David Hume and the Limits of Sensory Knowledge
А. Ч. Бхактиведанта Свами Прабхупада
Главы
Limitations of human sense perception
So today we're discussing a philosopher, David Hume. He's probably the most famous of the British philosophers. He was very skeptical about achieving certain knowledge.
So he came to the conclusion that the only knowledge we can possess is a mere sequence of ideas, none of which can be proved to be true.
In other words, we can only derive any knowledge from our senses, but even that knowledge is assumption, mere assumption. Yes. We say also because our senses are imperfect.
So there is no possibility of attaining perfect knowledge by sense exercise. It is not very... He said there is no other source of knowledge except the senses. No, we don't agree.
Therefore, it is called avāṅ-mānasa-gocara, adhokṣaja, that has some name. Senses imperfect, they cannot reach. Just like we cannot know what is there in the sun.
But he geologized, or what it's called, astral, one has studied.
Acquiring knowledge from perfect authority
So therefore our process of knowledge is to take from the authority. That is perfect. Our senses cannot reach, that is a fact. But it is not that without senses no knowledge can be. No.
We are deceived by senses, but from superior, from one who knows, that is perfect knowledge. Then according to him, there's no possibility of having perfect knowledge. Yes. Yes. No.
He says that all that we are, all that we know, is merely ideas, a sequence of ideas. But behind the idea there must be some fact. Otherwise how we'll get the idea? He separates fact from idea.
For instance, I may think this table is red but it is actually brown. So my idea is incorrect. Your idea, but actually it has got a color, and red or yellow.
So with your eye diseased, you cannot see actually, but one whose eyes are not diseased, he can see whether it is yellow or red. That's like sometimes blow. He sees the sun, a moon, two moons.
But actually, there is one moon. If you have eye disease, you see two moons. That one who is not diseased, he sees one moon. But we have to take knowledge from a person who is not diseased.
Not that because my eyes are diseased, I cannot see things right there, I can say, uh, there's no possibility of having right knowledge.
In fact, he called the soul a bundle of perceptions that, uh, it is nothing but a set or sequence of ideas. As soon as it says ideas, then there must be some concrete things. Yes.
He admits the external world is full of concrete things, but he thinks that we are also one of those things because we're only a bundle of perceptions.
Our consciousness is only made up of our observations of material nature. This is his height. So far our direct perception is concerned, it is like that. But indirect perception taken from authority, that is different. He
he distrusts any kind of authority and says that the only kind of things that we can know for sure are mathematical proofs and immediate sense perceptions.
Like, uh, we can perceive that there is time and there is space. Like that. Those is—that's the only knowledge he will admit. Is it the only time we have space? We can't know anything. You gotta object the prophet.
You cannot know that beyond my related time-one perception. It's like a—it's a small insect.
Relativity of time and existence
He takes birth, uh, in the evening, and from evening to morning his birth, his marriage, his begetting children, uh, everything is done, and in the morning he died. There are many insects. They're found, the early bhoka.
At night, the road in India says. So for this insect it is very difficult to understand that there is another animal which is called man who has got this duration of his lifetime; period is only twelve hours of his life.
Okay. So the insect cannot go beyond... Just like when you hear from Bhagavad-gītā, Brahmā, etc. You can always be weary sometimes. But everything is relative.
With your relative body, your duration of life, your knowledge, the perception, everything is relative. So you are dealing, human being, what is impossible for you, that is not impossible for others.
He's talking from the relative platform. Yes. He believes there's only relativity. He doesn't think there's anything absolute. It does not mean that there are anything.
But as soon as you say relativity, the opposite word is absolute. Otherwise, how we take this word "relative"? Well, his idea is that things only exist in relation with each other. Yeah. Then what is the supreme relative?
He doesn't admit any. He says it's like a cherry, say a fruit. There is relative study, and at the end of all relative truth, that is absolute truth, the summum bonum. So he has no idea of the summum bonum.
No, everything is substance. No, he denies any substance. He says just like a cherry or a fruit, it has certain qualities such as sweetness, color, like that. He says that we are just like that humans.
We have certain sensory qualities, we are made up of a series of mental activities or a complex of ideas, but this is all we are. No, we are, but senses also. The color is only color sensory qualities. Sensory quality.
It is the quality. But to appreciate that quality, we have the senses. It's not object. It has got the quality. But living entity, it has the senses to appreciate. Hmm.
But he says these senses are only a bundle of perceptions, of ideas. Whatever it may be, the living entity is superior to the inert matter. In Sanskrit language, they are tamas and created with the senses.
They're sense objects. Oh. They created well for the senses. For the senses. Yes. I was sense. So I must appreciate something. That something is the quality, you know. Senses—I got eyes and I must see something.
