‘Le Bon’ – David Hume (1711-1776)

             

               

David Hume as a political and ethical philosopher probably represents the zenith of Scottish enlightenment. In an era that saw renaissance in free thinking and libertarian spirit and gave the world philosophical legends like Adam Smith, Francis Hutcheson, Thomas Reid and James Hutton; David Hume seems to occupy a corner all for himself. Hume, a notorious empiricist, in a sense represents a dead end in his line of philosophical thinking. Nonetheless Hume’s greatness comes from the fact that he developed to its logical conclusion the empirical philosophy of Locke and Berkeley and by making it self-consistent made it incredible. (Russell, 1945) However, Hume was more widely known for his writings in economics and history than as a philosopher. His philosophical sophistication and greatness was only recognized through the works of his contemporaries like Reid and Kant who cleared a pathway into Hume becoming a reference point for all future philosophers (Schmidt, 2003). Hume in a sense could be considered a precursor along with Francois Quesnay to Adam Smith’s theories on political economy, exchange and property. At a personal level what I find most appealing about David Hume, and my inspiration behind this paper is his theory of property and exchange and how his idea of formulation of justice is derived from it. This formulation of justice in turn becomes the bed rock of a social contract that binds societies together. 

David Hume’s writings ranged from epistemology and metaphysics, through discussions of the principles of explanation in the human sciences, to moral theory, political theory, economics, aesthetics, and history. A voracious, lucid and vivid writer with mastery of multiple languages saw him produce great works such as, “A Treatise of Human Nature”, “Enquiry concerning human understanding”, “Essays Moral and Political”, “The History of England” and “The Natural History of Religion”. However, it must be noted that not all of his works were success at the time of publishing. Indeed his finest philosophical work: Treatise fell on deaf ears.  But it did not stop there. His radical views at the time were seen as a direct attack on the church which resulted in Hume being charged with heresy. Although he was successfully defended by his clerical friends on the grounds that Hume being an atheist was out of the jurisdiction of the church.

One of the most intriguing doctrines by Hume for any economist to look at is his idea of property and justice. He elaborates the two corollaries in the second section of his book, “A treatise of Human Nature”. The section is titled “Of the Origin of Justice and Property”.

Hume starts off with a somber note pointing to the animal kingdom and how it is only humans with unlimited necessities and only limited ways of achieving them. These necessities are controlled by a man’s passions, desires and avarice. A pitiful state in some sense as other animals all have necessary tools adapted to fulfill their necessity. A necessity which does not extend beyond survival. However, this evolutionary debacle that humans suffer from has led them to come together and form societies. Society provides the necessary division of labor and helps man achieve things that he, as an individual, may not have. It also helps man gain mastery over his work rather than the whole.

The fundamental building block for society i.e. an individual’s need to fulfill necessities is driven by “passion”. But passion is a dual edged sword that can also consume a society and destroy it. At this point Hume introduces his own social contract theory where perfectly rational members of society come together to establish the general rule of the land. A society working towards a common goal understands that it is best for individual to leave another individual’s property alone so that the other person may do the same to him. When everyone follows these norms a suitable resolution and behavior comes out. This convention however, derives slowly as people realize the consequences of transgressing it.

Without the understanding of property and possession of property there can be no understanding of justice and injustice according to Hume. Therefore, understanding how to treat property first becomes pre-requisite to understanding justice and injustice. Hume defines property as “those goods, whose constant possession is established by laws of society”. (Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature. Book 2: Of the Passions, 1739) A man’s property is related to him on a moral foundation rather than a natural foundation. And only after these two stages does a stable society form.

Hume also notes that if man was truly endowed with benevolence then the need for observing rules wouldn’t even have been needed. But a need for justice comes about due to self interest and public interest because of the perception/impression of human conventions. Without these impressions we come to a realization that nature is absolutely indifferent to us.

View on Hume’s thinking:

The unique characteristic about Hume as Amartya Sen pointed out was that he was interested in the processes and not just the consequences. He had the ability to see epistemology and ethics as one interconnected branch; similar to his contemporary Adam Smith. However, there is an air of cold logical precision about his writing as many critics such as James Beatie have noted rather than a set guideline of thought,

“Hume’s philosophic writings are to be read with great caution. His pages, especially those of the Treatise, are so full of matter, he says so many different things in so many different ways and different connexions, and with so much indifference to what he has said before, that it is very hard to say positively that he taught, or did not teach, this or that particular doctrine. . . . This makes it easy to find all philosophies in Hume, or, by setting up one statement against another, none at all.” (Selby-Biggie)

This can also be seen by the fact that he has laid the foundation for so many different schools of philosophical thinking from Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell’s post modernism to skepticism to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s logical positivism.

Although there does not seem to be a consensus on Hume’s thought, I believe that in order to understand him we need to look at the cultural contexts that he was a part of. 

The Scottish enlightenment was the thinking canvas that Hume must have been most exposed to as the movement was well and truly in its stride when he was born. Hume's peers and indeed his predecessors at Edinburgh University were also empiricists and rationalists in their approach although the levels to which they took their thought varied.  Therefore, in order to pin-point the origin of Hume’s thinking we must explore the underlying currents that influenced Scottish enlightenment.

During 17^th century Scotland it was far easier to get to prospering Holland than to get to London. This was because travelling by sea to Holland was much more cost-effective and time-effective than travelling by road to London. And the incentive to migrate was large as most important subjects of the time were theology, law languages, and medicine and all four were inadequately taught in Scotland. The Scots not only wanted to improve their society to match the English intelligentsia but they also wanted to preserve their cultural independence. Thus English were both admired and resented. Therefore, the Scottish enlightenment was not part and parcel of the English. This led to Dutch models and universities become catalysts and central building blocks of the enlightenment period. Most of the education of intellectual elites of Scotland in the 17^th century took place in Holland or had Dutch influences. (Emerson, 2009)

David Hume’s Latin professor in Edinburgh University was Laurence Dundas; a well known tutor in Holland. Hume’s professor in Greek was William Scott sr. a man who was influenced and wrote extensively on Hugo Grotius. But most importantly Hume’s teacher in logic and metaphysics was Colin Drummond who conducted his classes along the lines of De Vries’ logic and ontology. (Emerson, 2009)

There are other known sources of influence like Locke and Newton whose theories of sense perception and experience, natural order, and rationalism Hume borrows heavily from as seen from the citation of his books. Although I do not believe that Hume’s thoughts on religion were established by his stay in Paris where he spent time in company of atheist intelligentsia, but it may have definitely been propagated or evolved to some degree.
David Hume was a complex man and his adventures just as much. Therefore, it becomes impossible to find a single fountain of knowledge from which he derived his inspiration. However, we can get closer to the truth if instead of analyzing Hume we analyze his environment. Being a philosopher of the senses it is only fitting that he derived his knowledge from his surroundings. That surrounding being the renaissance of Scottish intellectual movement, which in turn derived its sources of inspiration from the French and Dutch schools of thought. It is only when we understand this that we can truly admire Hume for his unique insights.

 Bibliography

Emerson, R. L. (2009). Essays on David Hume, Medical Men and the Scottish Enlightenment. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.

Hume, D. (1734). A Kind History of My Life. Edinburgh.

Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Book 2: Of the Passions.

Russell, B. (1945). A History of Western Philosophy, Book Three, Part 1, Chapter 17. Simon and Schuster inc.

Schmidt, C. M. (2003). David Hume - Reason in History. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Selby-Biggie. "Editors Introduction" vii.