Episode 249: Phlegm and Carelessness (Hume's "The Sceptic")

[00:00:00] Very Bad Wizards is a podcast with a philosopher, my dad and psychologist, David Pizarro, having an informal discussion about issues in science and ethics. Please note that the discussion contains bad words that I'm not allowed to say, and knowing my dad, some very inappropriate jokes.

[00:00:16] Just let me tell you my theory. The other day I was riding and the moon was on the left. And I kept going straight and making new turns and about 20 minutes later the moon was behind me. That's because it was moving, fool. Right.

[00:00:28] It was more than one moon. And waiting for us has spoken. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I'm a very good man. Good. They think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have. Pay no attention to anybody can have a brain.

[00:00:38] You're a very bad man. I'm a very good man. Just a very bad wizard. Welcome to Very Bad Wizards, I'm Tamler Sommers from the University of Houston. Dave, this is the hot button issue of right now. Everyone is waiting for your take on this.

[00:01:27] Where do you stand on Candy Mom? Oh no, I don't even know. What is Candy Mom? Candy Mom is former friend of the show or friend of the show. Oh man, that was like three new cycles away.

[00:01:47] Dr. Callard and her refusal to her denial of the Halloween candy to her children. Well, yeah. And also like, so as I understand it, she would let them get the candy, but then when they would go to sleep at night, she would throw it all away.

[00:02:06] And they would be angry. And she enjoyed, not only did not bother her, she seemed to enjoy the fact that they woke up angry. Is that true? She's had that idea. I think she hinted at it.

[00:02:19] I don't have too much of a hot take on this other than to say, I give her mad props as the kids say for just like dropping that. And then when she got piled on, just not saying anything, just moving on to the next thing.

[00:02:36] Like it must have been so frustrating for the people who wanted an apology and wanted like the bean dad, just like supplication, just like the full surrender. You know, she does not give a fuck.

[00:02:51] No, no, it was look, I don't think you should throw out your kids candy. But the notable thing about that episode was it is a lesson for what to do if you get piled on for like 24 hours is like zero, nothing. You don't give a shit you do.

[00:03:09] She did a little interview on the Daily News with Justin Weinberg and she was just completely unapologetic about it. Like just don't apologize. Net like this was just the blueprint for how you want to handle a situation

[00:03:24] like that. And then once everybody was like punching the walls and trying to break it through and they couldn't, they just moved on to the next thing. Right. It's beautiful. Right. Yeah. The lesson to Twitter, choose who you pile on.

[00:03:39] Yeah. She even wrote an op ed saying if I get if I get canceled, don't don't even try to defend me. Yeah. No, I know. Like she was ready for this. She should run like, I bet like people will give money to this.

[00:03:52] Like just run some sort of just social media like boot camp for like how you handle getting piled on. It's like martial arts for social media. Hey, how do you think like suppose that you tweeted something out and got piled on?

[00:04:09] How do you think you would handle it? Not not just what would you do? Like maybe it seems like maybe you would take Agnes Calard's strategy and not respond. But how would I feel? Yeah. That's a good question. How would I feel?

[00:04:26] And like suppose that like your your dean or the president of the University of Houston was getting like like emails about you. Oh, well, I wouldn't like that. It depends like what what is. Yeah. And it also depends who and like what we're talking about.

[00:04:43] But if it's people I respect or maybe not personally, but people like I know I would respect if I knew them and they're you know, they're really doing it. It's not just a bunch of fucking I feel like I can handle internet just asshole reply guys or whatever.

[00:05:00] Like I can shrug that off actually, I think pretty well. But yeah, if it was like but you know, like I think if I was bean dad, for example, I would not have there would be no apology, no apology, nothing like that.

[00:05:13] And I wouldn't feel I'd feel frustrated, annoyed that I lost. I got kicked off as the co-host of this podcast. But right, you know, I wouldn't be part of a podcast that would do that. Anyway, right. Actually, I don't think he did.

[00:05:26] I think that the podcast thing stayed and they just sort of paused for a couple of weeks and waited for everybody to calm down. Move on. Yeah. Well, how do you I think you could be it would be really hard.

[00:05:41] It would be harder for you than for me. I mean, when people one of those people where they're like, man, David's lost a lot of weight. Yeah, yeah. He's looking older. Yeah. He really didn't do he really didn't deal with that Twitter mob very well.

[00:05:54] You'd be like kind of grasping it just nothing in the air. You know, yeah. I mean, I tried to not. But I think when you do, I don't know, there is a flavor of tweet or comment that I know you're going to feel compelled to respond.

[00:06:13] You know, it's not all of them, but there are there are some. And if something in which maybe you've given a fence or that the person has perceived that you're giving a fence in some way. Yeah, I can't. I yeah, it's totally true. Like I don't.

[00:06:31] You know, part of it is just the egoism of wanting to be perceived as a good person. But the other part is genuinely the like I I try to be caring and empathetic no matter what I say. But like I want that to come across.

[00:06:48] But it's it's a it's a pyrrhic victory to try to convince somebody that who feels like it's it's a character flaw of mine to care. If if I know that I didn't have ill intent. No, but like I think like a lot of the time

[00:07:02] like it then leads to some kind of reconciliation. Reconciliation. Yeah. And those are the best kind. But sometimes I do wish I had it more in me to for you. Like you responded to something the other day, which pretty much an LOL.

[00:07:17] And and I was like in my head, composing like a long response. It was a listener who wasn't happy with us. And I was like, like a do later on when I did like the crying baby. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:07:31] And like my first thought, honest, I didn't say this to you because I quickly got over this idea. But I was like, well, Tamela replied from the very bad Wizards account and they might think that I said that. Oh, God. Oh, no.

[00:07:44] Yeah. But then like literally the plane ride, because I saw it in like during a connection for a flight. Like by the time I was done, I was like, I'm glad Tamela tweeted that. I mean, replied that and I didn't write. So like that's just the better outcome.

[00:08:00] Well, it sounds like you need the Agnes Callard social media boot camp. She should do an infobrush. All right. So it's funny that we're going back and forth. Yeah. I had a transition, but then I forgot it while you were talking. But anyway, in the second segment,

[00:08:20] we're going to talk about Cumes essay, the skeptic. But first, we wanted to talk about how we should be doing psychology or something to that effect. That's what you texted me when you shared this article. I forget who to a few people tweeted out this.

[00:08:38] I won't even call it a preprint because it's pretty clear from the article that it's there's no plans to try to try to publish it in a peer reviewed article. But it's an article by Sam Mastriani. I hope I'm pronouncing I'm sorry, Adam Mastriani, not Sam.

[00:08:54] Sam is another person. We definitely not pronouncing Adam's right by saying Sam. It's Adam Mastriani and Ethan Ludwin period. And it's something that I just have never seen really done. Before it's a full set of studies, social psychology. So Adam is a social psychologist.

[00:09:15] He's I think he's a recent graduate, so a newish professor. And he wrote this paper on this particular question, which is when people think about how how things could be different. What are they thinking? Do they think that things could be different as in they could be better

[00:09:38] or as in they could be worse? So that's the idea they came with. And they wrote it in such a fun way. The introduction is literally one page. It's written in very informal language, starts off. Some scientists get their ideas while beholding the wonders of the cosmos.