So therefore there is colour, there is beauty. He says that he postulates three laws whereby perceptions are associated or connected with one another. He says, first of all, there's the principle of resemblance.
For example, um, a picture—I see a picture, it impels me to think of an—of the original of that picture. So the second principle is the principle of contiguity.
If I mention, for instance, if I mention a room in a building, this, uh, impels me to think of other rooms in other buildings. And the third principle is the principle of cause and effect.
Uh, just like if I think about a wound, I, uh, I automatically think of pain. So in these three ways he thinks that our whole being is made up of this stream of ideas, association of ideas.
One idea follows another perpetually. That is the thing of relative world. You cannot understand what is father without the son. You cannot understand son without the father. You cannot understand husband without wife.
This—this world is like that. This is called relative world. Mm. Mm. He thinks that is what our—our being is. It's simply ideas.
From begin—from our birth to our death, we simply are made up of a bundle of perceptions and ideas. Simply that, nothing more. That? Beyond his idea?
Supreme direction versus accidental creation
He denies the existence of any ultimate reality; only the phenomena is, uh, phenomena of senses. So I found this phenomena come alone, there is no— Well,
he says it's possible that all of this has existed since time in, uh, since eternity and there was no cause. It's possible that there is no cause, that it's just existing. But what—what about the manifestation?
Past, present and future. He says that this may be an eternal existence of things, but there may not be any cause. It takes less than a cause. It's just like any machine which is born and dies. Machine.
Machine is made by somebody. You cannot compare with machine. Machine is created by somebody. There is beginning of the machine. We're just like the seasons, they come and go. Yeah. They then come. So what is this?
So this may be an eternally existing fact which has no cause or no creator. This is his idea. There's no creator? No creator. He says, however, that if we like, if we prefer, we can say that there is a creator if we like to.
In other words, he bases everything on this idea that you can do what you like to do. So that he can go on talking whatever he likes. He has a license. He wants to go on and talk on license. You are right, I'm right.
Everything is all right. What is that code? Joto mot toto poth. Joto mot. As many opinions, as many ways there are also. So it does not apply in a legal sense. They apply the same example as I give on the "keep to the right".
Then if somebody's there, "my opinion is keep to the left". But as soon as it does it... We'll discuss that in a minute or two, that his idea on that. But he divided human understanding into two classes.
First class is the relationship among ideas. Just as mathematical propositions, they are true and certain whether or not the things they refer to exist in nature. Just like two plus two equals four.
This is a relationship among ideas. And the relationship among facts. And he says that these cannot be proved by reasoning. They are merely assumed on the basis of sense experience.
For example, that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is a relationship among facts, but it's merely an assumption based upon our sense experience. But it's possible to imagine that the world will end or the sun may not rise.
He says that it is possible to imagine that the sun may not rise tomorrow. So it's only an assumption that the sun will rise. So this world of facts that we see, we can only assume that they will act in certain ways.
Probability. But there's no certainty. But we already discussed why it is so, probability. Who checks it? Who makes it impossible, not possible? How it happens? Sun is rising. And sun may not rise, stop.
How would it? Is it accidental? I mean, by somebody's way. He would say that it's accidental. Then love it. Nothing is accidental. Everything is symmetric. Therefore, we have to admit a supreme direction.
As stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: "Under My direction." Everything is right. So the sun is rising on His direction, and He... when we all die, the sun may not die. But it is not accident.
Causality and the supreme will
He says that there is no such thing as a cause and effect relationship, just like, for example, we associate friction with heat.
We say that it's a mistake to assume that friction causes heat or possesses any power which must inevitably produce heat. He says it is a mere repetition of two incidents so that
the effect habitually attends the cause, but it is not necessarily a consequence of it. So the fact that I rub my hands together and there's heat produced, I'm used to assuming that
the friction... But it is not necessarily so that whenever there is friction there is heat, but there is only because they are associated with each other, not that one causes the other. Yeah, how did I see it?
The one habitually attends the other, but not necessarily a consequence of it. But who made this law? As soon as they associate, immediately after friction there is heat. So there is a systematic law.
The association may be accident, but as soon as there is friction between the two associations, the law is the first thing: heat. So there is a systematic law.
Either you rub the hand or either the hand, the law is the heat; either in the old and my hand that wasn't that the law. But his idea is that this law is not ultimate reality. That it's a mere probability. Mere probability.
But it's a physical law. Hmm. And he says that the sequence of the law may be different. So that is possible also because law means it's made by some person, somebody. So if he likes, he can change that law. Yes.
That's why he says some law is passed today. Next day or next month or next year, this law is nullified. So the Supreme Legislative Council is responsible for this law- making.
Similarly, there is a Supreme Will who makes this law and who can verify this law, that we have to come to the Supreme Will. You cannot change or you cannot make whether it is new law. It is good thing.
