"All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, relations of ideas and matters of fact."
Such a simple statement, yet the power contained in this seemingly innocuous statement is far reaching.
Hume wrote, regarding the first kind (relation of ideas, in reference to sciences and maths. Regarding the second kind (matters of fact), Hume presupposed that all are found in the relation of cause and effect.
Hume used this reasoning as evidence that we can go beyond our memory and senses when it comes to matters of fact but not too far. Hume stayed close enough to memory and the senses so as not to severe ties with both, but ventured far enough away to justify testing the boundaries of both.
Hume assumed that knowledge of this relation is not obtained by reason but instead through experience. By reason, he was referencing
a priori knowledge: knowledge that is innate and not marked by experience. Hume proposef that "every effect is a distinct event from its cause." He was stating, quite emphatically, that every effect was rooted in experience because, for him, every effect was an event, and an event began as an experience and ended as one.
Hume was the empiricist whose arguments awoke Immanuel Kant from his slumber. Kant sought to confront Hume's arguments, but Kant, too, was a philosopher, and philosophy, well, what is it really? Why, I believe it is akin to religion without the supernal dimension.
After all, Hume confined reason to the human being by label and by division. He labeled it, as do most, as "human" reason, which, as a label, was fairly solidly tied to the human being. Second, he divided reason into two distinctly human areas: ideas and facts.
We can use Hume's strategy as applied to human reason to do the same in our understanding of philosophy. While Hume proposed two kinds of human reason, he was really only proposing one kind of reason... human. While there are five categories of philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, politics and esthetics, all are really an approach rooted in mankind as the pinnacle and solution of all.
Statements, whether they are made by the likes of David Hume, who I think has a lot to say on human understanding, or by you and me are powerful. It is my contention that we are all philosophers of sort. We look at the world and make statements about our view of the world by the way we live in response to the world. We may not put these statements in written form, but, just the same, we make statements of meaning that affect others. As Christians, we must be sure of our statements, and we must never under-estimate the power of the statement.
Philosophers understand this better than most. Each is taught to carefully and methodically examine the life and the statement as both are to be connected in consistent ways. Both should reflect each other in the same way a mirror reflects an accurate image of who you are. If you grab another mirror and hold it up while standing in front of a mirror and reflect the image in the mirror, it is going to be you from a different angle. The angle may have changed, but the reflection will, for the most part, be consistently you.
Our statements should be of the same consistency... from different angles but an accurate reflection of who we are, and as Christians, that reflection should be Christ. Yesterday, I did a general survey of Facebook posts. I wanted to see how consistent posts where with the worldviews behind them. I chose four labels for the posts I examined: judgmental, measured, negative and positive. I deemed the labels measured and positive as those I should find from those responding according to worldview, and the labels judgmental and negative as those I should find from those responding according to the situation. Again, not very scientific, but this was just to satisfy my own curiosity.
I spent only an hour looking at posts. At the end of that hour, I tallied my results; I then went to examine the worldviews behind the posts. What I found was that almost every post was a response and a reflection of the situation and NOT of the worldview of the person behind the post. In most situations, if the original post was negative most of the responses, whether in agreement or not, followed that negative path.
Again, not very accurate, but this was only to satisfy my own curiosity, and to make the following point: the power of our statements reflect who we are to others and to us. We tend to become who we consistently are, and Facebook allows us more power in the presentation of who we are than every before. I personally think it makes us all a bit more egocentric and adds to our already overwhelming addiction to ourselves.
This whole exercise was convicting to me, but it was also confirming that Christ is still hammering away at me each day as I become more like Him. In the gospels, Christ is always a reflection of the Father. At times we get different angles, but He is always reflecting His Father in some way. We, too, must always reflect Christ no matter our angle, our situation or our statements.
