Skip to main content

ahlect037

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">

<TEI.2><teiHeader>

<fileDesc>

<titleStmt>

<title>Hume's Treatise</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>

<idno>ahlct037</idno>

<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any

way</p>

<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>

</publicationStmt>

<sourceDesc>

<recordingStmt>

<recording dur="00:52:23" n="9444">

<date>15/02/2001</date><equipment><p>audio</p></equipment>

<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>

</respStmt></recording></recordingStmt></sourceDesc></fileDesc>

<profileDesc>

<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

</langUsage>

<particDesc>

<person id="nf0157" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="f"><p>nf0157, main speaker, non-student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0158" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0158, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0159" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0159, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0160" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0160, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0161" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0161, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0162" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0162, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0163" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0163, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0164" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0164, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0165" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0165, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0166" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0166, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0167" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0167, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0168" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0168, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0169" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0169, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0170" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0170, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0171" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0171, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0172" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0172, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0173" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0173, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0174" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0174, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0175" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0175, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0176" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0176, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0177" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0177, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0178" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0178, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0179" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0179, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0180" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0180, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0181" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0181, participant, student, female</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="27"><p>number of speakers: 27</p></personGrp>

</particDesc>

<textClass>

<keywords>

<list>

<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">Philosophy</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG2</item>

<item n="module">Early Modern Philosophy</item>

</list></keywords>

</textClass>

</profileDesc></teiHeader><text><body>

<u who="nf0157"> # <pause dur="2.3"/> okay # <pause dur="1.9"/> i'll just say a few things about the book <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> as you know we've spent <pause dur="0.2"/> last term and the first part of this term <pause dur="0.4"/> talking about Locke and Berkeley <pause dur="0.5"/> # we're now moving on to Hume so the next six lectures <pause dur="0.6"/> # the last six lectures of this course are on Hume <pause dur="0.3"/> this is a copy of Hume's Treatise <pause dur="0.4"/> # i'll say a little bit more about that in a minute so that hopefully <pause dur="0.4"/> it will reach a larger audience when a few more people have got here <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.5"/> so i'm just going to say i'm going to say a few things about Hume and a few things about the Treatise <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and then <pause dur="0.2"/> we'll start by looking at <pause dur="0.4"/> Hume's sort of philosophical method you might call it <pause dur="2.8"/> okay so <pause dur="0.3"/> Hume <pause dur="0.6"/> out of the three philosophers we study on this course Hume is probably the most famous <pause dur="0.4"/> of the three <pause dur="0.3"/> and he's certainly he's famous for his <pause dur="0.4"/> very very famous theories of cause and effect <pause dur="0.4"/> which we'll look at in a couple of weeks' time <pause dur="0.3"/> and

for his influence on later philosophers particularly Kant who of course you're looking at <pause dur="0.6"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> Modern Phil Texts <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> that is unless you're joint honours <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> handout <pause dur="1.2"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> Hume of course follows on from Locke and Berkeley he's an empiricist like Locke and Berkeley <pause dur="0.4"/> like <pause dur="0.3"/> Locke and Berkeley <pause dur="0.3"/> he thinks that all of our interest and knowledge <pause dur="0.4"/> is derived from experience and we'll be talking much more about that <pause dur="0.3"/> today what that actually comes down to for Hume <pause dur="0.5"/> and he's also following on from the arguments from the kind of from the challenges that were laid down by Locke and Berkeley <pause dur="0.3"/> so he takes on a lot of Locke's <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> a lot of the the <pause dur="0.2"/> terminology used by Locke and Berkeley <pause dur="0.3"/> and he looks at another lot of the same kind of problems <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean particularly he's interested in abstraction <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="1.1"/> scepticism <pause dur="0.3"/> whether Locke and <trunc>berk</trunc> whether Locke's account in particular <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>ap</trunc> implies <pause dur="0.4"/> # scepticism about the <trunc>ex</trunc> external world whether empiricism implies scepticism about the external world <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> # the most i mean

one of the most <pause dur="0.4"/> famous <pause dur="0.2"/> things that he takes on from Locke and Berkeley is is the theory of personal identity <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> he looks at Locke's account he looks at Berkeley's account <pause dur="0.2"/> and then he proposes his own account and we'll be looking at personal identity <pause dur="0.3"/> the very last lecture of this term <pause dur="0.4"/> in week ten <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> but i mean <pause dur="0.6"/> so those those are Hume's # some of Hume's <pause dur="0.4"/> philosophical antecedent why he's called an empiricist <pause dur="0.4"/> but i mean i think one of the <pause dur="0.5"/> another really huge influence on Hume which i talked about in the very first lecture of this course back at the beginning of last term <pause dur="0.3"/> with Newton <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> Hume's a scientist really <pause dur="0.2"/> he he's <pause dur="0.3"/> he's really taking a scientific method and applying it <pause dur="0.4"/> to philosophy <pause dur="0.3"/> so Newton offers us this this kind of mechanistic <pause dur="0.3"/> account of matter <pause dur="0.3"/> it's this <pause dur="0.2"/> this whole new science of matter <pause dur="0.3"/> in which all of the movements of of <pause dur="0.4"/> particles of bodies can be described in terms of equations <pause dur="0.2"/> so it's moving towards the kind of deterministic science that we really take for granted

today <pause dur="0.4"/> the fact that if something happens in the world <pause dur="0.3"/> there will be a <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>reason <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> for it there'll be an explanation for it <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> Hume <pause dur="0.4"/> in <trunc>i</trunc> i mean this is really i suppose the <pause dur="0.6"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> biggest <pause dur="0.2"/> shift in thinking in Hume <pause dur="0.5"/> is that Hume saw man as another part <pause dur="0.5"/> of the natural world <pause dur="0.7"/> i mean just another part of the natural world and and if you think <pause dur="0.3"/> well okay so what's so exciting about that <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean just think about how the rationalists say Descartes viewed <pause dur="0.6"/> viewed man <pause dur="0.6"/> in the rationalist picture of of human<pause dur="0.2"/>kind <pause dur="0.3"/> is of this sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> this being in the image of God <pause dur="0.5"/> someone who whose life is governed controlled purely by reason <pause dur="0.8"/> right <pause dur="0.2"/> so for the rationalists you know you're not a part of nature sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> swept along with everything else your reason governs your life you have control <pause dur="0.4"/> in virtue of being a rational animal <pause dur="0.3"/> right that's the rationalist picture <pause dur="0.6"/> but Hume <pause dur="0.4"/> completely <pause dur="0.7"/> turns that on its head i mean it's <trunc>te</trunc> in reason is the slave of the passions <pause dur="0.3"/> very famous

quote from Hume <pause dur="0.4"/> reason is the slave of the passions so <pause dur="0.4"/> reason is is a sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> secondary thing the passions the emotions the feelings <pause dur="0.3"/> are what really govern us and not reason reason is something that comes in later <pause dur="0.6"/> and # <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean <pause dur="1.0"/> so <pause dur="0.7"/> basically what that means is that man humans <pause dur="0.3"/> are just another part of the natural world <pause dur="0.3"/> we can explain human behaviour <pause dur="0.3"/> in exactly the same kind of way as we explain <pause dur="0.3"/> things scientifically <pause dur="0.8"/> and then again i mean just as a sort of modern comparison i mean you might want to think about <pause dur="0.3"/> Searle that you did last year in part one i mean the sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> contrast between the kinds of <trunc>exan</trunc> explanations we offer of <pause dur="0.5"/> of human action and the kinds of explanations of <pause dur="0.9"/> scientific phenomena <pause dur="0.3"/> basically what Hume's saying is there's one kind of explanation that's applicable to all of these things i mean obviously the <pause dur="0.4"/> the things we're explaining are slightly different <pause dur="0.5"/> in in terms of humans in terms of of <pause dur="0.2"/> of human thought human action we're <pause dur="0.4"/> dealing with

with maybe ideas or thoughts or whatever as opposed to physical objects <pause dur="0.4"/> but basically there's one kind of explanation and it's a naturalistic kind of explanation <pause dur="0.6"/> so that's the the <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.7"/> huge <pause dur="0.2"/> sort of shift in thinking that that we get in Hume <pause dur="0.6"/> and i mean Hume <pause dur="1.1"/> Hume sees this as a kind of an experimental enquiry <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>h</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> he takes this <pause dur="0.3"/> empirical scientific method <pause dur="0.3"/> which Newton <pause dur="0.2"/> applied with such success but which goes right i mean you may remember the historical <pause dur="0.6"/> sort of picture i was giving you back at in at at the end of at the beginning of last term <pause dur="0.5"/> # <trunc>th</trunc> the sort of going right back to Bacon the sort of <trunc>empiri</trunc> the rise of empirical science <pause dur="0.3"/> and Hume's taken that picture and what he wants to derive <pause dur="0.4"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> write some <pause dur="0.3"/> the <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> science of man <pause dur="2.4"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> so Newton gave us this # <pause dur="0.6"/> when somebody starts writing this down <unclear>you see</unclear><kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> this is Newton gave us the science of matter <pause dur="0.4"/> and Hume is giving us the science of man along <pause dur="0.3"/> exactly the same lines <pause dur="0.3"/> so he wants to come up with some kind of <pause dur="0.3"/>

