Philosophy 338
Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature
Spring 2004
http://people.whitman.edu/~frierspr/
Office Hours (Olin 151)
Tuesday 11-12, Wednesday 2-4, Thursday 9-10
Books:
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. Selby-Bigge and Nidditch, ISBN: 0-19-824588-2.
On Reserve:
David Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals.
Pall Ardall, Passion
and Value in Hume's Treatise
Annette Baier, A Progress of Sentiments:
Stephen Darwall, The British Moralists and the Internal 'Ought'
Don Garrett, Cognition
and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy
Jonathan Harrison's Hume's Moral Epistemology
Anne Jaap Jacobson, Feminist Interpretations of David Hume
John Mackie, Hume's Moral Theory
David Norton, The Cambridge Companion to Hume
Barry Stroud, Hume
Assignments:
(1) Reading, Participation, Quizzes
This course requires reading a lot of very difficult material. You will be expected to come to class having read the primary material carefully. For some classes, there will also be optional secondary reading. This reading will clarify the primary reading and raise important objections and/or interpretive issues with it. In addition, for each class I have provided a key question to guide your reading. You should come to class prepared to answer that question. Occasionally, I will give a short quiz in which I will ask you to answer the question printed on the syllabus. I may also, in class, call on particular students to give their answers to the question of the day. If you cannot answer the question, you should be able to state specifically what your difficulty answering it is, with reference to the text.
(2) 3 Short Papers
Over the course of the semester, there will be three short papers covering the material we are reading together as a class. There is no specific length requirement for these papers. They should be as short as possible but cover as much material as possible. I anticipate that each paper will be approximate 1200-1800 words. These papers will depend on your careful reading of the primary text reading. To get an excellent grade on these papers, I also recommend making use of the secondary sources. You are not required to use these secondary sources, and you should not include them simply to show that you have looked at them. But reading secondary sources, like coming to class, can deepen your appreciation of what is involved in interpreting Hume. Thus making use of these secondary sources is likely to give you a more sophisticated understanding of Hume and help you write better papers. These papers will help you synthesize Hume as we go through his long and complex Treatise. They will also give you a sense for how I will grade the final paper, and they will provide an opportunity to begin working on topics that may develop into your final paper. (I will generally give extensions on papers only if you ask me for them at least 2 days in advance, and I will give extensions of no more than 2 days on any given paper. For every unexcused day that a paper is late, the grade on that paper will be lowered by 1/3, e.g. from a B+ to a B.)
(3) Final paper
The final paper should be a
substantial piece of original work in interpretation, critique, and or
extension of Hume’s philosophy as laid out in the Treatise. I strongly
recommend that you make use of secondary sources relevant to your final paper
topic, both those listed in the syllabus and those that you find for yourselves
(using the Philosopher’s Index). You should think of this paper as a
“mini-thesis.” The final version of
this paper should be 3000-6000 words. I
strongly encourage you to turn in a rough draft of your final paper (the draft
due date is May 4). I will get comments
on this draft back within three days, and you will then have time to revise the
draft before turning in the final version.
The purpose of this paper is to give you the opportunity to develop your
own views about an important issue in Hume’s philosophy and to engage in a
sustained philosophical defense of those views.
Book I: Of the Understanding
Jan. 20 Introduction (pp. xiii-xix) and p. 1.
Clarificatory reading: Stroud, pp. 1-16.
22 I.i.1-7, pp. 1-25 (you can skim sections 5-6). Focus on Hume’s “general proposition” on p. 4. What does this proposition mean? How does Hume defend it? Are there any problems with it? And how does Hume’s general proposition affect his account of “abstract ideas?” Is that account of abstract ideas sufficient? (You might also think about whether Hume’s 3 kinds of relations of ideas cover all the different ways that ideas can be related.)
Optional
reading: I.ii.1-6, pp. 26-68.
Clarificatory
reading (strongly recommended):
Stroud, pp. 17-41; Everson (article on reserve)
27 Reread I.i.4 (pp. 10-13) and read I.iii.1-6 (pp. 69-93). Focus on pp. 78 and 88-91. What is the nature of causation, for Hume? Is the principle on p. 89 (“that instances . . .”) justified? Present the best possible justification for this principle, raise the best objection to it, and articulate your own view.
