3

rs.29 wrote in an answer to a question about the is-ought problem the following:

...we could hold the is–ought problem only as a obsolete sophism, and not as a real problem.

This reminded me of something G. E. M. Anscombe wrote about Hume in Modern Moral Philosophy: (page 3 of the linked file)

I will now return to Hume. The features of Hume's philosophy which I have mentioned, like many other features of it, would incline me to think that Hume was a mere - brilliant - sophist; and his procedures are certainly sophistical.

I hadn't thought of Hume being a sophist before, but now that I have suggestions that he might have been from two sources, I wonder: Was Hume a sophist?. References to further reading along this line would be appreciated.

To describe what I currently think a sophist is, the following definition from a question by Jakob Wakem might work unless those who answer show me something better:

people who have no qualms publishing on both sides of an issue, perhaps not being able to themselves come to conclusions. This would be very interesting if there were people in philosophy who treat philosophy as a rhetorical game rather than "seriously". I don't see any reasons philosophers should disbar such practices. Producing powerful arguments on both sides of an issue would advance the conversation forward, regardless of whether the sophist believes either side.

Unlike Wakem I am not interested in modern philosophers in general. I am only interested in Hume and whether Anscombe would be justified in her view of him.

Reference

Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33(124), 1-19. https://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/mmp.pdf

Frank Hubeny
  • 19,136
  • 7
  • 28
  • 89
  • 2
    "Publishing on both sides of an issue, perhaps not being able to themselves come to conclusions" sounds a lot like skeptics. If that is what "sophist" means then Hume self-admittedly was one. I also suspect that some mixture of "rhetorical game" and "seriously" can be found in all major philosophical figures, to varying degrees (were Nietzsche and Heidegger sophists?). But it seems more to the point to quote Anscombe's definition instead. Does she explain what she means?Is it something loose, like his arguments have some similarities to the Greek sophists'? – Conifold Dec 01 '18 at 05:35
  • 2
    I think Anscombe means only that many of Hume's arguments - at least in ethics - use rhetorical persuasion and rely on clever but fallacious arguments. In other words, she hasn't the ancient Sophists in mind but the main present-day use of 'sophist'. – Geoffrey Thomas Dec 01 '18 at 16:01
  • @Conifold She mainly asserts that he is a sophist, to my understanding. Part of my question is not understanding her assertion. – Frank Hubeny Dec 01 '18 at 21:33
  • 1
    @GeoffreyThomas She mentions "sophistical methods". The rhetorical persuasion and fallacious arguments may be what she is referring to by that term. I may have to ask a more direct question about sophistical methods because I don't know what that means. – Frank Hubeny Dec 01 '18 at 21:34
  • Im w/ @Conifold. Assuming your extremely broad characterization, wouldn't the philosophical therapist Wittgenstein also be considered a sophist? And cannot many of the philosophical "problems" Wittgenstein "dissolved" (rather than solve) be considered products of either ignorance or sophistry? It might be helpful if you cited specific language/claims that would count as evidence of Hume's sophistry. (For instance, I query, is it sophistry to expres skepisism about empiricism (awakening Kant from his nap) because it can provide no "evidence" of the existence of [the concept] causation? – gonzo Dec 02 '18 at 01:19
  • 2
    @gonzo My point is that "sophist" is too vague a term, at least on Wakem's definition of it. There is no point supplying evidence when it is unclear what counts as one. As you point out, if one so wishes one can put half (or more) of philosophical tradition under it. – Conifold Dec 02 '18 at 02:22
  • 1
    @gonzo I may have another question about Hume's determinism that appears now to me to be sophistical after reading Anscombe. Previously I would have just thought it irrational. Now I think the irrationality is deliberate, hence sophistry. However, it will take a while to formulate that question. – Frank Hubeny Dec 02 '18 at 14:04
  • 1
    As @conifold points out, the problem here is that the term as defined is so vague and ambiguous as to mislead. For instance those “who have no qualms publishing on both sides of an issue, perhaps not being able to themselves come to conclusions [despite serious attempts to do so]” would seem to be quite distinct from those “who treat philosophy as a rhetorical game rather than "seriously". “ – gonzo Dec 03 '18 at 04:18
  • 1
    Not “being able to” come to a conclusion implies that one takes the adjudicative methodology/process seriously. That one wants to “get it right,” and that there is such a thing as getting it right. Publishing without being able to conclude may imply simply that the thinker/writer has mouths to feed. Not so in the latter case, where it is rhetoric all the way down (Cf. Derrida, Rorty, etc.). Here we have the true [traditionally speaking] sophist. – gonzo Dec 03 '18 at 04:19
  • 1
    All of this, as I have over and again alluded to on this site, has particular import to contemporary political and cultural discourses that have become so prevalent in the contemporary world – where faith in the epistemic validity of concepts such as universal traditional “rationality,” objective knowledge, truth as the goal of inquiry, etc. is considered to be naïve. Often we are left with rhetoric in pursuit of a consensus aligned with the rhetorician's interest. – gonzo Dec 03 '18 at 04:22
  • 1
    For instance, @Conifold, have a look at this 2014 "debate" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8kcNJLpRJ4. The questions is: has one party simply changed the subject, as a rhetorical device. Or are they both in good faith taking about the same thing, but differently attributing salience? – gonzo Dec 03 '18 at 04:33

0 Answers0