[00:09:58] Some scientists get their ideas while cutting their way through the Amazon with machete. I get my scientific ideas while eating omelets with my friend Ethan. One day we were at the diner trying to figure out why something seemed good and other things seem bad.

[00:10:08] For instance, why do people hate Congress and love their phones? Obviously, the answer is Congress is bad and my phone is good. But what's actually happening in people's heads when they say that? The whole paper, including the discussion of the results,

[00:10:21] is written in this very informal, very clear language. And they present data graphically. All the data is available online like it's you could run your own analysis. You could see the pre-registration. You can get the code.

[00:10:36] You could see the materials, but they don't really talk that much about it. They just present the findings in a way that's very understandable. And here's what I like. So one of the things I was telling you is if all psych papers were written

[00:10:49] like this, I would read a lot more psych papers. But to the tone of the paper matches the degree of seriousness with which we should take this work, I think, which is to say from my perspective,

[00:11:03] I don't think work like this where you ask people on AmpTurk and people you know, on AmpTurk in China or whatever. Questions about how they evaluate things around them. I think it's worth something. I don't think it's worthless.

[00:11:19] I don't think it is cracking the code to the secrets of the human mind and uncovering modules. And right. So I think that writing in this tone is just a better match for what it's trying to do.

[00:11:32] And I think that surprisingly maybe nothing is lost in the communication. That is, there's nothing about this paper that I couldn't say, OK, I understood what they found. And if I really am an Erd and want to dig deeper, it's there for me.

[00:11:47] Yeah. So did we say what the finding is? I alluded to it. The finding is how in all of the ways that they try to test this idea about when people are asked, how could things be different?

[00:12:01] It seems to be that there's a robust effect such that people are always thinking about how things could be better. Even when things are admittedly very good, like your iPhone is pretty awesome. People agree that the phone is pretty awesome.

[00:12:13] But if you ask them just what could be different about your iPhone? They don't say, well, it could be slower. They say it could be faster and so on for a bunch of other whatever objects of attitudes.

[00:12:26] And they do a few things to try to rule out alternative explanations. They say, well, maybe people here in this sort of conversational norm, they think that when you say the word different, you're asking how could it be better?

[00:12:39] And so they try to get around that by asking people, how could this be better or worse? And they find that people still think or report how things could be better. They looked at it in a sample of Polish people and then which was great.

[00:12:53] And they were like, duh. Things can be different at Tamler. On Twitter. And they have like a picture of a bunch of Polish people dressed for a some sort of event called Dengas day. By the way, like that's not a joke what David said. That's an actual photo.

[00:13:21] How could Stingas day be different? Yeah. And so they take care of a few clear confounds or alternative hypotheses and present data that is as good as data that you would find in a social psych journal.

[00:13:34] I'm curious as to why they chose to do this, whether they had gotten rejected in a more serious attempt or whether they didn't even go to the serious attempt because they were just having fun. But like I'm a fan. I just I just like it.

[00:13:48] And I was wondering what you thought about it and whether or not philosophy could be some philosophy could be remedied by taking on this kind of informality. Yeah. So I think there's two different questions, right?

[00:14:01] There's the question of like the finding itself and like the studies they did. And then there's the style of presentation. Yeah. And that was sort of sidestepping like the quality of the study itself. Yeah. I completely agree.

[00:14:16] Of course, you know, one big part of it is there's not a ton of citations or maybe any citations. That's something that just bogs down any paper to is having to feel like you have to acknowledge people who've worked in this general vicinity

[00:14:29] and take into account that someone has done something and maybe even run a whole study that is in response to that possibility because that person did a study like, you know, and of course philosophy, you know, the great thing about Nagel is he doesn't cite anybody.

[00:14:45] The great thing about freedom and resentment is there's no, it's just that the ideas themselves are take center stage and you don't have to do all this other bullshit. So I am a hundred percent in favor of that.

[00:14:57] I think that was like, I think their tone, as you say, is appropriate for the study itself. The other thing that's kind of interesting about that paper for me is the study itself and the findings. Like I totally buy it.

[00:15:13] You know, in some ways it's just like the first noble truth of Buddhism. Right. We're always thinking of ways that we could improve the situation, you know, and that kind of torments us. The skeptic we're going to talk about has a very relevant passage to this. Absolutely. Yes.

[00:15:30] It's like a source of suffering that we're always imagining how things can be better. And, you know, if we could stop doing that or if we could focus also on how things could be worse, like that is a thing actually in Hume's skeptic. Right? Right.

[00:15:44] I think it's totally true tendency and they don't claim that it's any more than a tendency. They don't claim that it's some fundamental like part of the architecture of the human mind, as as as you said. So then the interesting question to me is just like, are we

[00:16:01] gaining anything by, you know, running these M-Turk studies and, you know, with all of that versus just saying it like Hume says it or like, you know, countless Buddhist acts have have described some version of this tendency. And actually I think sure. Right?

[00:16:19] Like, yeah, it does tell us something kind of interesting. So like I would say I'm, you know, close to fully positive about what they're doing. Oh, that makes me happy because, yeah, it's it's just not like there is this way in which we're trained to write where we

[00:16:39] have to convey the deep importance and the contribution that these studies are making. And fit it into some larger theory. But yeah, and that's the other thing. This reads a bit more authentic to me. It reads like they're just being completely honest about what they did.

[00:16:57] And that that means that they say they didn't know this or that they didn't expect this or that they predicted the exact opposite. And yeah, there's a there's a little proud of themselves. They are like the tunnel. But that's fine. Yeah.

[00:17:14] Exactly because they're people who are proud of themselves in in the fancy journals are more annoying. In at the end, they say the paper you just read could never be published in a scientific journal. The studies themselves are just as good as the ones

[00:17:29] Ethan and I have published in fancy journals, but writing about science this way is verboten, which means forbidden, by the way, it's the anti-Semitic verb. I'm sure I'm going to learn that hard way. For instance, in a journal, you're not allowed to say

[00:17:44] things like we don't know why this happens. You're not allowed to admit that you forgot why you ran a study and you're definitely not allowed to talk about Dengue's day. You're supposed to be very serious. A reviewer once literally told me that my paper was

[00:17:54] too fun and that I should make it more boring. You're supposed to pack your paper with pointless citations because reviewers might like your paper more if they see their name in it. There's a stupid way to do science. It goes against every single one of the scientific

[00:18:04] virtues that leads to publication bias. If it gets in a fancy journal, it goes into an institution and behind a paywall and you have to be one of the elites to even get access to it. The last reason I really like it is because I could

[00:18:16] hand this to my daughter, say, who's a bright 18 year old and she'd understand it because you know what? The ideas aren't that complicated. And they're not trying to be made to look more complicated. More than they are. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So. No, that's right.

