Paste your essay in here…SU ID: 405226905
WORD COUNT: 941
Question 1
David Hume, a great philosopher of his own time, especially know for this study in knowledge of the theory of mind, it is best known for its four-asserting thesis. But the one that we are going to focus on will be “reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will”. The two other philosophers that I am going to talk about throughout his essay are Socrates and Plato. Which also are the one of the most famous philosophers of their own time. Their studies and research on the human body and soul. Plato believes that there are three parts of the soul; reason, appetite and sprit. Notice that, Plato believes that reason is the major parts of the soul. However, on the other side, Socrates studies are more of the human body no the human soul. He always had a major question on “Who we are as humans?”. The three main fields that Socrates focused on were; field of ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. Talking more about David Hume and his epistemology he questions the most common notions of personal, and reason being the major part of it. He also argues that there is no personal self that continues over time.
Coming back to the statement of the question, “reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will” and “can never oppose passion in the direction of the will”. I believe that Hume, Socrates and Plato, all three of the philosophers will have very different views about this. As Hume said in his Treatise of Human Nature, book 2, Part 3, Section 3, that “In common life, then to talk of the combat of passion and reason, to give the preference to reason” This shows that, Hume gives more preference to reason more than passion. Therefore, I will define passion and reason and look at difference at it. Reason is a cause, an explanation for an act or an event. On the other hand, Passion is strong and a bearable emotion. See how there is a major difference between passion and reason. Hume might be right that to do an action, reason can be a better motive to complete that action than reason as an individual has to justify for that act or event, rather than passion which is more of a personal choice.
But when it comes to Plato and his study in the human mind and soul, reason was first described by Plato as being the natural monarch which should rule over other parts. He believed that the highest level of happiness or well-being in a human’s life is always accordance with reason. Which just shows that Plato thinks that reason is a necessary part of every action or event based on will. But the real question comes in reason can actually can or cannot contribute to a specific action.
However, Socrates would have a completely different view in the Protagoras as he questions Protagoras about what does he teach his pupils and how he educates his students to how to manage personal affairs. And he also talks about injustice and how it allows people to trust each other. Socrates also thinks that “Everything has its own function, which they are the best at it.” This can also be compared to passion in some way, as Socrates believes that everything and everyone has its own function, that “function” can also be called as a passion, as an individual who is good at something; is their passion, which they like doing.
Now, the belief that Hume has can conflict the with that Plato and Socrates think. On one hand Socrates think that passion is the reason why people contribute to an action, however, Plato thinks that reason is the motive that people contribute to their actions. And, Hume thinks that both do. I feel like Hume has a more persuasive argument as he mentions in his book that “Since a passion can never, in any sense, be call'd unreasonable, but when founded on a false supposition, or when it chuses means insufficient for the design'd end, 'tis impossible, that reason and passion can ever oppose each other, or dispute for the government of the will and actions.” This shows that passion cannot be unreasonable, and that it is impossible that passion and reason can ever oppose each other, which I find really persuasive and a defending argument, as if passion and reason both contribute to an action with free will, that action can be really robust.
However, as Plato thinks that only reason can contribute to an action is a very weak argument because reason might not be the only motive for an action, there are many other motives for an action other than reason which should be and can be taken in account for. Which still defends Hume’s argument. Though, Socrates’ studies on the human mind cannot conflict with this argument as Socrates has a whole different view which still defends Hume’s argument.
In Conclusion, I would like to say that Hume’s out of all the other philosophers mentioned in this argument, has the most persuasive argument and makes more sense to an individual, as reason cannot be the only motive for an action, not passion. The study that Hume did in this book, clearly state that reason and passion can never oppose each other, rather work with each other to contribute to an action.
Therefore, Hume’s view on the way in which reason can and cannot contribute to an action is undoubtedly right and passion and reason both always contribute to an action.