"Rationalist thinking of this kind was typical for philosophy of the seventeenth century. It was also firmly rooted in the Middle Ages, and we remember it from Plato and Socrates too. But in the eighteenth century it was the object of an ever increasing in-depth criticism. A number of philosophers held that we have absolutely nothing in the mind that we have not experienced through the senses. A view such as this is called empiricism."
"And you are going to talk about them today, these empiricists?"
"I"m going to attempt to, yes. The most important empiricists-or philosophers of experience-were Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, and all three were British. The leading rationalists in the seventeenth century were Descartes, who was French; Spinoza, who was Dutch; and Leibniz, who was German. So we usually make a distinction between British empiricism and Continental rationalism."
"What a lot of difficult words! Could you repeat the meaning of empiricism?"
"An empiricist will derive all knowledge of the world from what the senses tell us. The cla.s.sic formulation of an empirical approach came from Aristotle. He said: "There is nothing in the mind except what was first in the senses." This view implied a pointed criticism of Plato, who had held that man brought with him a set of innate "ideas" from the world of ideas. Locke repeats Aristotle"s words, and when Locke uses them, they are aimed at Descartes."
"There is nothing in the mind... except what was first in the senses?"
"We have no innate ideas or conceptions about the world we are brought into before we have seen it. If we do have a conception or an idea that cannot be related to experienced facts, then it will be a false conception. When we, for instance, use words like "G.o.d,"eternity," or "substance," reason is being misused, because n.o.body has experienced G.o.d, eternity, or what philosophers have called substance. So therefore many learned dissertations could be written which in actual fact contain no really new conceptions. An ingeniously contrived philosophical system such as this may seem impressive, but it is pure fantasy. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century philosophers had inherited a number of such learned dissertations. Now they had to be examined under a microscope. They had to be purified of all hollow notions. We might compare it with panning for gold. Most of what you fish up is sand and clay, but in between you see the glint of a particle of gold."
"And that particle of gold is real experience?"
"Or at least thoughts that can be related to experience. It became a matter of great importance to the British empiricists to scrutinize all human conceptions to see whether there was any basis for them in actual experience. But let us take one philosopher at a time."
"Okay, shoot!"
"The first was the Englishman John Locke, who lived from 1632 to 1704. His main work was the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690. In it he tried to clarify two questions. First, where we get our ideas from, and secondly, whether we can rely on what our senses tell us."
"That was some project!"
"We"ll take these questions one at a time. Locke"s claim is that all our thoughts and ideas issue from that which we have taken in through the senses. Before we perceive anything, the mind is a "tabula rasa"-or an empty slate."
"You can skip the Latin."
"Before we sense anything, then, the mind is as bare and empty as a blackboard before the teacher arrives in the cla.s.sroom. Locke also compared the mind to an unfurnished room. But then we begin to sense things. We see the world around us, we smell, taste, feel, and hear. And n.o.body does this more intensely than infants. In this way what Locke called simple ideas of sense arise. But the mind does not just pa.s.sively receive information from outside it. Some activity happens in the mind as well. The single sense ideas are worked on by thinking, reasoning, believing, and doubting, thus giving rise to what he calls reflection. So he distinguished between "sensation" and "reflection." The mind is not merely a pa.s.sive receiver. It cla.s.sifies and processes all sensations as they come streaming in. And this is just where one must be on guard."
"On guard?"
"Locke emphasized that the only things we can perceive are simple sensations. When I eat an apple, for example, I do not sense the whole apple in one single sensation. In actual fact I receive a whole series of simple sensations-such as that something is green, smells fresh, and tastes juicy and sharp. Only after I have eaten an apple many times do I think: Now I am eating an "apple." As Locke would say, we have formed a complex idea of an "apple." When we were infants, tasting an apple for the first time, we had no such complex idea. But we saw something green, we tasted something fresh and juicy, yummy ... It was a bit sour too. Little by little we bundle many similar sensations together and form concepts like "apple,"pear,"orange." But in the final a.n.a.lysis, all the material for our knowledge of the world comes to us through sensations. Knowledge that cannot be traced back to a simple sensation is therefore false knowledge and must consequently be rejected."