[00:18:33] And I think the best philosophy is like that too. I mean, there are some outliers. I think freedom and resentment be a little bit tough to come across without having some familiarity with the philosophical debate. But like all the Nagel essays you could give

[00:18:47] to Bella, I could give to lie and they would get a lot. They would find it really interesting and understand it. You know? And why not? Why not make that part of the way we do things? Is the question like why can't they publish this?

[00:19:03] It seems like their studies are legit, right? As far as like, you know, we're in the realm of social psych stuff. So, you know, you have to take it with but it's legit relative to that is the only reason that

[00:19:15] it doesn't adopt the kind of norms of most journal articles. Is it because of a bunch of funny dutties that are kind of at the top of the psychology elite is just a bunch of funny dutties or is it that,

[00:19:34] and I think this is the problem in philosophy's case. So I'm wondering if you think this is true of psychology, that it's just harder to have any even semblance of like peer review if there's not a bunch of boxes that you can check like

[00:19:52] that in the same way that like standardized testing has to have a certain kind of deadening form to it so that people can at least with some semblance of objectivity like evaluate them. That's the problem. It's like if everybody is trying to write like

[00:20:09] Nagel essays, like what is the criteria for like deciding which one is better than the other? It's more like, oh, that's really well put. You know? Right. So I think that's a problem that I don't know the way around given academia being the way it is. Yeah, yeah.

[00:20:30] That's a good point. I'm and be part of why the kinds of standards, structures, guidelines of writing articles the way that we do like APA style or you know, the convention of making sure that you report whatever, but at least basic descriptive statistics like means and standard deviations

[00:20:50] and significance tests all in the body. That was probably intended to to make everything more accessible for people to evaluate so that you have all the you know where to look for that information and you can rely on the fact that it's going to be there when you're

[00:21:08] trying to evaluate it. And that what what probably is supposed to be a kind of equalizer and a liberator then ends up just being the the oppressive thing that yeah, that's weighing down like the actual field of inquiry. Yeah. All right, when we come back, we'll be talking

[00:21:31] about David Hume's essay, The Skeptic. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. You know, there have been so many times in my life when I wished there was a user manual or maybe one of those like handy YouTube explainers for

[00:21:47] how to deal with all the shit that's going on in my life. Unfortunately, my life or any particular phase of a life doesn't come with the user manual or a handy YouTube explainer. You know, like what if I'm having a midlife crisis

[00:22:01] but I don't like Philip Roth or John Updike? So what am I supposed to do then? Like or now therapists are trained to help you figure out the cause of challenging emotions and you know, if Hume is right, these emotions don't just affect us internally.

[00:22:17] They completely color how we perceive the entire world. And that makes therapy the closest thing to a guided tour of the complex engine called you. In all seriousness, I know so many people who have turned to therapy and rave about the benefits

[00:22:34] and in such a wide range of ways, dealing with trauma, understanding yourself better, understanding your relationships better, learning coping skills to deal with the vile bureaucratic bullshit that life throws at you, therapy can turn your life around. And as the world's largest therapy service,

[00:22:53] BetterHelp has matched three million people with professionally licensed and vetted therapists available 100% online and it's affordable. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to match with the therapist. If things aren't clicking, you can easily switch to a new therapist anytime it could not be simpler.

[00:23:11] No waiting rooms, no traffic, no endless searching for the right therapist. Learn more and save 10% off your first month at betterhelp.com slash VBW. That's BetterHelp H-E-L-P dot com slash VBW. Thanks as always to BetterHelp for sponsoring this episode. Welcome back to Very Bad Wizards.

[00:24:28] This is the time of the show where we like to take a moment to thank, especially now that it's Thanksgiving. Extra thank you to all our listeners who get in touch with us, who contribute to being part of the community, talk to each other, all that stuff.

[00:24:43] As we always say, we wouldn't have made it this long without that, without that community. So we appreciate it. If you do want to get in touch with us, you can email us verybadwizards at gmail.com. We read every email some nice ones too.

[00:25:00] Maybe I'll try over the break to actually respond to some of the backlog. To do a little Thanksgiving. Yeah, exactly. So yeah, if you'll feel free to email us, you can also, so long as Twitter is still up,

[00:25:14] well when you hear this, which I think it should be, you can tweet to us at tamler at peas or at Very Bad Wizards. What's the mastodon thing? Like you like twerp or something or something? That seems like a nightmare. Just logistically, it seems like a nightmare.

[00:25:34] Yeah, it's like the they say it's like the Linux of social media. That's what that's what it sounds like. My old ass hearing about it. Yeah. Yeah, we do not have a mastodon account at this time. We should we should see if we can run that one.

[00:25:58] If you're a listener, you want to run our mastodon. Go for it. You can join the lively discussions on Reddit at reddit.com slash r slash Very Bad Wizards. Argue with each other there. You can follow us on Instagram, where we post after every episode.

[00:26:17] You can also comment there. Rate us on Apple Podcasts and thank you to the people who have taken time to give us reviews. This is my favorite review of all time. My it's called it's five stars. My second favorite podcast, only the ambulator's podcast is better. That's amazing.

[00:26:37] And true. That's amazing. Those are the two best podcasts. So thank you for those ratings. You can listen to us. You can subscribe to us on Spotify and you can also leave a rating there. And again, we appreciate everything that you do to reach out to us

[00:26:56] and make us feel like we have a community. We're part of a body. That's right. Nice ambulator's reference. How do people listen to ambulators? Well, if you'd like to support us in more tangible ways, you can find all of them at the VeryBadWizards.com slash support page.

[00:27:20] You can buy a bunch of swag, t-shirts, mugs, things like that. You can give us a one time or recurring donation on PayPal or you can become one of our beloved Patreon members. And we have a bunch of different tiers of support, $1 per episode. So essentially $2 a month.

[00:27:41] You get ad free episodes and six volumes of Dave's Beats. $2 and up per episode. You get all of our bonus episodes and we have a ton of bonus content now that includes our Ask Us Anythings. That includes just all the different stuff

[00:27:59] that we've talked about, movies, books and our new series, The Ambulators, which is a very detailed and long breakdown of every episode. And we just recorded for the first time in a while, we just recorded one last night on episode nine of season one of Deadwood. Of Deadwood.

[00:28:19] Did I not say of Deadwood? Yeah, of Deadwood. The best show of all time. And at $5 and up, you can get all of Dave's Intro to Psychology lectures. You get to vote on the topic of an episode that twice a year we hold votes

[00:28:39] and the $5 and up get to vote on what we choose. And you also get a couple of Play-Doh lectures that I did. And I'm definitely gearing up to record a bunch of lectures that I think our listeners would like.

[00:28:53] Like, I just did a lecture on the book of Job that I think they might enjoy. And then at $10 and up, you get to ask us a question, any question that comes to your mind and we will answer it in a monthly video and audio form.

[00:29:10] And we've been really enjoying those two. And then we release the audio of that to our $2 and up subscribers as well. So thank you, everybody. It means so much to us. Your generosity overwhelms us. And thank you so much.

[00:29:26] All right, let's get to our discussion of David Humes, The Sceptic. This is part of our series on the great white racists of history. I don't actually know. Yeah, like I think they had to take a statue down at the University of Edinburgh.

