A Treatise of Human Nature — David Hume — John Shaqi
A Treatise of Human Nature
David Hume · English
For with what confidence can I venture upon such bold enterprises, when
beside those numberless infirmities peculiar to myself, I find so many
which are common to human nature? Can I be sure, that in leaving all
established opinions I am following truth; and by what criterion shall
I distinguish her, even if fortune should at last guide me on her
foot-steps? After the most accurate and exact of my reasonings, I can
give no reason why I should assent to it; and feel nothing but a strong
propensity to consider objects strongly in that view, under which they
appear to me. Experience is a principle, which instructs me in
the several conjunctions of objects for the past. Habit is another
principle, which determines me to expect the same for the future; and
both of them conspiring to operate upon the imagination, make me form
certain ideas in a more intense and lively manner, than others, which
are not attended with the same advantages. Without this quality, by
which the mind enlivens some ideas beyond others (which seemingly is so
trivial, and so little founded on reason) we could never assent to any
argument, nor carry our view beyond those few objects, which are present
to our senses. Nay, even to these objects we could never attribute any
existence, but what was dependent on the senses; and must comprehend
them entirely in that succession of perceptions, which constitutes our
self or person. Nay farther, even with relation to that succession, we
could only admit of those perceptions, which are immediately present to
our consciousness, nor could those lively images, with which the memory
presents us, be ever received as true pictures of past perceptions. The
memory, senses, and understanding are, therefore, all of them founded on
the imagination, or the vivacity of our ideas.
No wonder a principle so inconstant and fallacious should lead us into
errors, when implicitly followed (as it must be) in all its variations.
It is this principle, which makes us reason from causes and effects;
and it is the same principle, which convinces us of the continued
existence of external objects, when absent from the senses. But though
these two operations be equally natural and necessary in the human
mind, yet in some circumstances they are[16] directly contrary, nor is
it possible for us to reason justly and regularly from causes and
effects, and at the same time believe the continued existence of
matter. How then shall we adjust those principles together? Which of
them shall we prefer? Or in case we prefer neither of them, but
successively assent to both, as is usual among philosophers, with what
confidence can we afterwards usurp that glorious title, when we thus
knowingly embrace a manifest contradiction?
[16] Sect. 4.