Hume And Constancy Essay

What importance does Hume place on the notions of coherence and constancy?
How do they fit into his overall argument?

As a means of fully understanding the argument brought forward by Hume’s, one must understand certain key words used. According to Merriam Webster dictionary online coherence can be defined as “logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated, having clarity or intelligibility, having the quality of holding together”; and constancy is “the quality of staying the same : lack of change, the quality of being loyal to a person or belief, steadfastness of mind under duress”. Constance and coherence are biological dispositions, wired into the very fabric of our mind. The mechanism of constancy and coherence, as described by Hume
has been verified through experimental psychology. (Aubrey Townsend, n.d).
Another key term used by Hume, however, was the term “External World” which to me was very contradicting. Hume states that from the external world, a person can attempt to explain the existence of an object, but through my entire reading, I have not encountered the definition of the term external world. It therefore gives me the impressions that the external world is a misery. So what exactly is the external world?
The main argument presented in the writing by David Hume was whether or not the existence of things are seen in a philosophical way or in a light hearted manner; and how skeptical or practical are we as humans when making acknowledgements of anything. David Hume therefore conducted the study to internalize the different denouements that humans came up with. Hume’s proposed the question of how do we really know that the body exist? I myself contemplated on this question and is yet to give a definite answer. Personally, I concluded, that if I rule out my educational knowledge of biology and tenacity, and meditation on what my body is without the use of the senses, I am left believing that Hume was right in is theory that through causation we induce belief.
One is left to wonder especially because of the amount of doubt a person is left feeling after trying to understand the theory behind bodily existence. Hume went on further when he mentioned the term external object. It is said that an external object only continues to exist when not ‘perceived’, and exists distinct from ‘perception’. This statement gives me the belief that humans should not be subjective to our impressions and senses only but we should become a bit more rational in one’s subconscious mind. However, if our perception and imagination coherently presents us with a reality that seems practical, who are we to try and change the schematics of things?
Hume gave arguments that there are several mental faculties, that produce various ideas. Hume states “For the object of our senses continue to exist, even when they are not perceived, their existence be independent of and distinct from perception; and vice versa” (P. 176). Hume explains that it is “Human nature” to derive to the opinions that something is continued or is distinct in existence when we make distinctions especially through the use of our senses, reason or our imagination. Hume continued to state, “A single perception can never produce the idea of double existence, but by some inference either of the reason or imagination” (177). I believe what Hume was trying to say was that in order for us to perceive, we must first assume that there is no distinction between perceptions and perceiving. I think, however, that we can correlate perception, and as a result, we will always make association of resembling ideas and can attribute identity to their causes, which eventually puts our minds at rest. I feel that when human follow instinct of nature as powerful and blinding as it is, it causing us to never entertain any suspicion of images presented by the senses as the the external objects. Ideas are derived from our memory, and so makes up the fragments of our imagination concluding that if I were to agree with Hume am I saying that my memory is faulty. So the question to be asked is that if our memory is flawed, does our ideas not based periodically on live experiences? Yes, it is without account that human consign to the oblivion of time just as Hume has mentioned in his writing but to most humans it is the materiality of time that needs to be most considered. If ideas and impressions differ in liveliness, why should the evoking feeling is deem less significant than just having an idea?
In the study, Hume tried to prove the importance of constancy when he used the example, of the mountains, tree, houses, table, paper etc. Hume sates that when human performs the action of looking at an object; then closes and reopens our eyes we see the same thing and do not observe changes. This is how our impressions are formed but constancy does acknowledge the change that may happen. “Bodies often change their position and qualities, and after a little absence or interruption may become hardly knowable” (Humes. N.d. P. 179) Hume continue to start that because of constancy, coherence results “But here tis’ observable, that even in these changes they preserve a coherence, and have regular dependence on each other” (P. 179). Proving that both constancy and coherence are both evident in the external world and the change in which they produce is a characteristic of identifying an external object.
The conclusion of the Hume’s theory about the importance of constancy and coherence in the identification of an external object does have some validity to it but I am still at odds with some of his claims.
I agree with Hume when he presented the idea of out constancy and coherence exist but I am yet to understand the term external world. I do believe however, that Hume made some very irrational assumptions when he said that the imagination is flawed. I believe that humans ability to imagine is one of the main contributor to human’s survival for many centuries. Hume states our imagination is faulty, breaks and combines idea, thus forming new ones. This now leads me to ask the question what exactly leads our imagination. Is our imagination lead by association, by contiguity, by resemblance or even by Illusion? If I cannot presently answer these questions then all the things I thought I truly knew and understood I do not anymore. Are most of the concepts and subject matter that once governed my behave could all be a fabrication of my imagination. As I reflect on the writing presented to me by Hume I think back to the question that we had once spoken about during class regarding what is your “true Self’? Hume study does help me to understand a lot about things we never rationally observed throughout our lives before. I can say that most of Hume’s writings are philosophically unjustified for he believed that he gave an accurate account of how humans arrive at the idea of
existence.