laws of association you know just like Newton has this equation you can <pause dur="0.5"/> draw the the fall of a billiard ball or whatever the the fall of a <pause dur="0.2"/> not a billiard ball <pause dur="0.7"/> things that you drop off towers and things you can measure <pause dur="0.5"/> their velocity in terms of the forces acting on it <pause dur="0.4"/> Hume thought a similar kind of account would be possible <pause dur="0.8"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> the man the reason for <pause dur="0.9"/> what goes on in our <pause dur="0.6"/> our understanding <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> right okay <pause dur="0.2"/> how does he do this well how are we going to <pause dur="0.4"/> how are we going to empirically investigate <pause dur="0.3"/> the human mind <pause dur="0.9"/> well of course the methods of neuroscience the methods of <pause dur="0.5"/> of <pause dur="0.6"/> you know <pause dur="0.4"/> looking at medical methods looking at people's brains obviously weren't very far advanced <pause dur="0.3"/> and anyway maybe that's the wrong place to look i mean Hume's interested in thoughts and feelings and so on <pause dur="0.5"/> so really the method that we use is of course introspection <pause dur="0.8"/> we look into our own minds we see what's going on there <pause dur="0.3"/> and we can <pause dur="0.3"/> posit <pause dur="0.2"/> laws relations we can carry out this empirical <pause dur="0.4"/> investigation <pause dur="0.4"/>

into <pause dur="1.3"/> all the whole nature of human <pause dur="0.3"/> understanding so this is the project <pause dur="4.1"/> well <pause dur="0.4"/> in the <pause dur="0.5"/> the next six lectures so today and <pause dur="0.2"/> and the rest of this course <pause dur="0.5"/> # we're going to look at various topics in Hume's philosophy <pause dur="0.4"/> and these taken from <pause dur="0.4"/> book one of Hume's Treatise of Human Nature so this is the Treatise <pause dur="1.1"/> it's a very fat book <pause dur="0.7"/> # however <pause dur="0.4"/> this this particular one is very fat because it contains <pause dur="0.4"/> a large amount of introductory material <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> glossaries and notes and all this kind of stuff <pause dur="0.4"/> if you're going to buy the Treatise so this is a quick <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>st</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> step back from Hume for a second 'cause i wanted to say this at the beginning <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> if you want to buy a copy of this this is very very good value this is a tenner <pause dur="0.3"/> and it's quite <pause dur="0.2"/> can you see how thick it is that's quite a lot of book for a tenner <pause dur="0.5"/> if you given how expensive philosophy books are <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> this is edited by Norton and Norton <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and it was on the reading list right at the start of term so you should <pause dur="0.5"/> have that already <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> there are <trunc>ve</trunc> # they

should be available in the bookshop i haven't actually checked i did ask them to order some copies <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> there are lots of other editions of the Treatise so you don't have to get this one but this one's got a very big fat introduction so <pause dur="0.5"/> # it <pause dur="0.2"/> it might be useful <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the Treatise in fact has has three <pause dur="0.6"/> books <pause dur="0.2"/> in it <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and we're only going to be looking at book one <pause dur="0.7"/> book one <pause dur="0.2"/> is entitled Of the Understanding so this is Hume's <pause dur="0.5"/> the the beginning of <trunc>hu</trunc> Hume's science of man as it applies to <pause dur="0.5"/> to reason <pause dur="0.3"/> and to thought <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> we'll be <trunc>look</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> it <pause dur="0.2"/> basically introduces this philosophical method and then it looks at applying that to a number of philosophical issues such as <pause dur="0.5"/> space and time causation knowledge and belief <pause dur="0.5"/> personal identity <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> second book is is Of the Passions <pause dur="0.4"/> so that is an account of <trunc>o</trunc> <trunc>o</trunc> a a really <pause dur="0.5"/> i mean an account that was discredited for a while because of <pause dur="0.2"/> things like Freudian <pause dur="0.2"/> psychoanalysis and things like that but <pause dur="0.4"/> now is is is people looking at it more and it

gives an account of the emotions <pause dur="0.4"/> the desires things like pride and lust and <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> and pity and <pause dur="0.2"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> and of course human freedom which is probably one of the most important things in a <pause dur="0.2"/> in book two <pause dur="0.5"/> and then book three is is Hume's moral philosophy and i'm not sure i meant to ask <pause dur="0.4"/> Philip whether you do any <trunc>hu</trunc> of Hume's moral philosophy do you do any of Hume's moral philosophy <pause dur="0.6"/> in your morals course <pause dur="0.6"/> well <pause dur="0.6"/> even if you don't it's certainly something that people will refer to so the <pause dur="0.2"/> the moral philosophy is in <pause dur="0.4"/> book three of the Treatise but as i said we're only going to be looking at book one <pause dur="0.4"/> and we're going to look at <pause dur="0.3"/> number of topics from book one <pause dur="0.3"/> we're going to start by looking at Hume's philosophical method <pause dur="0.4"/> and then next week we'll talk about belief <pause dur="0.5"/> then two weeks on his theory of causation <pause dur="0.4"/> his scepticism and then finally his theory of personal identity <pause dur="0.8"/> that's the plan <pause dur="1.6"/> any questions <pause dur="0.3"/> about Hume <pause dur="0.8"/> in general <pause dur="2.1"/> cool <pause dur="1.1"/> right <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> so what i want to do today is just <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean having

sort of given you a little tiny tiny bit of an overview of what <pause dur="0.5"/> Hume's about <pause dur="0.5"/> # is just look at <pause dur="0.6"/> that he's basically his his tennets of his empiricism what his empiricism means for Hume <pause dur="0.5"/> how he sets it out what the basic principles he's working with are <pause dur="0.4"/> and these basic principles are vital because these are the principles <pause dur="0.2"/> that he later applies <pause dur="0.3"/> when he comes to look at specific problems <pause dur="0.3"/> so when he looks at causation he uses the principles we're going to look at today <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to analyse the notion of <pause dur="0.2"/> of cause <pause dur="0.2"/> so this is basically the <pause dur="0.3"/> the most important <pause dur="0.2"/> ground work <pause dur="0.4"/> the basic foundations of of Hume's empiricism <pause dur="0.7"/> and # <pause dur="0.2"/> this <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> basically comes down to his distinction between ideas and impressions and what he does with it <pause dur="1.1"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> this is <pause dur="0.3"/> on the handout <pause dur="0.4"/> # <trunc>c</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> first talk about what the distinction is <pause dur="0.2"/> why it's important <pause dur="0.8"/> and what we might <pause dur="0.5"/> think about it <pause dur="0.7"/> okay <pause dur="0.9"/> right so # the very very very first thing Hume does in the Treatise after he's he's written the introduction <pause dur="0.8"/> is he starts <pause dur="0.4"/>

talking about <pause dur="1.4"/> starts out this introspective enquiry by looking into the mind and seeing what he finds there <pause dur="0.4"/> and the first things he said is this is the first sentence of the Treatise <pause dur="0.7"/> <reading>all the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds <pause dur="0.4"/> which i shall call impressions and ideas</reading> <pause dur="1.1"/>

okay and then he talks about <pause dur="0.3"/> the difference between them <pause dur="0.4"/> and the first thing i want to draw your attention to is <pause dur="0.4"/> is his terminology <pause dur="0.5"/> now <pause dur="1.2"/> what did Locke call <pause dur="0.9"/> what was Locke's term for the contents of the human mind all the objects of perception </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="sf0158" trans="pause"> idea </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> idea <pause dur="0.2"/> right so Locke uses the term idea as this general term for the <pause dur="0.4"/> the objects of of the mind the things in the mind <pause dur="0.3"/> and Hume starts out by saying <reading>all the perceptions of the human mind <pause dur="0.4"/> resolve themselves into two distinct kinds which i'll call impressions and ideas</reading> <pause dur="0.3"/> and so <pause dur="0.2"/> Locke is <trunc>imme</trunc> # Hume's <pause dur="0.2"/> beg your pardon Hume is immediately laying down his terminology <pause dur="0.3"/> in a

different way from Locke <pause dur="0.3"/> and in fact he has a footnote here <pause dur="0.5"/> and he says <reading>i here make use of these terms impression and idea <pause dur="0.5"/> in a sense different <pause dur="0.3"/> from what is usual <pause dur="0.2"/> and i hope this levity will be allowed me <pause dur="0.6"/> perhaps i rather restore the word idea to its original sense <pause dur="0.3"/> from which Mr Locke has perverted it <pause dur="0.5"/> in making it stand for all our perceptions</reading> so he's <trunc>s</trunc> started by having a go at Locke <pause dur="0.4"/> who's <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> used this term idea to stand for all of our perceptions <pause dur="0.3"/> but really <pause dur="0.4"/> perceptions is is <pause dur="0.3"/> Hume's term for idea so <pause dur="0.3"/> where's my pen <pause dur="0.5"/> so <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="9"/> Locke's <pause dur="0.8"/> idea <pause dur="0.8"/> is basically what Hume calls <pause dur="0.8"/> perceptions <pause dur="1.4"/> now you may not think that's very helpful because of course perceptions thereby are going to include things like <pause dur="0.3"/> you know when i sit here and i imagine myself on that <pause dur="0.5"/> beach with all those <pause dur="0.3"/> men with six packs or whatever <pause dur="0.3"/> that is <trunc>n</trunc> that is actually a perception in my mind although <pause dur="0.3"/> as you can see i'm clearly not <pause dur="0.2"/> perceiving it more's the pity <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> that's <pause dur="0.3"/> that's what