[00:29:46] Like it's a question of like, was he racist for his time? I don't know. But in any case, the man was a good philosopher up there on the Mount Rushmore philosophers for me. And this is an essay called The Sceptic,

[00:30:02] which is the fourth in a quartet of essays that begins with the Epicurean. It go the next one is the Stoic and the next one is the Platonist and it culminates in the skeptic. And each of the first three essays is modeled on a classical figure

[00:30:21] from antiquity and kind of philosophical school gives their account of view on human happiness and fulfillment. Many Humes scholars think that The Sceptic is the essay that best expresses Humes own views on happiness and philosophy in general. It is consistent.

[00:30:42] The views in this essay with at least as I understand it, his broader work and the treatise and the enquiries. Right, because the conceit is that he is speaking in the voice of these these somebody representing these other schools of thought. And so yeah, exactly. Yeah.

[00:31:01] And the style of The Sceptic is very much Humes. It's closer to the style of the other ones as is not like he's doing a bit for them. Right. So in there's a footnote to the first essay, the Epicurean, the first footnote that kind of says this,

[00:31:21] he says, the intention of this and the three following essays is not so much to explain accurately the sentiments of the ancient sects of philosophy as to deliver the sentiments of sex that naturally form themselves in the world and entertain different ideas of human life and of happiness.

[00:31:37] I have given each of them the name of the philosophical sect to which it bears the greatest affinity. So he's doing sort of just this natural philosophy, he's saying like there are these are types of people or types of thought that that seem to dominate.

[00:31:50] Yeah, which is interesting. These are the categories of approaches to happiness that you're going to find. Right. You know, right? It's kind of an anthropological claim almost. Yeah. And we skipped the first three. I didn't I only kind of glanced at the the other ones

[00:32:12] the last the last time we were supposed to record on this. I read a little bit of them, but yeah. But I've read them but a long time ago, I didn't refresh my memory. I mean, I think that we should discuss the skeptic mostly as a standard

[00:32:26] because I do think it represents Hume's views and there's very little in this essay that he disagrees with. And that's just not true for the other essays. And it's the meat and it's I think the mediest of them all like in terms of the ideas presented.

[00:32:44] You say that not having read the other one. Well, the other ones are shorter. That's how I gauge. I love the opening of this essay. He says, I have long entertained a suspicion with regard to the decisions of philosophers upon all subjects and found myself

[00:33:01] in a greater inclination to dispute than ascent their conclusions. There is one mistake to which they seem liable almost without exception. They've confined too much their principles and make no account of that vast variety which nature has so much affected in her operations.

[00:33:19] When a philosopher has once laid hold of a favorite principle which perhaps accounts for many natural effects he extends that same principle over the whole creation and reduces to it every phenomenon though by the most violent and absurd reasoning our own mind being narrow and contracted

[00:33:39] we cannot extend our conception to the variety and extent of nature but imagine that she is as much bounded in her operations as we are in our speculation. Yes, that's awesome. That about expresses like the core of what I believe as well as anything could.

[00:33:59] Yeah, yeah, it's well said. I knew just reading that first paragraph I was like, this is why Tamler picked it. Stupid Tamler. Stupid Tamler. No, actually I find myself agreeing with it as well. It's a flower way of saying nature is messy

[00:34:19] don't think that you can explain it so easily with this handful of principles. And then models and models and that a principle from a phenomena would apply to principle from to phenomenon B. It's just because that's an elegant attempt at a solution doesn't mean it's right.

[00:34:40] Nature is wily and that's why he refers to it as she. Yeah, and kind of right. You can't trust nature, you know which is why he refers to it as she. The first part of the essay really is kind of a skeptical like philosophers have no special expertise

[00:34:59] when it comes to happiness but also value. Right, he says if we can depend on any principle which we learn from philosophy this I think may be considered a certain and undoubted that there is nothing in itself valuable or despicable desirable or hateful beautiful or deformed

[00:35:20] but that these attributes arise from the particular constitution and fabric of human sentiment and affection. This is confessedly the case with regard to all of the bodily senses but if we examine the matter more accurately we shall find that the same observation holds

[00:35:38] even when the mind concurs with the body and mingles its sentiment with the exterior appetite. So the basic idea is that objects have no worth or value in and of themselves. We gild and stain the world with our passions and sentiments and that's where our perception of value

[00:35:58] and our judgments of value come from but they're not in the object but we think they are. We think the value is inherent in the object and that's a mistake that philosophers especially are eager to make. This is the part where I was like, well yeah

[00:36:18] I find it hard to hold a view that there is value in the object and I think that's maybe just because of hundreds of years of thinking and maybe this is what psychology, one of the central things psychology has been interested in is how different perceptions can arise

[00:36:40] from the same exact situation or just how we, just individual differences which Hume goes on to talk about quite a bit. Like some people are more anxious and so something is gonna make them more afraid. It's not that the thing possesses fearsomeness. It's that people respond to it.

[00:36:59] It's all in the psychology of how we approach this but I take it that this probably was a much controversial way of saying things. So you're saying you find it hard to put yourself even in the mindset of the realist who would object to what he's saying here.

[00:37:17] Well, realist in some specific way where the value exists in the object, yeah. But a realist about the value. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like things aren't. That is intrinsic to the object. That's right. Right after that paragraph that you were reading about the attributes arise

[00:37:33] from the particular constitution and fabric of human sentiment and affection, his example is your friend's girlfriend is ugly. Yeah, right. Like you know he thinks- But you can't convince him through reason that she's ugly. He comes and tells you like all of these amazing attributes that she has

[00:37:52] and you're just like I don't see it man. You can infer nothing however from all this discourse but that the poor man is in love and that the general appetite between the sexes which nature has infused into all animals is in him determined to a particular object

[00:38:06] by some qualities which give him pleasure. Yeah, and there's no and this is a constant thread throughout the essay there's no reasoning him out of that. And I think what this essay we can talk about some tensions within it. Yeah, I was gonna say until there is.

[00:38:22] No, no, no, but I think the one consistent principle is that reasoning is not going to get you to something you know, value-laden or it's not gonna get you to happiness or it's not gonna change your mind about a value judgment. And that's a perfect example.

[00:38:42] You're not gonna reason your friend out of loving this girl that you just don't see it. I do like something that you alluded to that he makes this distinction. He says, look this is true for all objects like they're all completely dependent upon the human mind

[00:39:01] perception of them. But he distinguishes between ones where it might be kind of easy to understand that that's the case where like if I hate cilantro and you love it, it's like, well, yeah. I'm not gonna be mad at somebody who says that cilantro is good.

[00:39:23] Yeah, because goodness. And I'm not gonna think you're wrong. Right, I mean we can play that way. But four things that are... I don't know what that is. Cilantro play, it's probably don't Google that. But there are things that appear to be just more,

[00:39:42] he doesn't use the term hardwired, but he says like, nature has shoved some evaluations into us so strongly and universally. Nature has penetrated us with objects. It's insights. And when there is something like parents love for their child, these are universals that nature has really hammered home.

