I'm working on Hume on Liberty and Necessity, and this argument - or something like it - comes up in Enquiry 8 as a response to his compatibilist position. He writes (check actual sources for italics, etc.):
"It may be said, for instance, that, if voluntary actions be subjected to the same laws of necessity with the operations of matter, there is a continued chain of necessary causes, pre-ordained and pre-determined, reaching from the original cause of all, to every single volition of every human creature. No contingency any where in the universe; no indifference; no liberty. While we act, we are, at the same time, acted upon. The ultimate Author of all our volitions is the Creator of the world …" (E 8.32)
One formal point that interests me about the passage is within the broader argument about the ultimate Author is the consequence argument for incompatibilism: ".... there is a continued chain of necessary causes ...." It goes without notice but Hume replies to the argument for incompatibilism by first expanding it into an argument with a broader, more unacceptable conclusion, and then responding to the broader argument. He never responds to the consequence argument directly, but this is the section about Liberty and Necessity.
You should check out the passages. Hume also says there are two parts to this objection:
"First, that, if human actions can be traced up, by a necessary chain, to the Deity, they can never be criminal; on account of the infinite perfection of that Being, from whom they are derived, and who can intend nothing but what is altogether good and laudable. ... Secondly, if they be criminal, we must retract the attribute of perfection, which we ascribe to the Deity, and must acknowledge him to be the ultimate author of guilt and moral turpitude in all his creatures." (E 8.33)
Yes! The correspondence goes deeply into several of these points! I'm looking forward to see what you think, and how Hume's positions differ from Spinoza's
The casual mention of the plague in Van Blijenbergh’s letter made me laugh for some reason. Thank you for this post — so interesting! Excited to read the upcoming posts.
What a delightful read, thank you very much for sharing this!
I didn't know about all this, and I find it fascinating. I love Spinoza's image, how supposedly "good" or "evil" people will seem to God like bees at war for humans. "God isn't like that". I guess Van Blijenbergh had probably a hard time getting that point... I'm eager to read more - again, thank you so much! Alles goed!
Yes, they are so much fun and they get more fun as the correspondence progresses (both authors become increasingly exasperated...) I'll do some more next week
This is very nice!
I'm working on Hume on Liberty and Necessity, and this argument - or something like it - comes up in Enquiry 8 as a response to his compatibilist position. He writes (check actual sources for italics, etc.):
"It may be said, for instance, that, if voluntary actions be subjected to the same laws of necessity with the operations of matter, there is a continued chain of necessary causes, pre-ordained and pre-determined, reaching from the original cause of all, to every single volition of every human creature. No contingency any where in the universe; no indifference; no liberty. While we act, we are, at the same time, acted upon. The ultimate Author of all our volitions is the Creator of the world …" (E 8.32)
One formal point that interests me about the passage is within the broader argument about the ultimate Author is the consequence argument for incompatibilism: ".... there is a continued chain of necessary causes ...." It goes without notice but Hume replies to the argument for incompatibilism by first expanding it into an argument with a broader, more unacceptable conclusion, and then responding to the broader argument. He never responds to the consequence argument directly, but this is the section about Liberty and Necessity.
You should check out the passages. Hume also says there are two parts to this objection:
"First, that, if human actions can be traced up, by a necessary chain, to the Deity, they can never be criminal; on account of the infinite perfection of that Being, from whom they are derived, and who can intend nothing but what is altogether good and laudable. ... Secondly, if they be criminal, we must retract the attribute of perfection, which we ascribe to the Deity, and must acknowledge him to be the ultimate author of guilt and moral turpitude in all his creatures." (E 8.33)
Quotes from davidhume.org
Yes! The correspondence goes deeply into several of these points! I'm looking forward to see what you think, and how Hume's positions differ from Spinoza's
The casual mention of the plague in Van Blijenbergh’s letter made me laugh for some reason. Thank you for this post — so interesting! Excited to read the upcoming posts.
Same. It made me think that man isn’t as dumb as the other one that thinks lol
Fascinating! Thank you for opening these pages of Spinoza's life!
Spinoza's letter reminded me of Henri Bergson's quip "War is natural" [from Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion (1932)]
https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/le-pourquoi-du-comment-philo/pourquoi-la-guerre-serait-elle-naturelle-4836297
What a delightful read, thank you very much for sharing this!
I didn't know about all this, and I find it fascinating. I love Spinoza's image, how supposedly "good" or "evil" people will seem to God like bees at war for humans. "God isn't like that". I guess Van Blijenbergh had probably a hard time getting that point... I'm eager to read more - again, thank you so much! Alles goed!
Yes, they are so much fun and they get more fun as the correspondence progresses (both authors become increasingly exasperated...) I'll do some more next week
Looking forward to it.
Please find an essay describing Adam & Eve in the Garden of Indestructible Light, and a unique Understanding of Trees too:
http://beezone.com/adida/adidajesus/adamnervoussystemeveflesh.html
http://dabase.org/trees.htm