Hume calls perceptions <pause dur="0.4"/> this is what Locke calls ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> and Hume <trunc>defi</trunc> divides <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> perceptions into <pause dur="0.8"/> impressions and ideas <pause dur="1.1"/> and this distinction is extremely important and is the whole foundation for his empiricism which is why i'm banging on about it so much <pause dur="0.8"/> so what's <pause dur="0.2"/> the difference <pause dur="0.4"/> between impressions and ideas <pause dur="2.0"/> well <trunc>h</trunc> the next sentence says <reading>the difference betwixt these consist in the degrees <pause dur="0.4"/> of force and liveliness with which they strike upon the mind <pause dur="0.4"/> and make their way into thought and consciousness <pause dur="1.1"/> those perceptions which enter with most force and violence we may name impressions <pause dur="1.0"/> and under this name i comprehend all our sensations</reading> <pause dur="0.6"/> right so sensations things that we sense <pause dur="1.4"/> <reading>passions <pause dur="0.3"/> and emotions <pause dur="0.6"/> as they make their first appearance in the soul <pause dur="1.4"/> by ideas <pause dur="0.7"/> i mean the faint <pause dur="0.2"/> images of these <pause dur="0.4"/> in thinking <pause dur="0.2"/> and reasoning <pause dur="0.5"/> such as for instance are all the perceptions <pause dur="0.3"/> excited by the present discourse <pause dur="0.9"/> excepting only those which

arise from the sight and touch <pause dur="0.9"/> et cetera</reading> <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> the distinction seems to be being made here in two ways <pause dur="0.5"/> on the one hand <pause dur="0.4"/> the distinction is is <trunc>bet</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>with the degrees of force and liveliness with which they strike upon the soul</reading> so impressions <pause dur="0.3"/> are the more forceful and lively <pause dur="0.7"/> perceptions <pause dur="1.1"/> well we can talk about <trunc>f</trunc> what <pause dur="0.3"/> Hume exactly means by forceful and lively in a minute <pause dur="0.7"/> # but impressions are the more <trunc>f</trunc> forceful <pause dur="0.2"/> and lively ones and <pause dur="0.2"/> ideas are the faint copies <pause dur="0.6"/> of impressions so <pause dur="0.4"/> ideas are <trunc>fo</trunc> # impressions are <pause dur="0.6"/> forceful <pause dur="0.5"/> ideas are fainter <pause dur="1.1"/> and then <pause dur="1.6"/> Hume says <pause dur="0.8"/> <reading>under impressions i comprehend all our sensations passions and emotions</reading> <pause dur="0.4"/> so impressions <pause dur="0.5"/> are <pause dur="0.3"/> the ones that we get directly from the senses or directly from the emotions so there's an <pause dur="0.4"/> interesting <pause dur="0.7"/> sort of addition here that when we talk about <pause dur="0.5"/> mental objects we tend to be talking about <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> objects of perception or objects of propositional attitudes <pause dur="0.6"/> but in fact Hume's

including here emotion so if you feel really angry <pause dur="0.6"/> you know someone <pause dur="0.5"/> pushes in front of you in the <pause dur="0.3"/> queue for the petrol station or something and you're sitting there going <pause dur="0.3"/> <vocal desc="growl" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> really angry <pause dur="0.3"/> and that is an impression <pause dur="0.4"/> right <pause dur="0.7"/> i mean there's <trunc>noth</trunc> there's not <pause dur="0.5"/> sort of an object of that in the sense there's not something angry that you're seeing <pause dur="0.6"/> that is an impression of angriness <pause dur="0.4"/> mean it's your anger <pause dur="0.2"/> is the impression so we enclose emotions in here as well as things you perceive <pause dur="1.2"/> ideas on the other hand <pause dur="0.5"/> are <pause dur="0.3"/> so what does Hume says <pause dur="0.4"/> # <reading>the faint image of these in thinking and reasoning</reading> <pause dur="0.4"/> so if <pause dur="0.4"/> you <pause dur="0.3"/> read a book <pause dur="0.9"/> and it's talking about Hume <pause dur="0.5"/> you may form an idea of Hume <pause dur="1.0"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> # this is a a <trunc>f</trunc> a <trunc>f</trunc> this is not an impression you're not seeing Hume <pause dur="0.5"/> it's a it's a <pause dur="0.2"/> a <pause dur="0.5"/> fainter <pause dur="0.2"/> idea <pause dur="0.2"/> that's being used in thinking <pause dur="0.9"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> </u><u who="sf0159" trans="overlap"> is <pause dur="0.6"/> is it then <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> reflections on emotions <pause dur="0.2"/> # <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap"> right exactly <pause dur="0.6"/> ideas are also going to include reflections on emotions so if

you think back <pause dur="0.4"/> to a week ago <pause dur="0.4"/> when your friend said something really rude to you <pause dur="0.4"/> down the pub and you were really angry <pause dur="0.2"/> then you might remember that anger now <pause dur="0.4"/> okay you might think back to it <pause dur="0.4"/> and remember that you felt angry <pause dur="0.2"/> now it may be that you may also feel angry now <pause dur="0.8"/> but it may also be that you don't feel angry now you've you've got over it you've forgiven your friend <pause dur="0.3"/> but you remember the anger <pause dur="0.3"/> and so in that way the anger is <pause dur="0.4"/> is an idea it's a faint copy <pause dur="0.5"/> of the anger <pause dur="0.4"/> that you felt before <pause dur="1.6"/> but what i want to what i want to <pause dur="0.2"/> to draw out here is is <pause dur="0.4"/> i said there are two ways of making this distinction one is <pause dur="0.8"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="5"/> in terms of forcefulness <pause dur="3.4"/> okay so you've got the impressions of forceful and the ideas of the faint copies can everyone see the board sorry the lights are not on <pause dur="0.9"/> where is it <pause dur="2.9"/><event desc="turns on lights" iterated="n"/> okay <pause dur="0.5"/> that's better <pause dur="1.0"/> on the other hand impressions <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="17"/> are to do with sensing <pause dur="1.4"/> or <pause dur="1.1"/> immediate perception as it were <pause dur="2.8"/> and ideas are to do

with <pause dur="0.5"/> thinking <pause dur="1.2"/> or reflecting <pause dur="1.8"/> or <pause dur="0.4"/> maybe remembering or whatever <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> and <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> Hume wants to have both of these <pause dur="1.5"/> so i'm going to come back to whether this actually <pause dur="0.5"/> cuts the distinction <pause dur="0.7"/> in a minute <pause dur="1.5"/> okay <trunc>th</trunc> there are there are so there are two things that are going on in these first sort of basically three or four sentences of the Treatise <pause dur="0.4"/> that impressions are forceful and ideas are faint <pause dur="0.3"/> that impressions are to do with sensing and perceiving and that ideas are to do with <pause dur="0.4"/> later thinking or reflecting on things <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and i mean of course <pause dur="0.7"/> your ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> you can you can read a <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>book <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.6"/> about <pause dur="0.7"/> say <pause dur="0.6"/> i don't know some place you've never been some exotic island you can read a book about it <pause dur="0.4"/> and get lots of ideas of it <pause dur="0.3"/> those are nonetheless still only going to be ideas because they're <pause dur="0.4"/> created by thought rather than <pause dur="1.0"/> created by <pause dur="0.2"/> sensation the question is <pause dur="0.5"/> can Hume maintain this forcefulness distinction in that way so i'm getting ahead of myself now i'm going to come back to that in a

minute <pause dur="0.4"/> but is that <pause dur="0.3"/> basically clear yeah <pause dur="1.1"/> good <pause dur="0.2"/> right <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.6"/> the second thing that Hume does that's that's very important which is in <pause dur="0.3"/> the <trunc>n</trunc> second paragraph of of the Treatise <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> this is the <pause dur="0.2"/> division in simple and complex perceptions i don't want to say a huge amount about this 'cause it's fairly obvious <pause dur="0.3"/> and we've also come across it in Locke already <pause dur="0.4"/> so in roughly the same way that Locke does <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> Hume distinguishes between simple and complex ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> this <pause dur="0.3"/> has <pause dur="0.5"/> a big significance for him <pause dur="1.4"/> and what does he say about this he says well <reading>we can divide our perceptions <pause dur="0.3"/> into simple and complex <pause dur="0.3"/> simple perceptions or impressions and ideas are such <pause dur="0.5"/> as admit of no distinction nor separation</reading> <pause dur="1.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.8"/> <reading>complex ideas are contrary to these and may be distinguished <pause dur="0.4"/> into <pause dur="0.2"/> parts</reading> # <pause dur="0.9"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> what does he mean by this well if you have a sensation # an idea <pause dur="0.5"/> or a sensation or whatever and you can't break it down into smaller parts <pause dur="0.5"/> then it's simple <pause dur="0.6"/> if you can