[00:40:09] Like maybe even some evaluations of beauty might be sort of universals, but that doesn't mean that they're not just as dependent upon the workings of the human mind. It's just that nature has provided more uniformity in the mechanisms that evaluate those particular things.

[00:40:27] And so it's harder for us to disabuse ourselves of the notion that these things aren't... Yeah, and you'll find less disagreement about them. But it's not crucially, even in those cases, that we've all reasoned our way towards those judgments. It's just that we're wired up

[00:40:44] to have that reaction maybe to certain more universal things. Yeah, and again, here's where it's important to remember the context that these were three essays preceding it that were, here is the guide to happiness. The Epicurean guide to happiness, the Stoic, the Epicurean guide to happiness is...

[00:41:07] I don't know if this is gonna accurately represent, but the general idea is... Pleasure. Yeah, but in a way that is attainable, like good friends, good food, but nothing too lavish that it will be hard to maintain. It's a very... You try to be sustainable and then Stoicism

[00:41:28] takes that in a whole different direction of you wanna be completely immune to just the contingencies of life. And so you wanna detach yourself from emotions that could be violently swung by something that you have no control of. And then the Platonist, I think,

[00:41:48] is somebody who wants to find happiness in the contemplation of the perfection of things kind of an intellectual quest. But I think what he's saying in this essay is, no, it's not like that. Where these are all of these in their own way

[00:42:09] are A, like trying to reason themselves towards happiness which can't be done because of the fact that value is part of our sentiments, not part of what's in the world. But then B also that we're too diverse for any single philosophy to tell us,

[00:42:28] like this is the blueprint or a recipe for happiness. Right, the nature of our sentiments varies too widely for there to be any one size fits all. But I do like that he goes out of his way to distinguish truth from value by saying,

[00:42:43] look, I knew you'd like this. Yeah, he's a realist here. He says in the operation of reasoning, the mind does nothing but run over its objects as they are supposed to stand in reality without adding anything to them or diminishing anything from them.

[00:42:56] If I examine the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems, I endeavor only by my inquiries to know the real situation of the planets. That is, in other words, I endeavor to give them in my conception the same relations that they bear toward each other in the heavens.

[00:43:09] To this operation of the mind, therefore there seems to be always a real though often an unknown standard in the nature of things, nor is truth or falsehood variable by the various apprehensions of mankind. Though all human race should forever conclude

[00:43:22] that the sun moves and that the earth remains at rest, the sun stirs not an inch from his place for all these reasonings. And such conclusions are eternally false and erroneous. That's, I have that little last couple sentences highlighted and then like a note,

[00:43:39] Dave is gonna love it. Yeah, that is the rejection of Rorty right there. That's right. And making a distinction as you like to do between scientific truths and value, we're not gonna litigate whether that can be a clean distinction like Kuhn says it is here.

[00:44:03] But I actually think some of his other stuff gets even kind of more skeptical about stuff like that. You know, like- In this other? Not in this other. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. No, some of his other work I said.

[00:44:16] Anyway, so yes, he makes a clear distinction. This is, which is why also it really matters that what he's talking about is happiness and value in general. Rory says, do you come to a philosopher as to a cunning man to learn something by magic or witchcraft beyond that

[00:44:34] what can be known by common prudence and discretion? Yes, we come to a philosopher to be instructed how we shall choose our ends more than the means of attaining these ends. We want to know what desire we shall gratify, what passion we shall comply with,

[00:44:47] what appetite we shall indulge. As to the rest, we trust the common sense and the general maxims of the world for our instructions. And then that's when he's like, it's hard because everybody likes different shit, right? Like- Sorry, everyone likes different shit. David Hume, 1787.

[00:45:07] You will never convince a man who is not accustomed to Italian music and has not an ear to follow its intricacies that a Scotch tune is not preferable. Yeah, he's not gonna prefer a Scotch tune. I feel like he's dog whistling to the anti-Italian sentiment.

[00:45:23] You have not even a single argument beyond your own taste which you can employ in your behalf. And to your antagonist, his particular taste will always appear a more convincing arguments to the contrary. This episode of Very Bad Wizards

[00:45:40] is brought to you once again by the I Am Bio podcast. Where do biotechnology, patience in our planet all intersect? Find out by listening to the I Am Bio podcast. I Am Bio brings you powerful stories of biotechnology breakthroughs, the people they help

[00:45:55] and the global problems they solve. This fall, I Am Bio dives into today's important issues. Are the use of psychedelics to treat mental health promising? How can biotechnology revolution revolutionize the way we store massive amounts of data? What did we learn from the monkeypox outbreak?

[00:46:14] And one of the recent episodes, for instance, is on microbes and bioplastics. It deals with how microplastics are polluting our waterways and our oceans and dives into some of the proposed solutions such as plant-based bioplastics that break down or microbes that are bioengineered

[00:46:32] to speed up consumption of plastic. If you are someone who cares about our environment or just a nerd about these sorts of things, listen to the I Am Bio podcast and you can hear more about these topics. Thank you to the I Am Bio podcast

[00:46:46] for sponsoring this episode of Very Bad Wizards. So after he says there are no principles that can be unifying in the way that these philosophers want. And so he says, to determine his course of life without employing his reason to inform him

[00:47:08] what read is preferable and leads most surely to happiness, is there no difference then between one man's conduct and another? So he's worried, I mean, what you might conclude is something like, well, if I like stabbing people, let me pursue stabbing people. Is that really what's falling out

[00:47:28] of what you're saying here that there is no universal principle? So that's like, I don't see it as like he's raising a meta ethical worry here as much as do we really have nothing to offer you as to like how to live a good life,

[00:47:45] good being even just a happy life. And I think here is where he says, no, I mean, we can tell you some stuff. Yeah. But he's not necessarily saying like, I'm not telling you that you can't say Hitler is bad or something like that.

[00:48:02] Like that's not the worry. I think the worry is more that philosophers will just have nothing to offer because everything is just a matter of taste. Yeah, yeah, that's right. Maybe it's just me, but in the back of my mind,

[00:48:16] I read if everything is just a matter of taste then what's to stop anybody from having a taste that is distasteful in a very bad way. But I think he even like response to that later in the essay, let me see if I have it here,

[00:48:30] but doesn't he say like, I can't talk those people out of that. There's nothing philosophy can do for that person. That's right. He talks about basically a psychopath. He says like there's nothing I can really say to somebody who's not like say moved by the suffering of others.

[00:48:46] Like there's no amount of talking or reasoning that I can use to dissuade him that he should value those things. But that's where he starts to be a little bit like, but let's admit though, if you do spend your life studying philosophy,

[00:49:02] you probably will develop some moral sensibilities that you wouldn't have otherwise. Yeah, so this is where you start to wonder whether he's betraying the kind of skepticism that he has so eloquently kind of defended and expressed because he says, I guess he gives a kind of almost

[00:49:24] Socratic view that just being philosophical and reflective is undoubtedly going to make you happier. And you wonder, well, how is this not just contradicting what you say earlier? And I think there's a way of reconciling the two, but it's tough.

[00:49:48] Yeah, it's funny because at one point I have like in my notes like Hume the moralist where he turns into somebody who's like offering this kind of advice that you might expect from like a Victorian era, like book of whatever, How to Live Your Life says,

[00:50:03] according to the short and imperfect sketch of human life, the happiest disposition of mind is the virtuous or in other words, that which leads to action and employment renders us sensible to the social passion steals the heart against the assaults of fortune reduces the affections

[00:50:16] to adjust moderation makes our own thoughts and entertainment to us and inclines us rather to the pleasures of society and conversation than to those of the senses. This in the meantime must be obvious to the most careless reasoner that all dispositions

[00:50:29] of mind are not alike favorable to happiness and that one passion or humor may be extremely desirable while another is equally disagreeable. Yeah, so I think that like the uncharitable way of reading this is he wants to have it both ways.

[00:50:44] He wants to defend like the normal conventional kind of norms of his aristocratic society. He wants to say, no, these are actually good virtues and nobody could deny that they will lead to a happier life, but at the same time say

[00:51:02] that those kinds of sweeping statements are impossible and also just a bad habit of philosophers trying to project their own sensibility on the rest of the world. I think that the more charitable way of understanding what he's trying to say is,

[00:51:23] you know, ironically a little bit kind of similar to the stoic view where you wanna be less vulnerable to the contingencies of fate and fortune and just how the dice roll. You wanna have develop a kind of character that your happiness won't be swinging wildly

[00:51:43] in one or another direction depending on stuff you have no control over. And given that he thinks that philosophy and the reflective life is good for that because that's something you can do kind of on your own for the most part.

[00:52:04] Yeah, you can almost feel him being like, well, I have to end this on a, it's like Ecclesiastes is appended at the end with like this happy little note. You almost can feel the tension in him in his own writing where like he feels the pull of saying,

[00:52:23] no, there, this does make a difference but can I read just the part? This was the part that struck me the most as contrasting the strong claim that he's making with then the sort of what seems like a backtrack and it's the part we were referring to

[00:52:38] when he's talking about essentially a psychopath. He says, on the other hand, where one is born of so perverse a frame of mind, of so callous and insensible a disposition as to have no relish for virtue in humanity, no sympathy with his fellow

[00:52:52] creatures, no desire of esteem and applause. Such a one must be allowed entirely incurable nor is there any remedy in philosophy. He reaps no satisfaction but from low and sensual objects or from the indulgence of malignant passions he feels no remorse to control his vicious inclinations.

[00:53:08] He has not even that sense or taste which was requisite to make him desire a better character. For my part, I know not how I should address myself to such a one or by what argument I should endeavor to reform him.

[00:53:20] And so he says, should I say this? Should I say this? Should I tell him of the inward satisfaction which results from the laudable and humane actions, the delicate pleasure of disinterested love and friendship, the lasting enjoyments of a good name and an established character.

[00:53:35] He might still reply that these were perhaps pleasures to such as were susceptible of them, but not for him. He finds himself of a quite different turn in disposition. I must repeat it, my philosophy affords no remedy in such a case nor could I do anything

[00:53:52] but lament this person's unhappy condition. Boom, period. He could end there. Yeah, yeah. But then he, this is the turn. Yeah, and this is the turn and it's like same paragraph next sentence but then I ask if any other philosophy can afford a remedy

[00:54:06] or if it be possible by any system to render all mankind virtuous, however perverse maybe their natural frame of mind, experience will soon convince us of the contrary. And I will venture to affirm that perhaps the chief benefit which results from philosophy arises in an indirect manner

[00:54:21] and proceeds more from its secret insensible influence than from its immediate application. So yeah, so here's the interesting turn. He's saying, well, I stand by the view that you can't just tell people to reason their way to principles

[00:54:36] and have them adopt that as a desire, as a value. But he thinks maybe in an Aristotelian kind of way, if I expose myself to science and philosophy I will end up cultivating virtues by my experience. Not because I've been convinced but just because that's the natural outgrowth

[00:54:58] of whatever it is that I'm doing. I'm exposing myself to. Because it makes you more self-sufficient. You know, your happiness is going to be sturdier. He does make a funny statement here that I wanted to get your take on. It says, it is certain that a serious attention

[00:55:15] to the sciences and liberal arts softens and humanizes the temper and cherishes. It is certain. He says. It is certain those fine emotions when he just said it was like. It was like, yeah. In which true virtue not or consists. It rarely, very rarely happens

[00:55:30] that a man of taste and learning is not at least an honest man. Oh my God. Whatever pre-LT's may attend him. And that's one of the statements that I read now is like, whoo, did someone, like did his Dean tell him

[00:55:44] that he wasn't allowed to end with like the. Yeah. I mean this is just so out of the tone of the rest of the essay. It is certain that a serious attention does, like yeah, this is definitely like a cover letter or something.

[00:56:01] This is his DEI statement that he doesn't really believe. Softens and human. It rarely, very rarely happens that a man of taste and learning is not at least. I mean, at the just bare minimum and honest man whatever. Whatever. Yeah. Out of his mind to speculative studies

[00:56:19] must mortify in him the passions of interest and ambition and must at the same time. Like it's almost like, is this a joke? Give him a greater sensibility of all the decencies and duties of life. Right. Decided such insensible changes upon the temper and disposition.

[00:56:36] It is highly probable that others may be produced by study and application. The prodigious effects of education may convince us that the mind is not altogether stubborn and inflexible but will admit of many alterations from its original make and structure. But then he sums it up here.

[00:56:50] He says, here then is the chief triumph of art and philosophy. And I like that he's putting art and philosophy in the same category. It insensibly refines the temper and it points out to us those dispositions which we should endeavor to attain

[00:57:05] by a constant bent of mind and by repeated habit. Beyond this, I cannot acknowledge it to have a great influence and I must entertain doubts concerning all those exhortations and consolations which are in vogue among speculative reasoners. So I think like this really does,

[00:57:23] like it really matters what the context of this is. And I think the people he's replying to are different than if you were trying to do this right now. It's almost like he's giving them this. Like, sure, the fact that you're scholastics or academics and are diligently,

[00:57:46] that makes you virtuous and happy by the just kind of luck of how human beings are wired. Like that's a really good thing, I'm not denying that. But that's all we can say. Like it's not something that, something that is baked into kind of the reality

[00:58:06] of the world, it is at best just a kind of a quirk of human nature. That this actually is something that will make you happier. And I don't know, like it sounds at some point it sounds like it's because he himself feels that his own dedication

[00:58:27] to the whatever speculation philosophy has made him a better person. And so he can't just diss like what he thinks has made a difference in his life. And to be fair, like don't we kind of believe this too? Really like. Yeah, but I wasn't the one walking around

[00:58:49] talking about the certainty of the inflexibility of the mind. No, no, no, but like you could imagine this being written as I will say that, you know, typically people who devote their lives to this kind of artistic and philosophical appreciation

[00:59:07] and inquiry are going to be among the happier people that you meet. Like it's just, it's going to lead to a more fulfilling life than people who don't do that. And like if you wrote it like that, it would be like,

[00:59:22] well yeah, I kind of believe that, you know? It's just weird the language of certainty and as if this is just some ironclad law of nature. Yeah. And I find it hard to, if what you just said was a claim about people who formally study philosophy,

[00:59:40] for instance, I'd be like, well, there's no way that the average philosopher is happier than somebody else. No, right. But I don't think he means like academic philosopher. But if what you're saying is somebody who leads sort of the good life as we've on this podcast

[00:59:57] come to conclude, come to, to stride. Yeah. Then of course, but then it's almost circular where I'm saying like, if you do the kinds of things that make you happy, you're going to be happy. No, no, no, but it's making a substantive claim about just human nature.

[01:00:16] Like, you know, in the same way Aristotle did, like these are the kinds of things we're so full. Yeah. And it's the kind of thing that are going to be more immune to the vicissitudes of like everyday life than a life of pure hedonism or... Yeah.

[01:00:35] I will admit to being a bit disappointed because I think if he had just stopped at the like, dude, it's all just whatever sentiment you like have built into you. I would have been like, yeah, that's a harsh truth.

[01:00:50] Like I'm almost of the opinion that what he is saying in the second part is that he's conflating people who sentiments already are such that they can enjoy some of these like philosophical considerations and scientific study and inquiry. And that really, really the deep secret is that

[01:01:14] it's all just inflexible. Yeah, but then I think like, so after he does this and it is almost like this thing that's just shoved in like Eliehu's speech in Job. That just like doesn't seem to relate to the rest of it.

[01:01:33] Or if it does, it's not clear like how one flows into the other. But then he gets back to saying things like the reflections of philosophy are too subtle and distant to take place in common life or eradicate any affection.

[01:01:48] The air is too fine to breathe in where it is above the winds and clouds of the atmosphere. And then he says, look, these refined reflections which philosophy suggests to us is that commonly they cannot diminish or extinguish our vicious passions

[01:02:04] without diminishing or distinguishing such as our virtuous and rendering the mind totally indifferent or inactive. So here I think he's taking a shot at the Stoics where he's saying like, yeah, so you can sever our emotional attachments to things

[01:02:21] and that couldn't can be good in terms of making us not get too angry or resentful when we're harmed or something, but they'll also sever the connections and attachments we feel towards other people. And a lot of the stuff that we've said about Stoicism

[01:02:36] although we owe our patrons an episode on Stoicism. Right. But like, so I think here he's back to just saying like philosophy is doing as much harm and good and putting as much noise out there as insight. You know what I mean?

[01:02:54] Yeah, I actually think that towards the end of this he has some real insights and that's one of them. It's a double-edged sword, you can't like some of the things that bring us pain are the very things that bring us pleasure.

[01:03:08] So we're kind of in a situation where you can't, there's no shortcut to happiness. Some of this stuff we're just, it's just the way that humanity works. It's the way that life works. And there's a lot of luck to it too.

[01:03:23] And there's nothing we can do about that. We can't philosophize our way out of the fact that it's not fair. That's gonna be a lot of luck. Right. Today's episode is brought to you by super-speciosa Kratom. You know, Dave, what Hume says about how our sentiments

[01:03:44] and our moods are humors, right? Like they color the world. They project value onto the world. Well, sometimes it's nice to have a few Kratom when you get home and have everything in the world just feel, I don't know, a little better. Little more of chill, relaxed, nice.

[01:04:09] Like when the little birds and animals of the forest come to help snow white. The woodland critters. Yeah, Beethoven's pastoral assembly. Pastoral. Kratom can help energize your mind. It can relax your body. Not to mention it can legit help with pain. So I'm a fan of Kratom,

[01:04:31] not just because of the happiness-inducing qualities, but you know, I'm kind of older and I've been trying to work out more and I get sore and actually helps post-workout sometimes just feel a little bit better knowing that I'm not gonna be nearly as sore.

[01:04:48] Super Speciosa Kratom has only one ingredient and that is pure Kratom leaf. 100% pure Kratom leaf. All of Super Speciosa's batches come with confirmed lab reports so you know exactly what you're getting. They have powder, they have capsules, they have tablets and teas.

[01:05:11] You know, we gotta get some more of the tea. The tea's good, I haven't had that in a while. I know. Lately I've been doing the red variety again. I have no idea. I don't know either if you gave us a blind taste test

[01:05:30] whether we would know the difference but I've been thinking white is more energizing whereas like the green mangdaz is more chill. We should do some studies if our listeners can tell us. Yeah, Super Speciosa offers 100% satisfaction or your money back guaranteed. And guess what?

[01:05:53] Our listeners can get 20% off. Try Kratom, get 20% off, go to getsuperleaf.com slash VBW. Get 20% off with the promo code VBW. That's getsuperleaf.com slash VBW and use promo code VBW. Thank you to Super Speciosa for sponsoring this episode.

[01:06:20] Then he goes, this is where he goes into some of the questions like he goes into the question answer session. The Q&A. This I found interesting where he's having people provide objections. So one of them is all ills arise from the order of the universe,

[01:06:37] which is absolutely perfect. Would you wish to disturb so divine an order for the sake of your own particular interest? And he says, what if the ills I suffer arise from malice or oppression? But the vices and imperfections of men

[01:06:49] are also comprehended in the order of the universe. And then he says, I like this because he just gets really snarky. He says, fine, if it's all part of the order of the universe then let my own vices be part of that same order and leave me alone.

[01:07:03] Yeah, yeah, it's all these things that are supposed to make you feel better about life sucking. And he has like a very, you know, like a fun reply to all of them. And the point of all of them is, I can play this game of trying to look

[01:07:19] from one perspective to it doesn't help. It doesn't help the fact that things suck right now. I like it because he is in this dialogue forum showing he's showing not telling that reasoning can't stop you from feeling the misery. Your sorrow is fruitless and will not change

[01:07:36] the course of destiny. Very true. And for that reason, I am sorry. For that very reason, I am sorry. Yeah, exactly. So one of them is you should always have before your eyes death, disease, poverty, blindness, exile, calamity and infamy as ills which are incident to human nature.

[01:07:54] If any one of these ills falls to your lot you will bear it the better when you have reckoned upon it. So basically saying like just focus on all those terrible things so that you can prepare yourself. And he says if I answer, if we confine ourselves

[01:08:07] to a general and distant reflection on the ills of human life, that can have no effect to prepare us for them. If by close and intense meditation we render them present and intimate to us that is the true secret for poisoning all our pleasures

[01:08:20] and rendering us perpetually miserable. To this day some people say like, yeah, focus on your death so that you'll appreciate what life you have to which I say, yeah, you really want me fucked up all day long focusing on my death.

[01:08:33] I bet it does work for some people, you know? Like it would be miserable for me to dwell on like the fact that I could be really sick or dead. But like I think this is the point. This is the kind of thing

[01:08:49] that might not really work on anybody that somebody might have talked themselves into. This is a good idea. But I actually believe it could be a good idea for some people. It's just I'm not one of those people. So he does,

[01:09:05] and I don't know if you want to talk anymore about the questions. Well, the one I also like about deafness that was that Cicero, yeah, Cicero's consolation for deafness is somewhat curious. How many languages are there says he which you do not understand

[01:09:22] with regard to all of these you are as if you were deaf yet you are indifferent about the matter. Is it then so great a misfortune to be deaf to one language more that such a great example of just sophistic reason? Totally.

