Is reason the slave of the passions?
prospectmagazine.co.uk
Is reason the slave of the passions?
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?
#2>But if we are sensible, the pursuit of human happiness, personal and collective, remains the goal of most of what we do. Such a basically utilitarian ideology requires around it a structure of reasoning, not passion, selfish or unselfish.
David Hume's point was that reason alone could not justify the pursuit of human happiness or anything else, because it only lets you go from one statement to another, which means you have to start with something like "I want to be happy" in order to conclude "I want to buy some ice cream." The contributor writing the dissenting opinion didn't say anything that Hume wouldn't have agreed with, because they slipped in Hume's passions with the word "sensible." I think they are debating a non-issue that they don't really disagree about. Although Hume's point was novel when he wrote it (believe it or not there were contemporaneous philosophers who did not realize that you couldn't derive axioms), there is really nobody who thinks anything else today.
Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?
#3> But if we are sensible, the pursuit of human happiness, personal and collective, remains the goal of most of what we do. Such a basically utilitarian ideology requires around it a structure of reasoning, not passion, selfish or unselfish. David Hume's point was that reason alone could not justify the pursuit of human happiness or anything else, because it only lets you go from one statement to another, which means…
Very few serious philosophers would disagree with Hume. However, I suspect that many non-philisophers are happy to appeal to reason as a source of normative beliefs, thus “facts don’t care about your feelings” (well quite—they are incapable of caring), complaints about the irrationality of populists, &c.
Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?
#4The human race perpetuates because of the insanity induced by hormones.
Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?
#5> But if we are sensible, the pursuit of human happiness, personal and collective, remains the goal of most of what we do. Such a basically utilitarian ideology requires around it a structure of reasoning, not passion, selfish or unselfish. David Hume's point was that reason alone could not justify the pursuit of human happiness or anything else, because it only lets you go from one statement to another, which means…
Very few serious philosophers would disagree with Hume. However, I suspect that many non-philisophers are happy to appeal to reason as a source of normative beliefs, thus “facts don’t care about your feelings” (well quite—they are incapable of caring), complaints about the irrationality of populists, &c.
Reason as a guidance for beliefs makes perfect sense - they are the constraints for what is possible. When it comes to actions it is the how and not the why.
It isn't wrong to use it in that way as a source of some beliefs. That you won't be able to build a skyscraper just by drawing blueprints is reason.
However it doesn't include the motivations - only how they may be served or if the goals and outcomes are out of alignment.
Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?
#6> But if we are sensible, the pursuit of human happiness, personal and collective, remains the goal of most of what we do. Such a basically utilitarian ideology requires around it a structure of reasoning, not passion, selfish or unselfish. David Hume's point was that reason alone could not justify the pursuit of human happiness or anything else, because it only lets you go from one statement to another, which means…
Very few serious philosophers would disagree with Hume. However, I suspect that many non-philisophers are happy to appeal to reason as a source of normative beliefs, thus “facts don’t care about your feelings” (well quite—they are incapable of caring), complaints about the irrationality of populists, &c.
> Very few serious philosophers would disagree with Hume.
Relatively few serious philosophers disagree with the positive component of Hume's claim: that reason is (for many people, at least) the slave the passions. On the other hand, many philosophers disagree with the normative component: that reason ought to be the slave of the passions, or that it must be so. Hume himself has a thing or two to say about juxtaposing is-ought claims in such a manner ;)
Of course, you're absolutely right about non-philosophers using "reason" and "logic" as a rhetorical cudgels. We should recognize their (poetically) broken and faithless reasoning and point it out as such.
Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?
#7The human race perpetuates because of the insanity induced by hormones.
Seems to work pretty well for an insane/chaotic system.
Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?
#8Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?
#9> But if we are sensible, the pursuit of human happiness, personal and collective, remains the goal of most of what we do. Such a basically utilitarian ideology requires around it a structure of reasoning, not passion, selfish or unselfish. David Hume's point was that reason alone could not justify the pursuit of human happiness or anything else, because it only lets you go from one statement to another, which means…
It's true that desires aren't justified by reason in and of themselves, but I don't think that's ultimately relevant (morally or otherwise). It's an empirical fact that we must act on our desires; when I examine my actions closely I notice that all of them can be traced back to some desire or combination of desires. From that empirically derived fact I posit that we can say the question "can reason alone justify the pursuit of our desires?" is a non-sensical question, like asking "is gravity justified in making objects fall to earth?"
I think a valid question along this line of inquiry is "are the actions I am taking in pursuit of my desires justified?". Actions are embodiments of ideas about how to act, and like other ideas can be deemed justified or unjustified through rational analysis. If an action embodies an idea that contradicts a known truth, it can be deemed unjustified.
Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?
#10> But if we are sensible, the pursuit of human happiness, personal and collective, remains the goal of most of what we do. Such a basically utilitarian ideology requires around it a structure of reasoning, not passion, selfish or unselfish. David Hume's point was that reason alone could not justify the pursuit of human happiness or anything else, because it only lets you go from one statement to another, which means…
Very few serious philosophers would disagree with Hume. However, I suspect that many non-philisophers are happy to appeal to reason as a source of normative beliefs, thus “facts don’t care about your feelings” (well quite—they are incapable of caring), complaints about the irrationality of populists, &c.
Very few modern philosophers, perhaps. Starting at least with Plato, it was entirely the opposite, that the individual whose passions are completely controlled by reason is ultimately happy. The individual controlled completely by his passions is the most unhappy. This is because Plato believed supreme happiness was found in perceiving the good itself using reason.
Nominalists, such as Hume, don't believe there is such a thing as 'good itself', and believe all mental abstractions are merely labelings of physical things. Thus, mental abstractions cannot be the goal of our desire. Only physical things can be the goal of our desire, and we must necessarily be ruled by our passions. Note, this was not an innovation on Hume's side. A number of philosophers before and during Plato's time proposed similar ideas, such as Epicurus. So, we cannot say Hume came up with a brilliant idea no one had ever considered before. However, for whatever reason, most of the philosophers of the Western canon sided with Plato rather than with Hume. Perhaps because Plato was closer to the truth than Hume.