break it down into parts <pause dur="0.4"/> then it's complex so what kind of things are going to be <pause dur="0.5"/> simple <pause dur="0.3"/> perceptions <pause dur="0.3"/> example </u><pause dur="2.4"/> <u who="sf0160" trans="pause"> red </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> red <pause dur="0.3"/> good yes okay <pause dur="0.4"/> any others <pause dur="0.6"/> anyone want to </u><pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="sm0161" trans="pause"> blue </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> blue yeah okay all right </u><u who="sf0162" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> colour ones colour ones are going to do </u><u who="sm0163" trans="latching"> rough </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> rough yeah okay <pause dur="0.8"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> that's probably <pause dur="0.3"/> pretty simple <pause dur="0.3"/> yeah </u><pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="sf0164" trans="pause"> secondary qualities </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> yeah pretty much all secondary qualities are going to count as <pause dur="0.4"/> simple perceptions <pause dur="0.4"/> the immediate <pause dur="0.8"/> feel the immediate <pause dur="0.3"/> but again this is controversial so we're going to come back to this later <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> complex perceptions <pause dur="2.1"/> what kind of complex perceptions are you having right now <pause dur="1.9"/> # actually no i don't want to know about some of them <vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="3"/> but are there <trunc>a</trunc> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>any you want to share <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="6.3"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> come on keeping me </u><u who="sm0165" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap"> <pause dur="0.7"/> okay i mean look <pause dur="0.2"/> supposing i'm looking at </u><u who="sf0166" trans="overlap"> the table </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> the table okay the table is going to be a pretty complex <pause dur="0.3"/> perception because <pause dur="0.4"/> # it's got <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> i can physically divide it into it's got a colour <pause dur="0.4"/> it's got a a hardness it's got a <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="knocks on table" iterated="n"/>

sound if i bang on it <pause dur="0.8"/> there are there are <trunc>b</trunc> we can divide this up into a bunch of things and in fact that's the kind of example Hume <pause dur="0.5"/> gives if you're thinking of <trunc>ord</trunc> perceptions of ordinary physical objects they're going to be divisible into parts <pause dur="0.4"/> so he's got an apple <pause dur="0.6"/> says <reading>though a particular colour taste and smell <pause dur="0.5"/> are qualities all united together in this apple <pause dur="0.5"/> it is easy to perceive they're not the same but at least distinguishable from each other</reading> <pause dur="0.3"/> so we can distinguish in the perception of an apple <pause dur="1.1"/> the colour taste and smell i think they had better apples around when <pause dur="0.2"/> Hume was alive but anyway <pause dur="0.3"/> so one one can imagine that there are these <pause dur="0.2"/> these physical objects we can divide <pause dur="0.3"/> perceptions into parts <pause dur="0.3"/> right okay <pause dur="0.3"/> this may <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> ring a bell <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> in your your lectures on perception <pause dur="0.6"/> you may recall <pause dur="0.3"/> # talking about #<pause dur="0.3"/> phenomenalism <pause dur="0.4"/> logical positivism <pause dur="0.9"/> breaking <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> immediate <pause dur="0.2"/> objective perception down into the <pause dur="0.3"/> sense data <pause dur="0.6"/> that make them up so objects are constructions out of

sense data does that <pause dur="0.6"/> ring any bells at all <pause dur="1.4"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> okay well whatever <pause dur="0.6"/> okay so <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> we can divide we can divide complex perceptions into parts <pause dur="0.2"/> right <pause dur="1.4"/> this <pause dur="0.2"/> leads to a very very important principle that Hume <pause dur="0.6"/> formulates <pause dur="0.5"/> which is <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> if you have <pause dur="0.4"/> a <trunc>simp</trunc> <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>w</trunc> okay <pause dur="0.8"/> <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> start at the beginning <pause dur="0.2"/> what's the relationship between our ideas and our impressions <pause dur="0.5"/> is it the case that <pause dur="0.3"/> every idea corresponds to an impression and every impression corresponds to an idea <pause dur="0.7"/>

that's the question he then asks <pause dur="0.3"/> if you've got an idea does it have to <trunc>corres</trunc> is there does there have to be some impression to which it corresponds <pause dur="0.4"/> now if you see why this is important for the empiricism because of course recall that the impressions <pause dur="0.5"/> are the ones that are derived <pause dur="0.2"/> directly from the senses <pause dur="0.9"/> okay can anyone think of an example of an idea <pause dur="0.4"/> that might not be derived from an impression <pause dur="3.9"/> so are there ideas that you have <pause dur="0.3"/> that you haven't <pause dur="0.5"/> derived from impressions </u><u who="sf0167" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> an idea </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> sorry </u><u who="sf0167" trans="latching"> is it God <pause dur="0.2"/> for example </u><pause dur="1.3"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause">

God is difficult okay </u><u who="sf0167" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap"> because <pause dur="0.5"/> i mean some people might think that you can actually have <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> direct experience of God </u><u who="sf0167" trans="latching"> mm </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> you could perceive God <pause dur="0.4"/> # i mean i <pause dur="0.2"/> # people like Berkeley <pause dur="1.2"/> what Berkeley says about that is quite hard to <pause dur="0.9"/> to <pause dur="1.1"/> divine given his his theory of perception but <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean certainly around this time that was <pause dur="0.2"/> thought of as heresy so maybe God would would <pause dur="0.5"/> would count in this way <pause dur="0.4"/> but i mean is there a more ordinary example than God </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sf0168" trans="pause"> is it the things like the unicorn again </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> right exactly i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>i</trunc> you've got an idea of a unicorn if i say unicorn <pause dur="0.4"/> you form in your <pause dur="0.3"/> mind an idea of a thing with a <pause dur="0.4"/> looks like a horse but it's got a horn on the front of it <pause dur="0.3"/> have you ever had an impression of a unicorn <pause dur="1.1"/> no <pause dur="1.0"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> you have an idea which doesn't correspond to an impression <pause dur="0.4"/> so Hume <pause dur="1.1"/> thinks of examples like this <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean his example in the Treatise is the New Jerusalem which is a biblical reference <pause dur="0.3"/> and it's <trunc>th</trunc> this fantastic mythical city where the

streets are paved with gold and rubies or whatever you know and <pause dur="0.3"/> dadadadada <pause dur="0.3"/> one can have an <trunc>i</trunc> an idea of the New Jerusalem without ever having seen it or or a unicorn or whatever <pause dur="0.5"/> so there are <pause dur="0.3"/> but he also thinks that there are <pause dur="1.4"/> impressions <pause dur="0.8"/> of which you have no ideas as well <pause dur="0.2"/> and his example for that is a bit more <pause dur="1.2"/> bit more <pause dur="1.1"/> complicated i mean it's basically say <pause dur="0.5"/> i mean <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>ho</trunc> how many people here have been to Paris <pause dur="1.7"/> # quite a few <pause dur="0.3"/> now those of you who've been to Paris <pause dur="0.3"/> you have an impression of Paris i mean you were there you saw # <pause dur="0.6"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> but could you now <pause dur="1.0"/> unless you are <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>anyone who actually lived there for a while <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> can shut up for a minute but the rest of you <pause dur="0.5"/> did <pause dur="0.3"/> could you <pause dur="0.5"/> give your idea of Paris could you <pause dur="0.3"/> sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> give a <pause dur="0.2"/> a say a street plan of Paris or a sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> description of all the details of Paris <pause dur="0.7"/> well of course you can't because even if you saw those i mean even if you saw those details in the first place <pause dur="0.7"/> you're not now <pause dur="0.2"/> necessarily going to be able to produce them <pause dur="0.5"/> so the

idea sort of <pause dur="0.7"/> may have been there originally but it's now <pause dur="0.3"/> faded away <pause dur="0.8"/> # and this is exactly the example that <pause dur="0.9"/> Hume gives he says i have <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> excuse me <pause dur="0.6"/> <reading>i have seen Paris <pause dur="0.6"/> but shall i affirm i conform such an idea of that city <pause dur="0.4"/> as will perfectly represent all its streets and houses in their real and just proportions</reading> <pause dur="0.5"/> so sometimes we can have <pause dur="1.1"/> impressions with no ideas <pause dur="1.4"/> and sometimes we can have ideas with no impressions <pause dur="1.3"/> well <pause dur="0.7"/> okay so so <pause dur="0.5"/> that's where we've got to <pause dur="0.6"/> right now this isn't going to help this empiricism <pause dur="0.3"/> but Hume points out that all of these <pause dur="0.5"/> places where there isn't a correspondence a case is a complex of ideas and impressions <pause dur="0.3"/> right <pause dur="0.3"/> the unicorn <pause dur="0.4"/> is a complex idea <pause dur="0.5"/> you can separate out the parts <pause dur="0.8"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>you can separate out the horse and the horn <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.3"/> yeah <pause dur="0.5"/> familiar example <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> could the same be true of simple ideas and simple impressions <pause dur="0.5"/> and this is <pause dur="0.5"/> basically the question for for the lecture today <pause dur="0.4"/> could there be a simple idea <pause dur="0.5"/> with no corresponding <pause dur="0.2"/>

