More specifically, Landy argues that Hume is not opposed to substantial explanation in itself, but only takes issue with it when the explicandum lacks any descriptive content, and hence explanatory power. What is the nature of this methodology? (2018, Apr 22). By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy, The input space is limited by 250 symbols. ” He feels that we join society not only to give ourselves the perception that we are initially moral but to be a part of it we are given an higher look in our social reputations. It merits serious discussion and engagement. We are doing our best to get back to you the shortest. Simple ideas represent what they are copied from. The chapter argues that we can in fact have a notion of substantial explanation without having to appeal to any problematic notion of necessary connection. Get Your Custom Essay on. You can get your custom paper from These divide into “Impressions,” which “comprehend all our sensations, passions and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul”; and “Ideas,” which are “the faint images of these [impressions] in thinking and reasoning.” Ideas are built up out of impressions, but they are not always straightforward reproductions. He writes in Of Self Love, “Whoever concludes from the seeming tendency of this opinion that those who make profession of it cannot possibly feel true sentiments of benevolence or have any regard for genuine virtue” To take out the other factor is to simply disregard other factors, such as genuine virtue. Some of his criticisms target the specific nature of the Deity postulated, accusing typical proponents of the argument of reasoning poorly by analogy, which is unproblematic for Landy's account: perhaps the postulation of a Creator is fine in itself, even if the particular qualities attributed to this being outrun the bounds of appropriate probable reasoning. However, this does not affect my point, which is that whatever differences obtain between the two, Hume levies a criticism of the former that seems to equally apply to the latter. People are supposedly all drawn to war, with envy and are very selfish at our core. So to simply say that the only reason people do things is because of selfish reasons is to take out of context other human motives. Broadly, this monograph argues for a novel take on Hume's understanding of scientific explanation, which undergirds his investigation of the human mind. However, we must limit ourselves by accepting that matters of fact are our sole source of true information. He wanted to develop the study of moral philosophy, which is what we call social sciences today. However, these regularities call for a substantial explanation, but Hume has argued that no such explanation is possible in this case, which leaves him trapped between a rock and a hard place: his theoretical framework requires a substantial explanation for personal identity, but his arguments that there can be no such thing seem sound. Accessibility Information. David Landy. A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40) is a book by Scottish philosopher David Hume, considered by many to be Hume's most important work and one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy. We can see now that humans feed off connection. There is no right or wrong answer to the question of what is the origin of human nature or what drives our motives, there can only be theories in which we try and find the answer. He ends by investigating the role of reason in this, offering a teleological account: while both reason and the imagination are recombinatorial faculties, reason has, and the imagination lacks, the function of explaining regularities. A summary of Part X (Section1) in 's David Hume (1711–1776). Here I will raise two issues: first, whether it is true that simple ideas are theoretical posits; second, whether Hume would be happy to admit theoretical posits in light of his rejection of the teleological argument for God's existence. Landy is right to point out a key dissimilarity between arguments by analogy and substantial explanation, which is that unlike the latter, the former do not offer deeper underlying explanations (pp.220–3), but only further causes at the same level of explanation. There is no simple explanation as to why people are motivated to do certain things. Naturally, this means that his thought and thought process during the period of Modern Philosophy. That simple ideas are theoretical posits seems crucial to Landy's view, insofar as it constitutes a substantial part of the motivation for thinking that Hume appeals to theoretical posits that go beyond what we can experience. Saying that humans are naturally selfish fits with Hobbes way of thinking because through his writings we can infer that he feels that humans go through life doing acts that are so solely benefit the actor. This is where see more relation to Humus way of thinking in that you can’t give a simple explanation to a large question. Hobbes and Home both have convincing arguments but where Hobbes arguments fall short Home is there to pick up the pieces with a better understanding of human nature. We would like to think that we want to join civil society and be sociable but Hobbes feels this is not the case. College of Arts and Letters If we are to view the Treatise of Human Nature as a systematic and cohesive work, we must see Hume's varied investigations as following a consistent and cogent methodology. Hume's Science of Human Nature: Scientific Realism, Reason, and Substantial Explanation. Ultimately, Hume argues for a mitigated skepticism. It is true that in expounding on this point, Hume cites the singular nature of the creator-universe pair, which might not be thought to apply to Landy's theoretical posits. Landy proceeds to argue that some general representations genuinely carve at the joints, which is to say they reflect the underlying nature or essence of the human mind. Landy offers a powerful and original interpretation of Hume and ably marshals texts in defence of it. Hobbes, Hume and Human Nature. Why is David Hume famous? Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. He sees that many philosophers have it wrong when they write about human selfishness.