Whether it is a friction of hands, there may not be any heat-producing effect that you cannot heat.
Therefore you are also under the Supreme Will; He has given you a chance to talk all nonsense, but He can stop immediately your tongue and you will be a dead one. Yes? Yes. Is it on? Yes. He's talking all nonsense.
But if the Supreme Will desires, it stops immediately, it stops moving. And it becomes a dead body, all philosophy stops. And he cannot stop it. That the Supreme Will is the ultimate cause or cause of all causes.
Divine authority as moral foundation
He says that morality consists of values which the individual formulates for himself as a matter of personal opinion. In other words, I can do whatever my conscience dictates.
So, other man can also say, "But my conscience dictates." So this difference. But in society, moral values are based upon the opinion of the whole society.
In other words, my moral values are relative to public opinion, or the majority opinion, and something you have to accept it. By democracy. But still he says it's up to the individual whether to accept or reject it.
This is where you were talking about the left side of the road and the right side of the road. That even though the law is there as agreed upon by society, still it's up to me whether I want to follow it or not.
It's a matter of my personal opinion. If you don't follow, then you pay for it. That is your affair. You bought it. That was the conclusion, that your independent thinking is not absolute. It is also relative. Oh, yes.
He says that logic or reason don't determine morality, but sentiment determines morality. How I feel. In other words, what is accepted by the Supreme Will, that is morality. You cannot decide what is morality.
It's the thing we decide, whether it is morality or immorality. Well, according to Hume, it's my sentiment that decides how I feel at the moment. That's how I should act. It's my personal opinion.
Your personal opinion is something that does not need to be approved. So if you are satisfied with your personal opinion and if it is not approved by Allah, then you are in a fool's paradise,
that's all. So he said the remedy for this is social, that we should try to change the law of the state or change the opinion of the state to accept a certain type of morality.
If I think something is right and the state says it is wrong, then I should act through politics to change it, to surrender to the supreme state. So if the supreme state stands, it is morality.
It's not that a public opinion. But the, uh, but anyway, it goes to somebody, a public opinion. But, uh, this public opinion is not final. Therefore, along the Gandhi opinion, there is the supreme way of Krishna.
That should be final to sanction morality and immoral. He says that, uh, the moral sentiments which are approved by society enhance the social good, whereas immoral attitudes are egoistic and antisocial.
So that a society will always approve of a certain set of moral values and then the individual living in the society must either accept or reject them, and if he rejects them, then he must act through politics, through the social body, to try to change their attitude, their opinion.
Therefore it depends on that social body. Yes. Which is a hidden. So ultimately we have to depend on the authority for all sanctions. So our supreme authority is Krishna. So whatever he sanctions, that is morality.
Whatever he does not sanction, that is immorality. There's a road job. But thinking to become non-violent, not to fight, is good. But Krishna said, "No, fight." So fight with them, go.
Ultimately it will depend on Krishna's will. What is morality, what is immorality, what is good, what is bad.
Instead of depending on social body or political body or communal body and this body and that body—there are so many, one is different than the other—we depend on the supreme, we are supreme opposite.
He says that there is no absolute morality. Everything is relative. Yes, we say also. If it is sanctioned by Krishna, then it is morality. And then the same morality may be immorality.
Uh, Yudhiṣṭhira was asked by Krishna to speak a lie. Go to Duryodhana and Droṇācārya and inform them that your son is dead.
Because, uh, Droṇācārya has a benediction that unless he is shocked by the death news of his son, he will not die. So he has to be shocked.
But he would not believe anybody except Yudhiṣṭhira, because he was known as very honest, truthful. Let's Krishna employed his agitat. Let him go.
And Yudhiṣṭhira said, he said, "Oh, how can I tell a lie?" listening Mahārāja. Krishna is ordering. And he says, "Then how can I say a lie?" This is Yudhiṣṭhira. He's disobeying the order of Krishna.
But Arjuna, he rejected all morality, immorality. He accepted Krishna's order. That is morality. He did not care. He was personally thinking, "Maybe if I kill my brother, this will be..." there's so many things.
But because a devotee, a pure devotee of Krishna, and when he understood Krishna, yes, this world, everything involved. And that is the fact. When your actions are approved by the Supreme Authority, there is morality.
If it is not approved by the Supreme Authority, then immorality. Therefore, so-called morality, immorality has no fixed reason. When it is approved by Krishna, it is morality.
Even so-called immorality will be morality, and so-called morality will be immorality.
But then practically we see with the same example as I give you, that a soldier killing, coming to you and me, is aware, it is considered right. The same soldier comes home, he kills only one man, he has...
He cannot say that, "Why, why do you condemn me to death? It is morality. I was fighting in the battlefield and it was considered morality and I was awarded a medal."