simple <pause dur="0.2"/> impression <pause dur="2.7"/> okay what do you reckon could there be a simple idea with no <pause dur="0.2"/> corresponding simple impression </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sf0169" trans="pause"> what do you mean by simple idea i get the simple impression like colours and things </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> right </u><u who="sf0169" trans="overlap"> what would be a simple idea </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> well a simple idea would be <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean if you <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>sh</trunc> sort of <trunc>r</trunc> imagine now that particular shade of <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> blue that's Conservative Party blue <pause dur="0.2"/> right <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean it's not in front of you <pause dur="0.4"/> but you <pause dur="0.2"/> can imagine it <pause dur="0.3"/> so that's an idea of that colour <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean if if you remember what colour your carpet is at home or something like that <pause dur="0.5"/> so that's an idea of a <pause dur="0.2"/> a colour which isn't corresponding to a present impression <pause dur="1.4"/> or remembering a smell or remembering a taste or something like that <pause dur="2.0"/> so could we have <pause dur="0.3"/> a simple idea <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.9"/> having had the corresponding simple impression </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="sf0170" trans="pause"> i thought we couldn't </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> right </u><u who="sf0170" trans="overlap"> because <pause dur="0.5"/> # there is a <trunc>th</trunc> # example of the Mary the scientist </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause">

yes <pause dur="0.2"/> yes </u><u who="sf0170" trans="overlap"> who works hard in the laboratory </u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap"> mm-hmm </u><u who="sf0170" trans="overlap"> she's very smart she <pause dur="0.2"/> but <trunc>o</trunc> everything in the laboratory is black and white </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> yes </u><u who="sf0170" trans="latching"> and she knows everything every physical <pause dur="0.7"/> # theories about colours </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> mm-hmm </u><u who="sf0170" trans="latching"> but then she <pause dur="1.3"/> if she if she's shown like <trunc>s</trunc> for example red <pause dur="0.3"/> she doesn't know which colour it is </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> right right and when she sees red <pause dur="0.3"/> she gets a new experience <pause dur="0.7"/> could she imagine red could Mary so this is Mary who's grown up in this <pause dur="0.3"/> cruel and entirely black and white environment <pause dur="0.4"/> could Mary <pause dur="0.3"/> have an idea of red <pause dur="0.2"/> if she's never seen it <pause dur="1.7"/> okay does anyone think you can <pause dur="0.2"/> have a simple idea without a corresponding impression right who thinks you can't <pause dur="1.5"/><kinesic desc="put hands up" n="ss" iterated="n"/> right okay <pause dur="0.4"/> what about the rest of you </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sm0171" trans="pause"> if it's # </u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap"> not sure </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sm0171" trans="pause"> i think you can make something up can't you </u><u who="sf0172" trans="latching"> mm </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> mm-hmm </u><pause dur="1.0"/> <u who="sm0171" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="2 secs"/> ridiculous things <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap"> right <pause dur="0.8"/> like what </u><pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="sm0171" trans="pause"> # </u><pause dur="1.7"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> the <pause dur="0.2"/> key question being are they simple or complex </u><pause dur="0.7"/> <u who="sm0171" trans="pause"> yeah i'm trying to think of a simple one actually then you think </u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap"> mm-hmm </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="sm0171" trans="pause"> complex thing like a book with no printing in it something like that that's a bit complex isn't it </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> right right <pause dur="0.3"/> and this is the problem that <pause dur="0.2"/> of course

our imaginations are hugely powerful <pause dur="0.4"/> and we can think up lots of complex ideas of <pause dur="0.3"/> strange things that <pause dur="0.5"/> we've never actually seen <pause dur="0.3"/> question is could we think up <pause dur="0.5"/> a simple idea <pause dur="0.2"/> one that couldn't be further divided <pause dur="0.4"/> where we haven't had <pause dur="0.2"/> a corresponding <pause dur="0.2"/> impression </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sf0173" trans="pause"> with the simple ideas don't we have to have experienced them in the first place to know what they are so therefore you have to <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> <pause dur="1.7"/> 'cause of the secondary qualities </u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap"> what </u><u who="sf0173" trans="overlap"> you <pause dur="0.3"/> always <pause dur="0.2"/> you have to experience it to understand it like if you're deaf even if someone <pause dur="0.8"/> i don't know <pause dur="0.8"/> explained writes down what <pause dur="0.3"/> sound is i mean </u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap"> mm-hmm </u><u who="sf0173" trans="overlap"> you're never going to know </u><pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> right <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean there's a there's a difference i think that's a that's a very good point and this is <trunc>wh</trunc> <trunc>h</trunc> an example that Hume uses in fact <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> the the question is <pause dur="0.6"/> it's it's not would would we know what to call it i mean i suppose in a <pause dur="0.3"/> a way <pause dur="0.3"/> it's not that Mary doesn't know <pause dur="0.2"/> what to call red <pause dur="0.3"/> that she sees <trunc>wh</trunc> she sees the different colours and she

doesn't know their names <pause dur="0.4"/> because i mean that would be true <pause dur="0.3"/> if you just <pause dur="0.4"/> didn't know any colour words you know if you were in a foreign language and you didn't know what to call them <pause dur="0.3"/> something like that <pause dur="0.3"/> but it's just that <pause dur="0.2"/> when <pause dur="0.5"/> i mean so the example of Mary goes she sees red <pause dur="0.2"/> she's having an experience that she's never had before <pause dur="1.7"/> right that she couldn't have imagined that experience <pause dur="0.4"/> before she actually saw it <pause dur="1.5"/> all right well look i i <pause dur="0.2"/> i want you to think about this 'cause this is a this is really quite important <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> i'm just going to go through what <pause dur="0.2"/> Hume <pause dur="0.3"/> says <pause dur="0.4"/> about these <pause dur="1.2"/> these # <pause dur="0.5"/> arguments <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> well no before i do that i mean i'll just say what the the the important principle is <pause dur="0.3"/> and this <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> the the <pause dur="0.2"/> the the basic <pause dur="0.7"/> the thing that Hume is is very very keen that Hume has to establish <pause dur="0.3"/> is that <pause dur="0.4"/> complex impressions and ideas <pause dur="0.4"/> there may be one without the other <pause dur="0.4"/> but basically <pause dur="0.2"/> at the level of simple impressions and simple ideas there is a one to one correspondence <pause dur="0.3"/> between simple impressions

and simple ideas <pause dur="0.4"/> so if you've got a simple impression you've got a simple idea if you've got a simple idea <pause dur="0.6"/> the second one is much more important if you've got a simple idea <pause dur="0.3"/> you must have had that corresponding simple impression <pause dur="0.7"/> right <pause dur="0.5"/> why is that an important principle <pause dur="0.5"/> well basically this is what empiricism is for Hume <pause dur="0.6"/> so Hume's an empiricist he thinks all of our knowledge is derived from experience and the bottom line of this <pause dur="0.5"/> is that <pause dur="1.1"/> is this that what we might call a principle of significance <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="1.5"/> and this is this is famously <pause dur="0.2"/> expressed in his <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>in</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> Inquiry have i put this on my <pause dur="0.7"/> handout <pause dur="2.6"/><vocal desc="clicks with tongue" iterated="y" dur="1"/><pause dur="0.5"/> no i haven't <pause dur="0.3"/> ah <pause dur="0.2"/> well okay <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean <pause dur="3.3"/> if we if if we have <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>all our simple ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> are derived from simple impressions which are correspondent to them and which they exactly represent</reading> <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="3.3"/> there it is it is on the handout it's the third bullet point <pause dur="0.5"/> under the significance of Hume's distinction <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="2.2"/> if <pause dur="0.9"/> Hume's concern that philosophers particularly scholastic philosophers

people talking about things like substance <pause dur="0.4"/> have no empirical foundation <pause dur="0.6"/> are just talking rubbish <pause dur="0.6"/> it's not just that they're sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> putting forward <pause dur="0.3"/> philosophical principles which we're not sure if they're true or not <pause dur="0.6"/> his <pause dur="0.3"/> basic <pause dur="0.3"/> this this this <pause dur="0.2"/> one to one correspondence between ideas and impressions <pause dur="0.4"/> is intended to guarantee <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="1.2"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> in order for a word or a phrase or or something that we talk about to be significant to be meaningful <pause dur="1.1"/> there has it has to ultimately reduce down to impressions to things that we can have knowledge of <pause dur="3.4"/> in the abstract from the Treatise <pause dur="0.3"/> he <pause dur="0.3"/> offers this sarcastic remark <pause dur="1.0"/> so this is someone who's who's going through philosophical treatise he's looking <pause dur="0.2"/> through trying to figure out what's going on <pause dur="0.3"/> and <trunc>i</trunc> he says <pause dur="0.5"/> <reading>when he</reading> <pause dur="0.2"/> he being presumably Hume <pause dur="0.7"/> <reading>when he suspects that any philosophical term <pause dur="0.3"/> has no ideas annexed to it <pause dur="0.4"/> as is too common <pause dur="0.8"/> he always asks <pause dur="0.4"/> from what impression <pause dur="0.4"/> that pretended idea <pause dur="0.3"/> is derived <pause dur="0.5"/> and if no

