Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethn | Hacker News Reader

I think this is largely embarrassing. The author pesters us with an imputation on Hume as an analytically bankrupt political thinker but fails to deliver any concrete proof.

Then the author assumes (while incorrectly interpreting Hume) that their own politics are correct and any divergence proves that Hume is a failed political thinker.

We don’t find Hume’s criticism of Mandeville instead we find an interpretation of modern conservatism as an obviously evil caricature which can only be developed by the inability to understand a viewpoint which doesn’t immediately affirms one’s preconceived beliefs.

View on HN

I find the conclusion particularly odd:

> The follies of a “first do no harm” approach are redoubled today, when the failure to grapple with inequality, and especially climate change, threatens the stability of the global order.

In one sentence, the idea of cautious changes is abandoned without a single argument, while it simultaneously argues for the kind of conservatism for which the author blames Hume.

That said, I totally do believe that a great philosopher is not a good statesman by definition. Our models, our theories, our thinking are not capable of encompassing the complexity of a single being, let alone a society. To change society's direction only the tiniest bit requires an entirely different skill set.

>when the failure to grapple with inequality, and especially climate change,

The writing is of a quality that suggests the thinking behind it is very poor.

I’m not a philosopher, but I’m sure there is a symbolic logic interpretation of this that would reveal it’s absurdity.

Something like: A is bad. B is bad. Not A does not decrease B. Therefore, not A is bad.

> The author pesters us with an imputation on Hume as an analytically bankrupt political thinker but fails to deliver any concrete proof.

"analytically bankrupt political thinker" - I didn't think the author implied something so strong.

"but fails to deliver any concrete proof" - Not sure what constitutes "proof" in conversation like this. But I think the author did show that Hume came close to understanding the many problems of his society- racism, divorce, wealth inequality- but his over-skepticism led him to dismiss any social change. The central point is that while Hume was skeptical of change, he wasn't equally skeptical of established order.

I'm not that big fan of this article either. But I think you're being unnecessarily harsh.

That’s a strange interpretation of Hume. Hume was a radical, he doubted causality itself. He only defends modern political institutions to the extent that they provide some utility in pursuance of “liberty, order and peace”. If they don’t he welcomed revolution.

For instance he disavowed the contemporary practice of British Mercantilism. In general, his radical political thought inspired America through Smith and thereby Payne.

Hume is against wealth inequality he’s just merely against perfect symmetry of possessions preventing barter and thereby preventing cooperation—-as stated in Political Discourses.

His views on marriage are cherry-picked, he’s pro-divorce. Again, his point is simply that in a marriage with children, one can expect the original passion to have been loss, so that passion alone cannot sustain a marriage. However if that marriage bears children, for the sake of the children, he recommends to abstain from the divorce for the development of the children.

(Sunday X-files OT) Q: 'Would you want to play a role in a world where you have to do marketing for that choice?' (-:

A: And so one of the best developed ways to choose is lying and to short and badmouth motives, you are exposed to?

Hint: Other consumers who considered this did... 'There is no reason to wait, not now, there must be a way to choose!'

(-;

> an analytically bankrupt political thinker but fails to deliver any concrete proof.

Huh?

I've always encountered Hume's politics in the same manner as e.g. Heidegger's; the only real question is whether you can divorce the thinker from his politics. Genuinely, I thought this was a fairly common experience of being introduced to Hume.

Like, was Heidegger a Nazi? Shrug, I guess we can have an academic conversation about that... but in any case we all agree his politics don't exactly help make the case for his philosophy. So with Hume; the introductory conversations are quite similar.

Could you provide a robust defense for Hume's politics? I think the standard consensus is that he was... well, wrong, at least about chattel slavery, and putting it quite mildly.

> I think the standard consensus is that he was... well, wrong, at least about chattel slavery, and putting it quite mildly.

Is the standard consensus suddenly pro-slavery?

> As much as submission to a petty prince, whose dominions extend not beyond a single city, is more grievous than obedience to a great monarch; so much is domestic slavery more cruel and oppressive than any civil subjection whatsoever. The more the master is removed from us in place and rank, the greater liberty we enjoy; the less are our actions inspected and controled; and the fainter that cruel comparison becomes between our own subjection, and the freedom, and even dominion of another. The remains which are found of domestic slavery, in the AMERICAN colonies, and among some EUROPEAN nations, would never surely create a desire of rendering it more universal. The little humanity, commonly observed in persons, accustomed, from their infancy, to exercise so great authority over their fellow-creatures, and to trample upon human nature, were sufficient alone to disgust us with that unbounded dominion. Nor can a more probable reason be assigned for the severe, I might say, barbarous manners of ancient times, than the practice of domestic slavery; by which every man of rank was rendered a petty tyrant, and educated amidst the flattery, submission, and low debasement of his slaves.

Nowadays it's just assumed that any racist must be an advocate for slavery, or gas chambers, or whatever. Actually reading racists (like Hume) would quickly disabuse one of that notion.

>> I think the standard consensus is that he was... well, wrong, at least about chattel slavery, and putting it quite mildly.

> Is the standard consensus suddenly pro-slavery?

The standard consensus is that slavery is wrong because the people being enslaved were equal in their humanity to those enslaving them. This isn't abstract thing... equal treatment under the law is, for example, encoded by constitutional amendments in the united states.

Hume had a decidedly different view on the rationale for ending slavery. He was a philosopher, not merely an elector, so the actual reasons do in fact matter when studying him and his ideas.

Do you really believe that the standard consensus on slavery doesn't also include a rejection of racism or an affirmation of equal protection under the law? Come on. Hume was wrong. He knew that 3+3=6 because 3x3=6 and 2+2=4 and 2x2=4. He was wrong, and countering that all is fine here because 3+3=6 after all is stupid.

> Nowadays it's just assumed that any racist must be an advocate for slavery, or gas chambers, or whatever. Actually reading racists (like Hume) would quickly disabuse one of that notion.

And where do I make that assumption? As GP would say, what an embarrassing reading of both the essay and my comment ;-)

Hume's opinions on chattel slavery were profoundly wrong. He's an interesting case because he was wrong in a very particular and peculiar way. Again, the comparison to Heidegger is apt. Obviously, that subtlety -- wrong, but in a weird way -- is the jumping-off point for this article.

Again, do you care to actually defend Hume's politics?

I guess I'd have to disagree that anyone who's position on chattel slavery is 'anti' is wrong about chattel slavery. It's honestly kind of a nitpick, but if I didn't read the essay I wouldn't have thought that by saying he was wrong about it you meant he was against it, but in the wrong way.

Of course, this could all be one of those weird linguistic quirks. There really isn't any way I could think of to provide evidence I'm even right in this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com