David hume should be regarded as the best philosopher of all time, although he is not as bitter as Marx, nor as pretentious as Sartre.
Jean-Paul Sartre has an advantage because of its charming image. Whether it is true or not, there are countless romantic stories, such as Left Bank Cafe, Gaulois brand cigarettes, Black turtle neck and so on, which are full of profound dialogue between despair and freedom. Instead, Hume plays billiards in the studio to accompany his mother.
The mystery of Kierkegaard and Camus is even more striking because of their tragic ending of early death. Hume died of intestinal cancer at the age of 65, with no pain and normal mood. There is really no room for fame after his death. Indeed, ordinary people don't know much about this man, except perhaps the lyric "David Hume is better than Schopenhauer and Hegel."
However, Hume stubbornly stayed in people's hearts and was praised by many as the greatest philosopher. Can we further say that he is the greatest philosopher in the world? I think so, too, not only because Hume's philosophical research methods are needed more than his time.
Hume was born in Edinburgh 17 1 1 year, which was the early stage of the Enlightenment and the early stage of the merger of England and Scotland into Great Britain. Due to the success of science, Scottish philosophy is changing. This change is not based on abstract theory, but on empirical observation of world reality. Suddenly, the abstract thinking of Descartes and Spinoza, mainland thinkers, seems hopelessly divorced from the real world they are trying to explain. Philosophy must be close to nature and its reasoning should be rooted in practical experience.
Hume is one of many people who helped guide philosophy to this new path. However, this road is also a very uncertain road, which has been threatened by skepticism. Plato and Descartes' philosophical dream of transcending doubt is gone forever. On the contrary, we need to learn and doubt, but we are not influenced by doubt. Hume's unique genius lies in showing us how to do this.
Hume practiced his own philosophical viewpoint. Although he was often troubled by their doubts about his philosophy, these worries soon disappeared when he rejoined his human companions and played billiards. Although it seems superficial, it is actually a mature cognition. Those who call themselves nihilists are actually pretending that no one really doesn't believe in anything.
What Hume said is closely related to us today, because certainty can only be found in religious extremists, and uncertainty is likely to fall into the quagmire of postmodern relativism and wisdom. In this climate, how can we solve ethical problems such as gene cell research, euthanasia, civil liberties and civil safety? There are so many problems in science, how can we believe it? How to solve the ideological conflict between the East and the West when the foundation of building trust between the East and the West collapses? What we need is Hume's way: to provide an intelligent ballast that can float on the ocean of uncertainty.
Think about ethical values. Hume agrees with moral skeptics on many key issues. He doesn't believe that it is possible to establish absolute moral values. Of course, religion cannot provide this, because there is no way to make us believe in religious teachings or the authority of their leaders. We can't say that it is right or wrong just because religion says it is right, but because we have sufficient reasons to believe it is right or wrong.
In today's world with many religions and sects, Hume's skepticism is smarter than ever. If we want to be guided by a certain religion, we need reasons. Just saying "believe me, I am a priest" is not enough, not only because every bishop says homosexuality is acceptable, but also because some people claim that these sodomites and rebels will pay for their crimes in the fire of hell.
Moral value cannot be explained by pure reason. Hume called the truth that can only be proved by reason "something about the relationship between ideas", which once again showed his peculiar ability to create catchy categories. Mathematics is such an example, because numbers or symbols represent that two plus two equals four. Similarly, you don't need to investigate every single person to know whether they are unmarried or not.
Hume believes that moral problems obviously cannot be classified into this category. Just by understanding the meaning of "legitimacy" and "war", you can't know whether an *** os (an order aimed at cracking down on anti-social norms) has caused unacceptable restrictions on civil liberties. You can't just judge the meaning of "legality" and "war" to solve the dispute about whether war is just or unjust. Moral debate is not mathematics, nor can it be solved by pure theory.
Therefore, neither religion nor reason can establish moral certainty. Does this mean that we have become people without moral sense, what is suitable for you may not be suitable for me, and no one is qualified to criticize other people's moral values? Some people may find this view attractive because it is absolutely inclusive. But absolute tolerance is disgusting. The Darfur massacre is not correct for the victims in Sudan. Anti-war activists don't think that invading Iraq is right for Bush and Blair, but wrong for them. They think this war is wrong.
Fortunately, Hume's view did not lead us to moral nihilism. Besides religion and pure theory, there is also a knowledge route. Questions about facts can be solved by observing the real world. Therefore, if you want to know at what temperature water boils, you can find it by doing experiments. It is impossible to sit in a chair and think about the meaning of "water" and "boiling".
However, the question of fact has never been proved to be conclusive. You have to admit that science is uncertain, but it is more reliable than superstition after all. Although philosophers in the past demanded certainty, Hume tried to arrange uncertainty. Obviously, moral principles are more uncertain than physical laws. Right and wrong cannot be observed or measured like energy or mass. On the contrary, moral facts need people's feelings and sympathy to determine. When we say that torturing people is wrong, we don't want to point out a certain feature of torture itself, but to express our response to torture. Moreover, these feelings are natural reactions of human beings. Empathy is human nature, which makes people have the same view on right and wrong. Emotion may be influenced by experience, society and reason, but it is not just a simple product of any of them. So there is this curious sentence: "I don't want to hurt my finger if I destroy the whole world."
Hume's strategy to solve today's moral problems will first show us how to refuse to accept any absolute principles put forward by religious leaders. Then, it will show that any moral principle needs to be self-evident or proved to be correct. If all false absolutes are removed, we will begin to identify with human instinct similar to * * *, prompting us to use our own reason to find a way forward full of contradictions and complexity. This is the direction of modern ethics. People can't determine the absolute starting point because not everyone agrees with it. On the contrary, they
Hume's genius lies in his combination of cold wisdom that shows the limitations of our understanding and a clear understanding of the limited wisdom resources that guide us forward. No wonder Hume's theory is not touted by everyone. Romantic death or clever slogans can make a long life without legends.