impression can be produced <pause dur="0.6"/> he <trunc>cont</trunc> he concludes <pause dur="0.5"/> that the term <pause dur="0.3"/> is altogether <pause dur="0.4"/> insignificant</reading> <pause dur="0.8"/> right <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> whenever <pause dur="0.3"/> you're looking at a philosophical concept a philosophical idea <pause dur="0.5"/> or <pause dur="0.2"/> some <pause dur="0.2"/> other <pause dur="0.2"/> thing <pause dur="0.2"/> that we might be talking about <pause dur="0.5"/> we say <pause dur="0.3"/> from what impression <pause dur="0.2"/> is that idea derived <pause dur="0.7"/> now if it's a complex idea <pause dur="0.2"/> there may be a complex impression to which it corresponds <pause dur="0.4"/> so for example a complex idea of say <pause dur="0.3"/> father <pause dur="0.6"/> bears an impression <pause dur="0.3"/> of a father so that's okay <pause dur="0.5"/> but if we're talking about something like substance <pause dur="0.6"/> right recall substance from <pause dur="0.5"/> from Locke <pause dur="0.5"/> from what impression is our idea of substance derived <pause dur="2.4"/> well <pause dur="0.3"/> maybe there's a complex idea of substance <pause dur="1.4"/> no <pause dur="0.3"/> can't find that <pause dur="0.2"/> maybe we can break it down <pause dur="0.4"/> into <pause dur="0.4"/> simple <pause dur="0.3"/> impressions which we've built up like with the case of the unicorn <pause dur="0.5"/> right we have the a complex idea of a unicorn we've built that up from <pause dur="0.4"/> simple ideas which are derived from simple impressions a simple idea of <pause dur="0.8"/> well more simple ideas of the horse and the horn or

whatever <pause dur="0.5"/> with substance are there simple <pause dur="0.4"/> ideas which correspond to impressions from which our <pause dur="0.6"/> our idea of substance is derived <pause dur="0.4"/> and Hume says <pause dur="0.6"/> well no there aren't <pause dur="0.3"/> what does that mean about the philosophical term substance <pause dur="0.9"/> it means that this term is wholly insignificant <pause dur="0.7"/> right it's not just that there isn't any substance <pause dur="0.3"/> it's just that substance doesn't mean anything <pause dur="1.8"/> right so <pause dur="0.2"/> this term <pause dur="0.3"/> is not just <pause dur="0.8"/> doesn't apply to anything it's actually meaningless it's insignificant <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> this <pause dur="0.6"/> distinction between impressions and ideas <pause dur="0.6"/> guarantees Hume's empiricism it guarantees that <pause dur="0.3"/> all the terms we use <pause dur="0.4"/> at base <pause dur="0.3"/> have to refer back to something <pause dur="0.2"/> which we've <pause dur="0.5"/> observed <pause dur="1.3"/>

and that's the important <pause dur="0.9"/> i mean of course it also <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> allows Hume to say things like <pause dur="0.5"/> he can he wants to be able to <trunc>redu</trunc> <trunc>rene</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> refute <pause dur="0.4"/> the principle of the arguments the doctrine of innate ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> he thinks this will <pause dur="0.3"/> this will offer a foundation for the science of man and so on and so forth <pause dur="0.3"/> but the bottom line of this is <pause dur="0.7"/> from what impression <pause dur="0.3"/> is this pretended this supposed idea derived <pause dur="0.6"/> and if <pause dur="0.2"/> it isn't <pause dur="0.3"/> derived from simple impressions at bottom line <pause dur="0.3"/> then it's not really an idea it's not really something that <pause dur="0.3"/> you can have <pause dur="0.4"/> you may think you have an idea of substance <pause dur="0.2"/> but really you don't it's not really an idea at all <pause dur="1.9"/> that's the bottom line that's that's empiricism for Hume <pause dur="1.5"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> whether or not you you <pause dur="0.2"/> you like this

which we're going to come back to in a second <pause dur="0.4"/> this is this is a <pause dur="0.3"/> a highly significant <pause dur="0.7"/> doctrine that <pause dur="0.2"/> at the bottom line there is a there's the one to one correspondence between simple ideas simple impressions <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> simple impressions are all derived simple ideas are all derived from simple impressions <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> you couldn't have a simple idea without an <trunc>i</trunc> simple impression <pause dur="0.4"/> and we can build up more complex ideas from them but if you have an idea <pause dur="0.3"/> you've got to either have an impression that directly corresponds to it <pause dur="0.3"/> or you've got to be able to break it down into simple ideas which correspond to impressions <pause dur="0.6"/> and then <pause dur="0.4"/> and if you can't then it's it's not something that's significant or meaningful <pause dur="2.2"/> right </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="sm0171" trans="pause"> <unclear>do you not</unclear> get ideas in mathematics about any impressions </u><pause dur="1.6"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> mathematics Hume didn't like very much <pause dur="0.5"/> he's things he says about mathematics are not really <pause dur="0.2"/> very helpful <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean <pause dur="0.7"/> it's it's difficult for <pause dur="0.2"/> empiricists to talk about <pause dur="0.3"/> abstract objects in maths i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> you know okay so i might have the idea of i don't know how

many people are there in this room <pause dur="0.8"/> twenty-something <pause dur="0.2"/> whatever twenty-three i might <pause dur="0.3"/> do i have the idea of twenty-three <pause dur="0.3"/> because i can see twenty-three things <pause dur="0.8"/> or is twenty-three is the idea of twenty-three <pause dur="0.4"/> sort of some much more abstract thing but if so how could i ever have an impression of it <pause dur="0.9"/> i mean these are the kinds of questions that empiricists in in mathematics have to face <pause dur="0.6"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> the i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> i suppose one could sort of say that <pause dur="0.7"/> most mathematics is built up from <pause dur="0.7"/> kinds of <pause dur="0.3"/> basic principles to do with counting to do with systems of <pause dur="1.6"/> numbers of things <pause dur="0.7"/> or or <pause dur="0.4"/> properties of <pause dur="0.7"/> numbers <pause dur="0.6"/> whatever you <pause dur="0.4"/> call them <pause dur="1.5"/> and if you call them minus numbers then they're like positive numbers but with an extra operator on or something <pause dur="2.2"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean there's there's a big question there about how far you can get if you're an empiricist philosopher of maths but you can get quite a long way <pause dur="2.5"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> by just breaking things down to numbers <pause dur="0.3"/> which arguably you know <pause dur="0.3"/> okay i see three people sitting

here <pause dur="0.4"/> so i have an <pause dur="0.5"/> an impression of three </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sm0171" trans="pause"> is progress in science not <pause dur="1.3"/> almost always from ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> before we can have impressions </u><pause dur="1.1"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> but the point is not that there could be ideas of which we've not had impressions i mean Hume's quite happy that we have an idea of a unicorn for example </u><u who="sm0171" trans="latching"> mm </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> or of some huge scientific theory that we've postulated that's fine <pause dur="0.7"/> that's fine because we can break the unicorn down into simple ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> which do correspond to impressions and the same with your theory </u><u who="sm0171" trans="overlap"> it's not simple is it <pause dur="0.6"/> if if <pause dur="0.3"/> if you think that if something's scientific <pause dur="0.2"/> it's not like a simple idea is it </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> but we can break it down into simple ideas </u><u who="sm0171" trans="latching"> mm </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> and those simple ideas must correspond to impressions </u><u who="sm0171" trans="latching"> mm </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> because if they don't <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean it's not just that <pause dur="0.3"/> you know it's not just that they don't <pause dur="0.6"/> they don't correspond to impressions it's that we can't have those thoughts <pause dur="0.7"/> i mean if you take something like substance which which is one of the targets of of Hume's criticism here <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> remember what