So they said morality and immorality depends on the state's sanction. And the state says, "You kill this man," that is morality.
And the state says, "You cannot kill," you cannot say that, "Here it is morality. I have killed and this is morality." No. It cannot be decided by you. Therefore, you have to accept a superior authority.
And everything will depend on Him. Supposing Krishna has said, dharma-saṁsthāpanārthāya, "I agree with establishing religious principles," and ultimately He says, "Reject all religious principles. Accept my order."
This is the confidence. So in the beginning he said that religious principles must be observed. And now he said: "Reject all religious principles." Therefore his order is the most important.
You cannot say: "Krishna told me that this and that, this is religious principle." Now he says: "Reject." To obey Krishna is religion, and to disobey Krishna is irreligion. That's the point of Krishna.
So this David Hume is laying groundwork for modern society because he leaves it up to the individual to do as he pleases.
Perceiving the absolute through devotion
This is the breakdown. But that was not possible. Well, no, nobody can do as he pleases. There are so many stumbling blocks. He may propose, but this is not practical.
He cannot do anything independent. Such proposals will create chaos in the society. "I do what I like, you do what you like, he does what he likes" — then it becomes chaos. That's what's happened.
There must be some authority. He says the only authority is public opinion, and it changes. Yeah, that's all right. Still, it is authority.
Public opinion... he says without probably only the king or royalty, there must be some authority to guide. Otherwise there will be chaos.
As far as his philosophy of religion, he rejected the idea of absolute matter and the concept of the soul as substance. He rejected the utility of science, and he rejected moral principles as objective realities.
He said all religious ideas are relative. There is no certainty, and anything religious may be merely probable but never certain. Yes. As Lord Caitanya said: "Yata mata, tata patha."
The means may be different in different processes of religion, but ultimately if one develops love of God, that is what is called premā. In fact, yes, love of God.
So if in any religious principle love of God is there, that is simply so, or it is not fact. And he says that even the idea of God is merely probable but not certain. That he cannot say. There must be some authority.
there must be a supreme authority that is lost. His— for him the authority is the senses. His authority is the senses. Public opinion. That's... your senses may not be approved by the public opinion.
Then earlier senses tell... That... that's as far as morality goes: public opinion. But for my understanding of God, I can only rely upon my own senses.
Well, morality... agree that morality means what is signed by the Supreme Authority. Very moderate. That we have already discussed.
Yes, but as far as my knowledge of God, I can only rely upon my senses to tell me what is God, if there is God. No. Your senses must be divine. Your senses are imperfect. God... God is beyond senses. We cannot see God.
We cannot perceive God. We cannot touch God. We cannot hear God. So our senses are all imperfect.
So with your imperfect senses you can say there is no God, but those who have clarified their senses or cleaned their senses, they can see God, they can touch God, they can talk with God.
He... he denies the existence of miracles also. Huh? He denies the existence of miracles. Miracles.
So there's no certain thing as a miracle, but one thing may be a miracle for one person and another, and the same thing may not be a miracle for others.
Just like when the electric fan runs on, it may be a miracle for the child, but it is not a miracle for his father. It's a miracle of the builder.
Supreme control and absolute goodness
And as we discussed before, he says, if we prefer, we can attribute the order and design of the world to an architect. Yeah. But as far as he's concerned, uh, there's no proof that there is a supreme... That is the proof.
When a thing is systematic, artistic, you must admit there is a brain behind it. Because we have no other experience, uh, without brain, without artistic sense, nothing is done very nicely.
Therefore, in the cosmic manifestation, as soon as you see something artistic, systematic, you must have discipline. He said, "Alright, if there is such an architect, then it must be responsible for evil, natural evil."
So he said, therefore, God must be finite or imperfect because, uh, there is evil. So he calls the imperfection or finitude. God is absolute. For Him there is no evil, except good. Otherwise He cannot be absolute.
So what you think evil, to God it is good. Just like a father slaps a child and he cries. For the child it is evil, but for the father it is good. Yes. How bad things are done right?
He's crying, he'll not commit the mistake again. So this here chastisement is, uh, just like... sometimes all of the complaints, he thinks, "I will understand the chastise," but I think it is good. The same thing. Yes.
So who is obediently with the object? Well, his idea is that either God is limited... Either that he... That is nothing answered. God is a limited thing? Cannot be God.
He says either God is limited in His goodness in order to allow evil to exist, then He must be limited in His power because He cannot stop evil from existing, huh? No. He is God.
The good and evil both are controlled by Him, that is called Supreme Control. Things are not limited. So the exact word used in śāstra, this is called ananta. Unlimited. Advaita, sac-cid-ānanda.
Advaita acyuta anādi ananta-rūpam, ādyam purāṇa-puruṣam nava-yauvanam ca. So that's all for today here.