"At any rate we can be sure that what we see, hear, smell, and taste are the way we sense it."
"Both yes and no. And that brings us to the second question Locke tried to answer. He had first answered the question of where we get our ideas from. Now he asked whether the world really is the way we perceive it. This is not so obvious, you see, Sophie. We mustn"t jump to conclusions. That is the only thing a real philosopher must never do."
"I didn"t say a word."
"Locke distinguished between what he called "primary" and "secondary" qualities. And in this he acknowledged his debt to the great philosophers before him- including Descartes.
"By primary qualities he meant extension, weight, motion and number, and so on. When it is a question of qualities such as these, we can be certain that the senses reproduce them objectively. But we also sense other qualities in things. We say that something is sweet or sour, green or red, hot or cold. Locke calls these secondary qualities. Sensations like these-color, smell, taste, sound-do not reproduce the real qualities that are inherent in the things themselves. They reproduce only the effect of the outer reality on our senses."
"Everyone to his own taste, in other words."
"Exactly. Everyone can agree on the primary qualities like size and weight because they lie within the objects themselves. But the secondary qualities like color and taste can vary from person to person and from animal to animal, depending on the nature of the individual"s sensations."
"When Joanna eats an orange, she gets a look on her face like when other people eat a lemon. She can"t take more than one segment at a time. She says it tastes sour. I usually think the same orange is nice and sweet."
"And neither one of you is right or wrong. You are just describing how the orange affects your senses. It"s the same with the sense of color. Maybe you don"t like a certain shade of red. But if Joanna buys a dress in that color it might be wise to keep your opinion to yourself. You experience the color differently, but it is neither pretty nor ugly."
"But everyone can agree that an orange is round."
"Yes, if you have a round orange, you can"t "think" it is square. You can "think" it is sweet or sour, but you can"t "think" it weighs eight kilos if it only weighs two hundred grams. You can certainly "believe" it weighs several kilos, but then you"d be way off the mark. If several people have to guess how much something weighs, there will always be one of them who is more right than the others. The same applies to number. Either there are 986 peas in the can or there are not. The same with motion. Either the car is moving or it"s stationary."
"I get it."
"So when it was a question of "extended" reality, Locke agreed with Descartes that it does have certain qualities that man is able to understand with his reason."
"It shouldn"t be so difficult to agree on that."
"Locke admitted what he called intuitive, or "demonstrative," knowledge in other areas too. For instance, he held that certain ethical principles applied to everyone. In other words, he believed in the idea of a natural right, and that was a rationalistic feature of his thought. An equally rationalistic feature was that Locke believed that it was inherent in human reason to be able to know that G.o.d exists."
"Maybe he was right."
"About what?"
"That G.o.d exists."
"It is possible, of course. But he did not let it rest on faith. He believed that the idea of G.o.d was born of human reason. That was a rationalistic feature. I should add that he spoke out for intellectual liberty and tolerance. He was also preoccupied with equality of the s.e.xes, maintaining that the subjugation of women to men was "man-made." Therefore it could be altered."
"I can"t disagree there."
"Locke was one of the first philosophers in more recent times to be interested in s.e.xual roles. He had a great influence on John Stuart Mill, who in turn had a key role in the struggle for equality of the s.e.xes. All in all, Locke was a forerunner of many liberal ideas which later, during the period of the French Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, came into full flower. It was he who first advocated the principle of division of powers..."
"Isn"t that when the power of the state is divided between different inst.i.tutions?"
"Do you remember which inst.i.tutions?"
"There"s the legislative power, or elected representatives. There"s the judicial power, or law courts, and then there"s the executive power, that"s the government."