Locke said about substance he didn't think we had this clear idea of substance and we were just trying to sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> figure out exactly what its properties were <pause dur="0.3"/> we have a confused and and vague idea of substance right <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> Hume would say well the the reason that you have this confused and vague idea is is because it's not really an idea at all </u><pause dur="1.5"/> <u who="sf0174" trans="pause"> what is it </u><pause dur="1.1"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> well it's not anything <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean it's just it's a mistake <pause dur="1.3"/> i mean you think you've got you may think <trunc>y</trunc> do you think you <trunc>ha</trunc> i mean i don't know do <pause dur="0.2"/> do you think you've got an idea of substance </u><u who="sf0174" trans="latching"> yes </u><pause dur="1.3"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> u-huh </u><u who="sf0174" trans="latching"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> well <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> in that case you shouldn't have <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean because <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="1"/> the things i mean it's like <pause dur="0.3"/> it's like having an idea of a round square <pause dur="1.0"/> i mean have you got an idea of a round square you can try and sort of think well i've got some kind of idea of it's like of a round square <pause dur="0.6"/> but </u><u who="sf0175" trans="overlap"> can you say that <pause dur="0.4"/> can you just <pause dur="0.6"/> an idea of <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> substance by abstraction </u><pause dur="0.7"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> right and <trunc>thi</trunc> and and Hume has a lot to say about <pause dur="0.4"/> abstract ideas <pause dur="0.2"/>

i mean he <trunc>th</trunc> basically takes <trunc>ra</trunc> Berkeley's view on abstract ideas he thinks of ideas <pause dur="0.4"/> as <pause dur="0.6"/> you can't have <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean remember Berkeley's criticism of Locke <pause dur="0.3"/> the abstract general idea of a triangle would have to have <pause dur="0.3"/> be both <pause dur="0.2"/> be all three of equilateral isoceles and scalene that's not possible <pause dur="0.6"/> and Hume follows that line he thinks abstract ideas are particulars <pause dur="0.6"/> particular ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> of which we notice certain things and so you couldn't have an idea of <trunc>sub</trunc> substance by abstraction <pause dur="0.4"/> because <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> it would just be not consistent <pause dur="1.0"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> you know the idea that <pause dur="0.6"/> we think we've got of substance it's just not a possible idea it's like the idea of a round square </u><u who="sf0176" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> the idea so <pause dur="1.0"/> how do we get well what do we get it from <pause dur="0.6"/> if we have the idea i if the word appears in the language so </u><pause dur="1.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> well i mean i mean this is the thing that we can we can invent words for things <pause dur="0.3"/> that are just <pause dur="0.3"/> in i mean if you think of # say an an aetheist's account of God <pause dur="0.2"/> they're going to say well God is a word sure <pause dur="0.3"/> but

there isn't any such thing as God it's just something that people have decided to call but really it's not <pause dur="0.6"/> it's not something that's <pause dur="1.1"/> consistent or coherent or anything like that <pause dur="0.6"/> so when you actually come down to say what is this you you shouldn't you don't have an idea of God <pause dur="2.5"/> right okay <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> i just want to say two things about <pause dur="0.9"/> Hume's distinction <pause dur="1.8"/> # <pause dur="6.8"/> i said i'd come back to this distinction now <pause dur="1.0"/> first thing to say about this distinction is Hume wants to make this distinction he <pause dur="0.3"/> it's important for his empiricism <pause dur="0.3"/> that impressions are the things that we get through perception <pause dur="0.6"/> or through <pause dur="0.5"/> a perception in the sort of extended sense <pause dur="0.3"/> that it includes emotions that it includes immediate <pause dur="0.8"/> emotional feelings <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> he makes the distinction officially <pause dur="0.3"/> in terms of forcefulness and liveliness <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> the impressions are the forceful perceptions and the ideas are the faint copies <pause dur="1.0"/> now <pause dur="0.7"/> does that seem <pause dur="0.5"/> a good way <pause dur="0.2"/> to make the distinction so forget about <pause dur="0.2"/> can <pause dur="0.2"/> if if we take the top one as

the official <pause dur="0.7"/> definition <pause dur="0.3"/> does it correspond to <pause dur="0.8"/> forceful ones are the ones you sense and the <pause dur="0.4"/> less forceful ones are the ones you reflect on <pause dur="4.4"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> could you sometimes reflect on something <pause dur="0.4"/> that was more forceful than something you're seeing <pause dur="4.2"/> yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> yeah okay <pause dur="1.3"/> <trunc>exam</trunc> can we <pause dur="0.2"/> # can you think of an example </u><u who="sf0177" trans="overlap"> can it like if you perceive something that was <pause dur="0.2"/> had a bit impact on you </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> right </u><u who="sf0177" trans="overlap"> so you would <pause dur="0.4"/> you would think about that <pause dur="0.3"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> more <pause dur="0.5"/> with more impact than if you just kind of <pause dur="0.6"/> you know remembering some <pause dur="0.2"/> old man crossing the road and you weren't really paying attention </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> right <pause dur="0.2"/> or even more <pause dur="0.3"/> # if you were seeing an old man crossing the road and you weren't paying much attention i <trunc>m</trunc> </u><u who="sf0177" trans="overlap"> you were too busy thinking about this </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> this </u><u who="sf0177" trans="overlap"> awful thing that had happened the other day </u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap">

yeah # this <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>ho</trunc> dreadful thing right okay <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean this seems to be true <pause dur="0.3"/> that sometimes the things that we think about or reflect about can be much more forceful <pause dur="0.5"/> yeah <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sf0178" trans="pause"> doesn't she mean though that # <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> that's the idea and impression of of the same thing so like <pause dur="0.4"/> it's say if you had a car crash </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> mm-hmm </u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap"> okay so that <pause dur="0.6"/> that # reflection when you're thinking about it in your mind <pause dur="0.3"/> that might be more forceful than yeah see seeing an old <pause dur="0.5"/> man but <pause dur="0.2"/> would it be more forceful <pause dur="0.2"/> than actually being in that car crash </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> right okay and i think that's a good point and i think that's where he he sort of gets his his terminology from <pause dur="0.3"/> that when obviously when you have <pause dur="0.3"/> your <pause dur="0.2"/> idea of remembering the <pause dur="0.2"/> the car crash later <pause dur="0.2"/> it is only a faint copy of the original <pause dur="0.3"/> impression <pause dur="0.7"/> yeah that's certainly true because <pause dur="0.3"/> the experience when you're right there is clearly more forceful <pause dur="0.9"/> but unfortunately that's not going to do <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean that's right but that's not going to do all the work that Hume wants it to do because <pause dur="0.2"/> he can't <pause dur="0.3"/> he can't make the he doesn't want to make the

distinction between perceiving <pause dur="0.4"/> and thinking <pause dur="0.4"/> just in terms of <pause dur="0.4"/> of what's going on out there <pause dur="0.3"/> he needs to make this distinction introspectively <pause dur="0.4"/> so it's no good to say well <pause dur="0.2"/> impressions are the things where there is an external object <pause dur="0.5"/> where it's actually happening now or whatever <pause dur="0.4"/> and thinking and reflecting is when <pause dur="0.3"/> the object's gone away <pause dur="0.6"/> and you're just looking back on it <pause dur="0.3"/> because that would just <pause dur="0.3"/> that would just trivialize this distinction that would just be saying well <pause dur="0.4"/> impressions are the things you perceive and ideas are the things you reflect on <pause dur="0.4"/> but he wants to make the distinction between perceiving and thinking <pause dur="0.3"/> by talking about impressions and ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> so if he just defines it in that way he's not <pause dur="0.5"/> he's he's not got a <pause dur="0.5"/> basic distinction between perceiving and thinking <pause dur="1.1"/> he wants to do it introspectively he wants to say you can just look into your mind <pause dur="0.3"/> and distinguish between <pause dur="0.4"/> impressions and ideas <pause dur="0.6"/> right without referring to what's going on outside <pause dur="0.4"/> and the problem is is that

although in some cases like the one you mentioned <pause dur="0.3"/> it will be quite obvious <pause dur="0.3"/> at other times <pause dur="0.3"/> there is other sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> with <pause dur="0.2"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/>'s example you know there are some very <pause dur="0.5"/> faint and pathetic kind of impressions <pause dur="0.3"/> and some very forceful lively exciting <pause dur="0.4"/> ideas <pause dur="0.6"/> and the distinction just doesn't seem to happen that way </u><pause dur="1.1"/> <u who="sf0179" trans="pause"> if <pause dur="0.4"/> if you're when he says <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> if you perceive something <pause dur="0.5"/> but it's not actually there <pause dur="0.2"/> you <unclear>you know</unclear> we're not meant to be relying on the external thing but i thought perceiving was relying on the external thing </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> right exactly i mean this is the problem that he wants to say that perception is when you have an impression <pause dur="0.7"/> and thinking is when you have an idea <pause dur="2.1"/> i mean he wants to make the distinction between perceiving and thinking in terms of forcefulness basically <pause dur="0.6"/> and that just doesn't seem to quite work <pause dur="1.3"/> i mean that that's the problem that's exactly the problem that it seems that you can have a forceful <trunc>im</trunc> a forceful idea <pause dur="0.4"/> a forceful mental experience <pause dur="0.3"/> even

when there's nothing there <pause dur="1.5"/> so it's just not true that the perceptions the real perceptions <pause dur="0.3"/> are always more forceful <pause dur="0.5"/> than the things you reflect on <pause dur="1.7"/> and Hume in fact admits that i mean he says sometimes <pause dur="0.5"/> you know our # our ideas our impressions of our ideas are very lively and our impressions are so low and faint that you can't really <pause dur="0.2"/> distinguish them from my from <pause dur="0.2"/> impressions <pause dur="0.3"/> but generally we know what we mean <pause dur="1.0"/>

