1729 - 1789), D. Diderot (1713 - 1784), C. A. Helvetius (1715 - 1771).
The founder of French materialism of the 18th century. Julien-Aufray La Mettrie outlined the main ideas, which were later fleshed out by other representatives of this school.
La Mettrie argued that not only any form of movement is inseparable from matter, but also all matter is associated with movement. Deprived of the ability to move, inert matter is only an abstraction. Substance is ultimately reduced to matter.
In his main philosophical work, “Man is a Machine,” he expressed his attitude to previous philosophy and outlined the basic principles of mechanistic materialism. He viewed man as a machine. La Mettrie argued that the boundaries between the mineral, plant and animal “kingdoms” are relative.
In the most systematized form, the ideas of French materialism are presented in the works Holbach fields. His main work, “System of Nature,” reflected the doctrine of the movement of matter. Proving the inseparability of matter and motion, Holbach denied that the source of motion is God. According to Holbach, the Universe is only an immense chain of causes and effects, continuously flowing from each other. The relationship between them is subject to strict necessity. According to Holbach, there is no place for randomness in nature.
Denis Diderot called the most profound representative of French materialism. His great life feat was the publication of the Encyclopedia, which outlined the Enlightenment worldview. Diderot stayed in Russia for about a year at the invitation of Tsarina Catherine II.
The peculiarity of Diderot's philosophical views is that he sought, on the basis of dialectical ideas, to penetrate into the nature of the origin and existence of life. Diderot further developed the theory of knowledge of materialism, ethics and aesthetics.
If in the works of La Mettrie, Holbach and Diderot the main attention was paid to the doctrine of being and knowledge, then in Helvetius the main object of philosophizing is the human mind and himself. His main treatises were called “On the Mind” (1758) and “On Man, His Mental Abilities and His Education” (1773). Special meaning Helvetius emphasized the problems of ethics. He showed that under conditions of an absolute monarchy, moral corruption of society occurs. The autocracy of the monarch gives rise to servility and flattery. Acquaintance with the works of Helvetius led to the idea of the need to change the circumstances of life in order to form a truly moral person. In ethics, Helvetius, like other representatives of French materialism, adhered to the theory of rational egoism, both in understanding the nature of the individual and his relationships with other people.
With all the merits of French materialism, which include:- materialistic solution to philosophical issues in views on nature;
- materialistic justification of the theory of sensations;
- the desire to use the achievements of science in philosophical conclusions;
- the desire to free ethics from mysticism, and morality from prejudice - this materialism was mechanistic materialism.
French materialism had limitations and shortcomings that were found primarily in social theories.
Ultimately, for the French materialists, the course of history was determined mainly by the process of enlightenment and knowledge. Other factors influencing the development of society remained outside their attention. The historical significance of the philosophy of the French Enlightenment lies in the fact that its representatives managed to gain a deeper and more thorough understanding of a number of philosophical problems of their time. This primarily relates to the understanding of man and society, as well as problems of ontology, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics.