I've suffered from gout and suggest that no one can comment on his argument and fully understand it until they have also experienced that pain.

There is no argument which can point to the pain of gout being of any purpose or use. But I think that given a world wide point of view there are many more examples of useless and pointless suffering.

But though this topic be specious and sublime, it was soon found in practice weak and ineffectual. — Hume

Isn't language cool? Specious used to mean beautiful (as in 'having specular quality'), but is now used as a put-down meaning shallow or 'all appearance, no depth'.

Anyway, nothing doing.

These enlarged views may, for a moment, please the imagination of a speculative man, who is placed in ease and security; but neither can they dwell with constancy on his mind, even though undisturbed by the emotions of pain or passion; much less can they maintain their ground when attacked by such powerful antagonists. — Agustino

In other words, people are bad reasoners (because they have competing passions in their souls). I agree with Hume. But this is clearly no reason to believe that any argument fails. ("People are bad reasoners, therefore, argument X is bad" is, er, bad reasoning).

In other words, people are bad reasoners (because they have competing passions in their souls). I agree with Hume. But this is clearly no reason to believe that any argument fails. ("People are bad reasoners, therefore, argument X is bad" is, er, bad reasoning). — Mariner

Sure, in that trivial sense everyone agrees. Hume isn't very deep in that way. He also misses the point that, of course, philosophical knowledge (that the goodness of the whole justifies present evil) does not eliminate the evil, or make the pain less - but it certainly provides a sort of comfort and easier psychological acceptance of the situation.

I've suffered from gout and suggest that no one can comment on his argument and fully understand it until they have also experienced that pain.

There is no argument which can point to the pain of gout being of any purpose or use. — charleton

Yes, it can be argued, for example, that the pain and possibility of gout were necessary in order for us to exist in the first place as a result of evolution (on a purely naturalistic/atheistic view). So if you are thankful for other things in life, then you have to accept the possibility of gout and the associated pain as well.

Yes, it can be argued, for example, that the pain and possibility of gout were necessary in order for us to exist in the first place as a result of evolution (on a purely naturalistic/atheistic view) — Agustino

That gets the silly post of the week award. I'm not talking about s stubbed toe or a paper cut. Gout is is pain beyond reason. That's why I made the comment.

I think Hume is making what would these days be called a psychological observation, not a philosophical argument. He is observing that people in general do not find such Leibnizian "All's for the best in this best of all possible worlds" arguments helpful.

I think Hume has specifically in mind arguments where the good can only be speculatively assumed, not those where the good is well understood, such as a vaccination. To this end, note the following phrase in the second paragraph: 'such remote and uncertain speculations'.

Expectation of immunity from polio after a vaccination is not a remote and uncertain speculation. The platitudes of a priest who, talking to a mother whose child just died after an agonising illness, says "It is God's will, and God's will must be good even if we cannot see why", are. Ditto for speculation about there being a 'good' reason for the pain of gout.

The title of this thread is wrong.
Hume is arguing against speculative philosophy (metaphysical theories).

The case is the same with moral as with physical ill. It cannot reasonably be supposed, that those remote considerations, which are found of so little efficacy with regard to one, will have a more powerful influence with regard to the other. The mind of man is so formed by nature that, upon the appearance of certain characters, dispositions, and actions, it immediately feels the sentiment of approbation or blame; nor are there any emotions more essential to its frame and constitution.

"Those remote considerations" -- metaphysical theories that do not taken into considerations individual experiences. Individuals have sentiments, emotions, identity, and individual decisions.

I’m sorry you had to experience such pain. Can you possibly elaborate on what it means to say “pain beyond reason”? What can that mean? Would it make sense in a similar fashion to say you have experienced joy beyond reason? Thanks.

Sounds like your gout helped you understand Hume's argument. Doesn't sound meaningless.

↪charleton I’m sorry you had to experience such pain. Can you possibly elaborate on what it means to say “pain beyond reason”? What can that mean? Would it make sense in a similar fashion to say you have experienced joy beyond reason? Thanks. — matt

Sounds like your gout helped you understand Hume's argument. Doesn't sound meaningless. — Noble Dust

What is the function of pain? I suppose the argument that animals that feel no pain tend to die, and so in evolutionary terms pain is useful.
However - what lesson am I to take from gout? Gout tends to strike after the age of maturity. It fist happened to me whilst my son was being born. I had more gas & air than his mother!!
Gout is hereditary. There is no use to it and the pain of it is unreasonable since there is no evolutionary benefit to such extreme pain. The pain is unavoidable. It is only through science that we learn how diet and drugs can help the onset of instances of gout.
Pain beyond reason! If you cut your finger and it hurts, it teaches you to not cut your finger next time.
Is there no joy beyond reason?

The pain of gout is due to a slight imbalance in the chemical pathways that change uric acid (a by-product of protein digestion)to urea which is urinated through the kidneys. Crystals of uric acid build up in the lower joints, especially the big toes, but also knees and even hips.
Imagine, if you will, having sand injected directly inside the joint to rub against the cartilage when the slightest movement of the joint is made. Massive inflammation of pain is the result, as if your toe had been ripped off and an electric sander pressed against the raw bloody end.
As well as being debilitating, people think it is some sort of joke disease from the 18thC. Jibes about too much wine and too many cigars follow as you hobble about with a stick or crutch.

I was attempting to point out that you said

I've suffered from gout and suggest that no one can comment on his argument and fully understand it until they have also experienced that pain. — charleton

Which suggested that "no one can comment on [Hume's] argument and fully understand it until they have also experienced [the pain of gout]". To be charitable, I interpreted that as meaning that you can't understand Hume's argument fully until you've experienced some sort of profound pain, physical or otherwise.

So I was suggesting that the answer to your question was in your own response: You are saying yourself that no one should be able to comment on Hume's argument if they haven't experienced excruciating pain. You have. So that makes you able to comment. If you hadn't experienced that pain, by your own logic, you wouldn't be able to comment. So, because of your pain, you've gained the ability to comment on Hume's argument, by your own logic. That is a gain you wouldn't have gained had you not experienced that pain. Thus, you've gained something through pain, which, by your own logic, you would not have gained otherwise.

That gets the silly post of the week award. I'm not talking about s stubbed toe or a paper cut. Gout is is pain beyond reason. That's why I made the comment. — charleton

*facepalm*

This is ridiculous... Yes, I am aware that gout is pain beyond reason. I don't need to experience gout to know what you mean by pain beyond reason, I've experienced GI tract infection that kept me in continuous acute pain - such pain that I couldn't even sleep, even though I was super tired, along with fever and other symptoms. I am fully aware of what pain beyond reason is.

But the argument is valid, even if this is pain beyond reason. Such pain beyond reason must be possible for us to have evolved to what we are today, according to the theory of evolution. So if you want to have the good, you have to say yes to the evil as well, as Nietzsche would put it. This is why Hume's argument is a joke.

Sure, it is pain beyond reason. But this doesn't mean that the metaphysical assertion that even evil is good for the whole in the end is false. For example, you can clearly understand from studying evolutionary biology, that without mistakes, pain, etc. we couldn't have developed in the first place. It's a clear fact - undeniable. It's simply undeniable, that regardless of how bad it feels, the possibility of such bad is necessary to have any good at all.

There is no use to it and the pain of it is unreasonable since there is no evolutionary benefit to such extreme pain. — charleton

True, however, the possibility of such useless pain as that of gout is required in order for other goods in the world to be possible (such as useful pain). You cannot have useful pain without also having the possibility for useless pain.

He is observing that people in general do not find such Leibnizian "All's for the best in this best of all possible worlds" arguments helpful. — andrewk

In what way helpful? It's not helpful in decreasing the pain you feel or making you recover from the pain faster. But it is helpful in the aid it provides to enable you to psychologically understand why you need to come to terms with the situation as it is.

I think Hume has specifically in mind arguments where the good can only be speculatively assumed, not those where the good is well understood, such as a vaccination. To this end, note the following phrase in the second paragraph: 'such remote and uncertain speculations'.

Expectation of immunity from polio after a vaccination is not a remote and uncertain speculation. — andrewk

This doesn't make much sense to me. You don't need to appeal to God / religion in a consciously aware sense, in order to realise that the possibility of good in life hinges on the possibility of bad, and if we eliminate bad, we also thereby eliminate good. Why do you think this insight requires "speculative and remote" considerations? I don't see anything remote about this - just seriously think about your own life, you will see that it is so. In fact, quite the contrary from being remote, it is one of those facts which is closest to you, perhaps that's why it is difficult for some to see it.

"Those remote considerations" -- metaphysical theories that do not taken into considerations individual experiences. Individuals have sentiments, emotions, identity, and individual decisions. — Caldwell

Sure, individuals have all that. How are they not taken into account? When I see that the possibility for useful pain, that helps me prevent a greater evil, requires the presence of useless pain - when I see this fact of nature in ALL my experiences - how is it possible to claim that my feelings, sentiments, emotions, identity, etc. aren't taken into account?

Thus, you've gained something through pain, which, by your own logic, you would not have gained otherwise. — Noble Dust

I think understand the argument but not fully, without gout pain or similar. But I'd not go through that pain just to understand Hume's argument.
The pain of gout certainly has nothing to do with Augusto's asinine "naturalistic/atheistic" argument.

This is ridiculous.. — Agustino

Yes I know you are ridiculous. What of it.?

True, however, the possibility of such useless pain as that of gout is required in order for other goods in the world to be possible (such as useful pain). You cannot have useful pain without also having the possibility for useless pain. — Agustino

asinine!

He is observing that people in general do not find such Leibnizian "All's for the best in this best of all possible worlds" arguments helpful. — andrewk

FFS!! Hume is deliberately saying how stupid that argument is. The world could quite easily exist without the pain of gout - that's the bloody point!!

asinine! — charleton

Do tell us why.

The world could quite easily exist without the pain of gout - that's the bloody point!! — charleton

Nope. That makes utterly no sense. The possibility of gout is necessitated by our biological structure, and our biological structure had to evolve the way it did for us to be who we are today, and have these bodies that we do today, which in many ways are absolutely wonderful. So you have to accept the possibility of the mistakes, the bad things, etc. as part and parcel of what it takes for such bodies as ours to evolve and to exist.

Nope. That makes utterly no sense. The possibility of gout is necessitated by our biological structure, and our biological structure — Agustino

So why don't you get it?

Do tell us why. — Agustino

You would have to understand the philosophical debate of the time.
There was massive skepticism after the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, to which Leibniz hilarious response, so devastatingly parodied in Candide, was all for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Hume is specifically attacking this bit of silliness.
There is no purpose to the pain of gout, and many other conditions. For such elementary mistakes to be made God is nothing more than a useless tinkerer.

So why don't you get it? — charleton

LOL - do you even read what I write?! I said the POSSIBILITY of gout is necessitated by our biological structure. Not the actuality of it. So I don't have it right now, but it's always possible that I will get it.

LOL - do you even read what I write?! I said the POSSIBILITY of gout is necessitated by our biological structure. Not the actuality of it. So I don't have it right now, but it's always possible that I will get it. — Agustino

yes and no. First the 'no"

No, the pain of gout is the result of the necessity of cause and effect of a cold and indifferent universe with no purpose.
Nothing to do with possibilities, but necessities.
You are either going to get it or not. If you have the genetic propensity then your future is one in which you take 500mg of Allupurinol each day, or have a massively restricted diet.

Hume's point was that were you to believe in God you would have to accept that He ought to be smart enough to figure out a world in which there was no gout at all. Some get it some do not. Theodicy is silly.
Gout otherwise serves no purpose and makes no sense in a intelligently created world, and neither did the earthquake of 1755.

Yes, I do read what you write, and I also notice the posts you refuse to answer or acknowlege.

Hume's point was that were you to believe in God you would have to accept that He ought to be smart enough to figure out a world in which there was no gout at all. — charleton

That is to suppose that we could get all the other good things without the bad ones. I don't grant that supposition, I see no reason for making it. The possibility for good seems to necessarily entail the possibility of evil. So nothing God can do about that.

Yes, I do read what you write, and I also notice the posts you refuse to answer or acknowlege. — charleton

Such as?

so what is Hume's point? — Agustino

Hume's point seems to be that talk of cosmic harmony and theistic benevolence only comforts those who aren't suffering. As such, theodicies fail to provide anything useful for those in great pain. The implication seems to be that those who continue to assert the goodness of the whole, despite its implausibility from the perspective of those most acquainted with evil, must not truly understand what suffering or moral injustice is like.

Basically it seems as though Hume, being Hume, is pointing out philosophers' bullshit, and accusing them of not working with the real world. Rather akin to Voltaire's parody of Leibniz. Having suffered greatly puts things into a perspective that has not been entertained by those who wish to assert the overall goodness of the whole. It might be like a politician telling a Vietnam war veteran that the war was worth it. Bullshit.

Hume's point seems to be that talk of cosmic harmony and theistic benevolence only comforts those who aren't suffering. — darthbarracuda

It depends what you mean by comfort. It doesn't take away the pain of those who are suffering, but it makes it easier to psychologically accept their situation, and in that sense, it does provide comfort. And this is undeniable, it's simply a matter of fact. Just look at the sheer number of people who have gone through tremendous suffering who are believers in God, and who have faith that God will redeem them.

despite its implausibility from the perspective of those most acquainted with evil, must not truly understand what suffering or moral injustice is like. — darthbarracuda

There is no implausibility there. Read, for example, Viktor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning. Or read Solzhenitsyn. Or take your pick from the sufferers - you'll find more believers there than amongst those who never suffer.

So Hume is simply factually wrong if he wants to claim that theodicy does not provide psychological comfort to those who are suffering. He is right merely if we restrict what he says to mean simply that theodicy does not take the pain of those who are suffering away.

So Hume is simply factually wrong if he wants to claim that theodicy does not provide psychological comfort to those who are suffering. He is right merely if we restrict what he says to mean simply that theodicy does not take the pain of those who are suffering away. — Agustino

Yet there are also many, many people who were believers, and who went through all sorts of awful experiences and came out stripped of their religious beliefs, or at least very unstable about them. Jean Amery, Dostoevsky, Levinas, to name three I am reading right now.

I think you are trying to derive some kind of objective legitimacy to theodicy and religious belief based on how powerful their psychological effects can be. I'm willing to argue that it has nothing to do with religion being true and everything to do with a person's psychological and physiological type. Some people are more robust than others and can run marathons while most of us struggle to finish a 5K, just as some people find an outlet in the search for God while many struggle with the pervasive emptiness. This emptiness is mostly humans wanting God to be real when he is not. And some people have very good imaginations.

Jean Amery, Dostoevsky, Levinas, to name three I am reading right now. — darthbarracuda

What are you talking about? Dostoevsky was a religious man, he died with the Bible in his lap. And Levinas wasn't exactly an atheist either. Don't know about Jean Amery.

Yet there are also many, many people who were believers, and who went through all sorts of awful experiences and came out stripped of their religious beliefs — darthbarracuda

Just a minority though.

This emptiness is mostly humans wanting God to be real when he is not. — darthbarracuda

There would be no desire if there was nothing that could fulfil that desire...

What are you talking about? Dostoevsky was a religious man, he died with the Bible in his lap. And Levinas wasn't exactly an atheist either. Don't know about Jean Amery. — Agustino

Right, but all three struggled with their faith. Dostoevsky's characters reflect a man with many contradictory perspectives, such as the duality between the nihilism of Ivan Karamazov and his religious brother Alyosha. Levinas explicitly rejects theodicy for being indecent, as does Jean Amery in his defense of suicide as a basic human right.

Just a minority though. — Agustino

Sure, if the majority was unable to repress, the human race wouldn't exist.

There would be no desire if there was nothing that could fulfil that desire... — Agustino

Are you trying to pull an ontological argument here?