well okay <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.6"/> okay <pause dur="3.7"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="7"/> how does <pause dur="0.3"/> Hume <pause dur="0.9"/> argue for this distinction how does he <pause dur="0.4"/> rely <pause dur="0.2"/> how does he <pause dur="0.6"/> argue for the very very important principle which is <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.9"/> every simple idea must come from a simple impression because <pause dur="0.4"/> this is the the touchstone of his empiricism this is the principle <pause dur="0.3"/> on which he bases his criticisms of cause his criticisms of <pause dur="0.4"/> personal identity right so his basic philosophical method is going to be saying that here's a philosophical term <pause dur="0.7"/> here it is like <pause dur="0.2"/> like substance <pause dur="1.0"/><shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> where's the impression <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> from which this <pause dur="0.5"/> idea is derived <pause dur="0.7"/> if we can't find one <pause dur="0.6"/>

then it's insignificant that is his big philosophical argument <pause dur="0.7"/> and it relies on empiricism so it's pretty important for him to argue <pause dur="0.4"/> for this principle that simple <pause dur="0.3"/> ideas are derived from simple impressions <pause dur="1.5"/> well <pause dur="0.2"/> he gives us various arguments he he challenges anyone to produce a simple idea that's not derived from a <trunc>s</trunc> from a simple impression <pause dur="0.4"/> he says <pause dur="0.2"/> you know if you want he gives a sort of <pause dur="0.6"/> earlier version of the Mary example if you want to teach a child <pause dur="0.3"/> what red is <pause dur="0.5"/> do you try and <pause dur="0.2"/> explain it to them no you don't you show them red <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> for with children they get the impression and then they have the idea <pause dur="0.3"/> that's the order it goes in <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> he gives the example of a a blind man so that was <pause dur="0.3"/> Erika's example a deaf person he said look a blind man <pause dur="0.3"/> can form no idea of colours <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> a deaf person <pause dur="0.2"/> will have no idea of sounds <pause dur="0.7"/> # someone who's never tasted a pineapple <pause dur="1.0"/> doesn't know what a pineapple tastes like they have no idea of the taste of pineapple <pause dur="1.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> so that's his argument <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/>

unfortunately <pause dur="0.2"/> he then offers a very famous counter-example <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>to <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> his own argument <pause dur="0.6"/> which is a bit of a <pause dur="0.5"/> a strange thing to do <pause dur="0.7"/> # and this is the example of the missing colour shade so i'm just going to talk about that for two minutes and then we'll stop <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and this this example of Hume's <pause dur="0.2"/> is <pause dur="1.8"/> let's just imagine that we have <pause dur="0.2"/> a man <pause dur="0.4"/> who's facing a sort of a series of colours so <pause dur="0.3"/> we start with say we <trunc>s</trunc> with blue say we start with dark blue <pause dur="0.3"/> and we move along the colour series to light blue <pause dur="0.3"/> one into the other <pause dur="0.3"/> but in the middle there's a gap <pause dur="0.9"/> and the the the <pause dur="0.7"/> gap <pause dur="0.2"/> corresponds to a shade <pause dur="0.8"/> yeah so everyone got the picture so you've got dark going to light <pause dur="0.3"/> and there's a gap where <pause dur="0.2"/> one of the shades would be <pause dur="0.3"/> and as it happens that shade <pause dur="0.3"/> is not a shade <pause dur="0.3"/> that the person <pause dur="0.2"/> who's looking at the colour series <pause dur="0.2"/> has ever seen before <pause dur="0.5"/> so he hasn't had an impression <pause dur="0.4"/> of that missing colour shade <pause dur="1.0"/> and Hume says <pause dur="1.0"/> can the man form <pause dur="0.2"/> an idea <pause dur="0.7"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> the missing colour shade <pause dur="0.9"/> from the series presented to him <pause dur="2.6"/>

what do you reckon can he who thinks he can <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/><kinesic desc="put hands up" n="ss" iterated="n"/> right <pause dur="0.6"/> who anyone think he can't <pause dur="1.6"/> right okay so so <pause dur="0.5"/> Hume says yes it does seem plausible to think that he can in fact form an idea of the missing colour shade <pause dur="0.3"/> when he's had no impression of this <pause dur="0.5"/> and what he says about this example is <pause dur="1.0"/> what's he say about this example <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.6"/> he says <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>is it possible for him to supply this deficiency <pause dur="0.2"/> and raise up to himself the idea of that particular shade <pause dur="0.3"/> though it had never been conveyed to him by the senses <pause dur="0.4"/> i believe there are few that will be of the opinion that he can</reading> <pause dur="0.3"/> as has been empirically demonstrated in this class <pause dur="0.6"/> <reading>and this may serve as a proof that the simple ideas are not always derived from correspondent impressions <pause dur="0.8"/> though the instance is so particular and singular <pause dur="0.3"/> that 'tis scare worth our observing and does not merit that for it alone we should alter our general maxim</reading> <pause dur="0.8"/> so that's not very <pause dur="0.3"/> good really <pause dur="0.4"/> and then there's an enormous literature of

course in the Hume literature saying well why did Hume do this <pause dur="0.5"/> why having proposed this general theory which is so important to him <pause dur="0.3"/> does he then offer us <pause dur="0.3"/> this counter-example <pause dur="0.4"/> and of course if you well <pause dur="0.2"/> you can go away and read this for yourselves <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> okay <pause dur="1.1"/> what do you reckon <pause dur="1.4"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> let me remind you by the way that about <pause dur="0.3"/> twenty minutes ago <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>y</trunc> you you seemed <pause dur="0.4"/> maybe to be <pause dur="0.5"/> going for this principle that we can't have a simple idea without a simple impression <pause dur="0.2"/> yeah <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> </u><u who="sf0180" trans="overlap"> i don't think it's quite the same because <pause dur="0.6"/> it's not <pause dur="0.6"/> it's the whole thing about not being able to have a simple idea </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> mm-hmm </u><u who="sf0180" trans="latching"> without the simple impression <pause dur="0.4"/> but i think if you <pause dur="0.3"/> say with the example of the shades of blue </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> yeah </u><u who="sf0180" trans="overlap"> you've given them sort of ninety per cent of the idea </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> mm-hmm </u><u who="sf0180" trans="overlap"> and they've got to fill in from that so say somebody who never ever seen red at all <pause dur="0.4"/> if you gave them the whole spectrum of red with a bit missing </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> yeah </u><u who="sf0180" trans="overlap"> they will be able to fill that in

just by sort of <pause dur="0.6"/> you know <pause dur="0.5"/> working it out from what's there </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> right </u><u who="sf0180" trans="overlap"> you're not asking them to create anything from nothing </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> right </u><u who="sf0180" trans="latching"> if you've given them so much to work from </u><u who="nf0157" trans="latching"> right and i mean <trunc>act</trunc> actually that's that's very interesting because that is <pause dur="0.3"/> basically the line that # Harold Noonan takes and i was going to say i didn't bring with me though <pause dur="0.4"/> that you know those Routledge blue and green books like there's the one on Locke by E J Lowe and there's the Hume one by <pause dur="0.3"/> guy called Noonan and that's very good and that's <pause dur="0.2"/> pretty much the line he takes <pause dur="0.4"/> but <pause dur="0.7"/> i mean there are there are various things i mean that seems to imply that maybe <pause dur="0.2"/> colour shades are not simple ideas <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> we can sort of derive them from putting together other things <pause dur="1.0"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> i suppose

the one problem with that is that Hume <pause dur="0.4"/> did think that colour shades were simple ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> it doesn't really explain why <pause dur="0.3"/> he offered this as a counter-example and then <pause dur="0.7"/> # changed his mind </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sf0181" trans="pause"> maybe he didn't know how light worked though because <pause dur="0.2"/> i guess you could </u><u who="nf0157" trans="overlap"> mm-hmm </u><u who="sf0181" trans="overlap">put it in a scientific sense 'cause </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> yeah </u><u who="sf0181" trans="overlap">you know <pause dur="0.2"/> different <pause dur="0.7"/> pure shades of light </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nf0157" trans="pause"> yeah they're they're different they're different wavelengths and and then we can <pause dur="0.2"/> yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean <pause dur="0.8"/> sure and maybe that's just maybe that's just # <pause dur="0.6"/> a an unfortunate fact about <pause dur="0.2"/> Hume's empiricism but of course you've got then got to think well how far does this apply to any kind of sense data theory about about <pause dur="0.8"/>

perception about what objects are <pause dur="0.4"/> # okay <pause dur="0.2"/> final thought i mean one thing <pause dur="0.8"/> does this undermine Hume <pause dur="0.4"/> because if it does we might as well stop here <pause dur="0.3"/> and i mean i think the interesting thing is that one can tell various stories about why this might not undermine Hume <pause dur="0.4"/> but i think the bottom line is that <pause dur="0.3"/> this principle for Hume is very important <pause dur="0.4"/> and he will go on to apply it in various areas <pause dur="0.3"/> and this particular counter-example doesn't really seem to undermine <pause dur="0.3"/> his <trunc>ef</trunc> efforts to apply this principle in other areas <pause dur="0.3"/> so particularly in the idea of causation <pause dur="0.3"/> the idea of personal identity <pause dur="0.3"/> that seems to be quite a different kind of principle <pause dur="1.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> next week belief

</u></body>

</text></TEI.2>