"This division of power originated from the French Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu. Locke had first and foremost emphasized that the legislative and the executive power must be separated if tyranny was to be avoided. He lived at the time of Louis XIV, who had a.s.sembled all power in his own hands. "I am the State," he said. We say he was an "absolute" ruler. Nowadays we would call Louis XIV"s rule lawless and arbitrary. Locke"s view was that to ensure a legal State, the people"s representatives must make the laws and the king or the government must apply them."
Hume
...commit it then to the flames...
Alberto sat staring down at the table. He finally turned and looked out of the window.
"It"s clouding over," said Sophie.
"Yes, it"s muggy."
"Are you going to talk about Berkeley now?"
"He was the next of the three British empiricists. But as he is in a category of his own in many ways, we will first concentrate on David Hume, who lived from 1711 to 1776. He stands out as the most important of the empiricists. He is also significant as the person who set the great philosopher Immanuel Kant on the road to his philosophy."
"Doesn"t it matter to you that I"m more interested in Berkeley"s philosophy?"
"That"s of no importance. Hume grew up near Edinburgh in Scotland. His family wanted him to take up law but he felt "an insurmountable resistance to everything but philosophy and learning." He lived in the Age of Enlightenment at the same time as great French thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau, and he traveled widely in Europe before returning to settle down in Edinburgh toward the end of his life. His main work, A Treatise of Human Nature, was published when Hume was twenty-eight years old, but he claimed that he got the idea for the book when he was only fifteen."
"I see I don"t have any time to waste."
"You have already begun."
"But if I were going to formulate my own philosophy, it would be quite different from anything I"ve heard up to now."
"Is there anything in particular that"s missing?"
"Well, to start with, all the philosophers you have talked about are men. And men seem to live in a world of their own. I am more interested in the real world, where there are flowers and animals and children that are born and grow up. Your philosophers are always talking about "man" and "humans," and now here"s another treatise on "human nature." It"s as if this "human" is a middle-aged man. I mean, life begins with pregnancy and birth, and I"ve heard nothing about diapers or crying babies so far. And hardly anything about love and friendship."
"You are right, of course. But Hume was a philosopher who thought in a different way. More than any other philosopher, he took the everyday world as his starting point. I even think Hume had a strong feeling for the way children-the new citizens of the world- experienced life."
"I"d better listen then."
"As an empiricist, Hume took it upon himself to clean up all the woolly concepts and thought constructions that these male philosophers had invented. There were piles of old wreckage, both written and spoken, from the Middle Ages and the rationalist philosophy of the seventeenth century. Hume proposed the return to our spontaneous experience of the world. No philosopher "will ever be able to take us behind the daily experiences or give us rules of conduct that are different from those we get through reflections on everyday life," he said."
"Sounds promising so far. Can you give any examples?"
"In the time of Hume there was a widespread belief in angels. That is, human figures with wings. Have you ever seen such a creature, Sophie?"
"No."
"But you have seen a human figure?"
"Dumb question."
"You have also seen wings?"
"Of course, but not on a human figure."
"So, according to Hume, an "angel" is a complex idea. It consists of two different experiences which are not in fact related, but which nevertheless are a.s.sociated in man"s imagination. In other words, it is a false idea which must be immediately rejected. We must tidy up all our thoughts and ideas, as well as our book collections, in the same way. For as Hume put it: If we take in our hands any volume ... let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quant.i.ty or number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?" No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
"That was drastic."
"But the world still exists. More fresh and sharply outlined than ever. Hume wanted to know how a child experiences the world. Didn"t you say that many of the philosophers you have heard about lived in their own world, and that you were more interested in the real world?"
"Something like that."
"Hume could have said the same thing. But let us follow his train of thought more closely."
"I"m with you."
"Hume begins by establishing that man has two different types of perceptions, namely impressions and ideas. By "impressions" he means the immediate sensation of external reality. By "ideas" he means the recollection of such impressions."
"Could you give me an example?"