Optional
reading: Stroud pp. 42-50, Baier pp. 60-69, Strawson 145-73 (Strawson is quite
different but not as good as the other two)
29 I.iii.7-11, pp. 94-129, and appendix, pp. 623-32. You should also reread pp. 66-68. How does Hume define “belief?”
Optional
reading: Stroud pp. 50-67, Baier 69-77.
Feb. 3 I.iii.12-16,
pp. 124-179. What is the nature of causation,
for Hume? Is
the principle on p.
89 (“that instances . . .”) justified?
Optional reading: Stroud pp. 68-95, Baier pp. 78-100.
5 I.iv.1-2, pp. 180-218 (we will focus on section 1 in
class). Is Hume “really one of those
sceptics, who hold that all is uncertain?”
Should he be? (Carefully lay out
the argument that seems to lead to this scepticism, and then carefully consider
Hume’s ultimate stance towards such scepticism.)
Optional reading: Biro (in Norton, see especially sections 2-4), Baier 1-27.
10 I.iv.2-4, pp. 187-231 (we will focus on section 2 in
class). What causes us to believe in
the existence of body, according to Hume?
Is such belief justified?
Optional reading: Stroud pp. 96-118, Baier pp. 101-128.
12 I.iv.5-6, pp.
232-263. Do you have any idea of your
“self?” Do “you” exist? What are you?
Optional reading: Stroud
17 I.iv.7. Does Hume
bring Book I of the Treatise to a
“happy conclusion?” In the end, what
does one learn about the nature of the understanding? (Is this book primary a descriptive book? What implications does it have, if any, for
what kinds of beliefs are justified? What implications does it have for important
philosophical problems? Are these
implications acceptable?)
19 Catch up, Hume on miracles, and/or play back-gammon.
Book Two: Of the
Passions
24 II.i, pp. 275-328 (Indirect passions of pride and humility).
26 II.i.7.
Mar. 2 II.ii, pp. 329-398 (Indirect passions of love and hate)
4
9 II.iii.,
pp. 399-454 (The direct passions; the will)
11
Book III: Of
Morals
March 30 III.i.1-2, pp. 455-476, Enquiry I and Appendix I. (Also review I.iii.10, pp. 118f.)
Why can’t moral distinctions be derived from reason? From what are they derived? In what way is the moral sense like the (other) passions? In what ways is it unique? What problems might arise from deriving moral distinctions from a moral sense?
April 1 Hume on humor?
6 Whitman Undergraduate Conference.
8 III.ii.1, pp. 477-484. What is the difference between natural and artificial virtues? What kind of virtue is justice? Why is this significant?
13 III.ii.2-6, pp. 484-533. How does the origin of justice and property affect the nature of justice and property? How much variation can there be in the nature of justice?
15 Is Hume’s account here purely
descriptive, or is he saying what people ought
to do? Does Hume’s account of
obligation capture what is typically meant by obligation?
20 III.ii.7-11, pp. 534-569. Also read Hobbes, Leviathan, ??? xxx ??? and Locke, Second Treatise on Government, pp. xxx. For Hume, what is the origin of government? How does this origin affect the scope of obedience to government? (In answering the second question especially, compare Hume with Hobbes and/or Locke.)
22 Continue from 4/20, or optional: III.ii.12, pp. 570-573. How does Hume’s account of chastity compare
with his account of justice? What does
this suggest about the nature of chastity?
About the nature of justice?
Does the parallel between the two raise any problems for Hume’s overall
account of justice, given changing attitudes (?) towards chastity?
27 III.iii.1-5, pp.
574-617. What is the origin of the
natural virtues and vices? How does
this account fit with Hume’s earlier discussions of the nature of passions and
the moral sense? How are natural
virtues different from artificial ones?
29 Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. How does Hume change his moral theory between the Treatise and the Enquiry? Which account is better?
May 4 III.iii.6. In what ways do “the most abstract speculations concerning human
nature . . . become subservient to practical
morality” (p. 621)?
6 How is the end of the whole book different from the end of Book I? Can the book as a whole accomplish its goals given the scepticism in Book I?
11 Wrap-up.