"If you burn yourself on a hot oven, you get an immediate "impression." Afterward you can recollect that you burned yourself. That impression insofar as it is recalled is what Hume calls an "idea." The difference is that an impression is stronger and livelier than your reflective memory of that impression. You could say that the sensation is the original and that the idea, or reflection, is only a pale imitation. It is the impression which is the direct cause of the idea stored in the mind."
"I follow you-so far."
"Hume emphasizes further that both an impression and an idea can be either simple or complex. You remember we talked about an apple in connection with Locke. The direct experience of an apple is an example of a complex impression."
"Sorry to interrupt, but is this terribly important?"
"Important? How can you ask? Even though philosophers may have been preoccupied with a number of pseudoproblems, you mustn"t give up now over the construction of an argument. Hume would probably agree with Descartes that it is essential to construct a thought process right from the ground."
"Okay, okay."
"Hume"s point is that we sometimes form complex ideas for which there is no corresponding object in the physical world. We"ve already talked about angels. Previously we referred to crocophants. Another example is Pegasus, a winged horse. In all these cases we have to admit that the mind has done a good job of cutting out and pasting together all on its own. Each element was once sensed, and entered the theater of the mind in the form of a real "impression." Nothing is ever actually invented by the mind. The mind puts things together and constructs false "ideas." "
"Yes, I see. That is important."
"All right, then. Hume wanted to investigate every single idea to see whether it was compounded in a way that does not correspond to reality. He asked: From which impression does this idea originate? First of all he had to find out which "single ideas" went into the making of a complex idea. This would provide him with a critical method by which to a.n.a.lyze our ideas, and thus enable him to tidy up our thoughts and notions."
"Do you have an example or two?"
"In Hume"s day, there were a lot of people who had very clear ideas of "heaven" or the "New Jerusalem." You remember how Descartes indicated that "clear and distinct" ideas in themselves could be a guarantee that they corresponded to something that really existed?"
"I said I was not especially forgetful."
"We soon realize that our idea of "heaven" is compounded of a great many elements. Heaven is made up of "pearly gates,"streets of gold,"angels" by the score and so on and so forth. And still we have not broken everything down into single elements, for pearly gates, streets of gold, and angels are all complex ideas in themselves. Only when we recognize that our idea of heaven consists of single notions such as "pearl,"gate,"street,"gold,"white-robed figure," and "wings" can we ask ourselves if we ever really had any such "simple impressions." "
"We did. But we cut out and pasted all these "simple impressions" into one idea."
"That"s just what we did. Because if there is something we humans do when we visualize, it"s use scissors and paste. But Hume emphasizes that all the elements we put together in our ideas must at some time have entered the mind in the form of "simple impressions." A person who has never seen gold will never be able to visualize streets of gold."
"He was very clever. What about Descartes having a clear and distinct idea of G.o.d?"
"Hume had an answer to that too. Let"s say we imagine G.o.d as an infinitely "intelligent, wise, and good being." We have thus a "complex idea" that consists of something infinitely intelligent, something infinitely wise, and something infinitely good. If we had never known intelligence, wisdom, and goodness, we would never have such an idea of G.o.d. Our idea of G.o.d might also be that he is a "severe but just Father"-that is to say, a concept made up of "severity","justice," and "father." Many critics of religion since Hume have claimed that such ideas of G.o.d can be a.s.sociated with how we experienced our own father when we were little. It was said that the idea of a father led to the idea of a "heavenly father." "
"Maybe that"s true, but I have never accepted that G.o.d had to be a man. Sometimes my mother calls G.o.d "G.o.diva," just to even things up."
"Anyway, Hume opposed all thoughts and ideas that could not be traced back to corresponding sense perceptions. He said he wanted to "dismiss all this meaningless nonsense which long has dominated metaphysical thought and brought it into disrepute."
"But even in everyday life we use complex ideas without stopping to wonder whether they are valid. For example, take the question of T-or the ego. This was the very basis of Descartes"s philosophy. It was the one clear and distinct perception that the whole of his philosophy was built on."