[01:09:36] It's just a, oh no, that's a good point. Because I also can't speak Mandarin and then I guess like I shouldn't be mad that I now all of a sudden can't speak any language. Right. Forget the fact that knowing one language

[01:09:53] seems pretty critical to my survival in this world. I mean again, like there's probably context where something like that would work but it is the idea that it's like derivative you can derive that truth from reason is insane. And from like pithy bullshit advice

[01:10:11] that people tend to give you. Yeah. And he says, I like better the repartee of anti-powder the syreniac when some women were condoling with him for his blindness. What says he? Do you think there are no pleasures in the dark? So what is he like about that?

[01:10:30] I think it's that like, it's not about like I've reasoned, oh well I don't get upset because I don't understand those languages. So I shouldn't get upset if I don't understand my own language or the language of everybody around me. But in this case, it's like,

[01:10:47] hey there's some fun shit to do in the dark too. Yeah. I don't read these as so much as just difference between reasoning and not but rather a kind of like why would you think that telling me that like everybody is pretty bad off

[01:11:05] by not knowing most languages. So there's just one more that you don't know is just a dumb frame of mind for somebody who's actually missing an ability like that. So rather focus on what you can do that there are pleasures to be had

[01:11:20] even if you are blind or deaf there are plenty of pleasures to be had. But the other one, I like this next one where he says, this reminds me of the Nagel essay on the absurd where he talks about people who point out

[01:11:36] like look that we are nothing but like the small corner of the entire universe. So what difference does it make when your little problems compared to the infinite extent of nature? And humor applies this consideration is evidently too distant ever to have any effect

[01:11:54] or if it had any would it not destroy patriotism as well as ambition? The same gallant author adds with some reason that the bright eyes of the ladies are the only objects which lose nothing of their lust or value from the most extensive views of astronomy

[01:12:05] but stand proof against every system. Would philosophers advise us to limit our affection to them? It's just a version of what you were saying like if you really want to detach and say nothing matters because the universe is so big well then nothing matters.

[01:12:19] And that's where the collateral damage. So now you don't value anything and don't care about anything. And that's totally making your point like fine if you want a reason let's play the game of reason if nothing matters, nothing matters so what were you trying to tell me?

[01:12:34] And this is where I think and I really believe this myself that a lot of this stuff is that we think as a matter of philosophy as a matter of temperament. Like the facts are yes this is a vast universe

[01:12:46] and we have no idea what the fuck is like behind it but like how you react to that reality that we're gonna die and that will be forgotten like how you react to that is kind of not a matter of philosophy.

[01:13:03] I mean, but then except to the extent that you can point out certain things that people may not have considered which he also says when he says people are always comparing themselves to what could be better just pointing out well look things could be a lot worse

[01:13:21] if this has happened can actually have an effect on your sentiments because this is all about our sentiments there is a role for the philosopher to be able to do things say things that will trigger sentiments that are more conducive to happiness.

[01:13:39] It is a very, very John height. You could just see the influence that the inspiration that John height took from. So like you could always say like if you're that miserable look at this other person who has barely anything compared to you

[01:13:56] you have so much Tamler you have a happy family you have a head roof over your head you're not wanting for food and you dare tell me that you're sad like what do you have to be sad about like look at the person who's living

[01:14:10] on the streets of whatever, you know. This is why we do privilege. You know, you know where you take a step forward if you have like certain privilege I've never done one. That's right. Yeah, well you probably have but since you didn't move at all

[01:14:31] you don't remember it. Yeah, because I have no privileges. Yeah, you know the philosopher can kind of turn the view to the other side. You know, I do think that is something that philosophy can do to get you to think about things from a different frame of mind.

[01:14:47] You know, like the first segment if what they're saying is right like sometimes it might be helpful to point out that things could also be worse if they were different. What do you make then of he's concluding and at this point I'm curious

[01:15:03] like what exactly is gonna be his concluding remark given that he's sort of said a couple of things that might be conflicting. And he says, I shall conclude the subject with observing that though virtue be undoubtedly the best choice when it is attainable

[01:15:19] yet such as the disorder and confusion of human affairs that no perfect or regular distribution of happiness and misery is ever in this life to be expected. Not only the goods of fortune and the endowments of the body both of which are important

[01:15:30] not only these advantages I say are unequally divided between the virtuous and vicious but even the mind itself partakes in some degree of this disorder and the most worthy character by the very constitution of the passions enjoys not always the highest felicity. Yeah, so.

[01:15:46] I feel like he's secretly just a pessimist about it all but he has to like say yeah, yeah, yeah like being good is good. Yeah, I mean like of course being good as good being virtuous is good but at the same time he says

[01:16:00] like I shall add as an observation that if a man be liable to a visor imperfection it may often happen that a good quality which he possesses along with it will render him more miserable than if you were completely vicious. A person of such imbecility of temper

[01:16:15] as easily broken by affliction is more unhappy for being in dad with a generous and friendly disposition with gifts. In other words, like you don't necessarily fix these people by getting them to be a little more virtuous. A sense of shame in an imperfect character

[01:16:30] is certainly a virtue but produces great uneasiness and remorse from which the abandoned villain is entirely free. A very amorous complexion with a heart incapable of friendship is happier than the same excess in love with the generosity of temper which transports a man beyond himself

[01:16:48] and render his him a total slave to his objective passion. And so then like I take the real conclusion to be here like in a word human life is more governed by fortune than by reason. It is to be regarded more as a dull pastime

[01:17:02] than as a serious occupation and is more influenced by particular humor than by general principles. Like that's like this is nagle, right? It's if nothing matters then that doesn't matter either, you know? Right. And I like I'm going to keep reading because I like how Yancey says

[01:17:18] shall we engage ourselves in it with passion and anxiety? It is not worthy of so much concern. Shall we be indifferent about what happens? We lose all the pleasure of the game by our flam and carelessness. Again, my favorite. While we are reasoning concerning life, life is gone

[01:17:37] and death though perhaps they receive him differently yet treats a like the fool and the philosopher. Shades of Ecclesiastes too, right? To reduce life to exact rule and method is commonly a painful off to fruitless occupation. And is it not also approved

[01:17:51] that we overvalue the prize for which we contend even to reason so carefully concerning it and to fix with accuracy it's just idea would be overvaluing it. Were it not that to some tempers this occupation is one of the most amusing in which life could possibly be employed.

[01:18:06] That's so great. That's so, so great. And like it really is like my spirit paragraph. Yeah. And he I really felt by the end here that he redeemed himself from some of the like weird It is certain that like being. The paragraph that you read

[01:18:26] I shall add as an observation to the same purpose that if a man be liable to a biserim perfection it may happen that a good quality will render him more miserable. I think that's a really interesting insight where he's saying if you're gonna break bad, break all that.

[01:18:43] Yeah. And like there is like an actual a barrier that you might not think of which is if you're just trying to make people better by giving them a virtue you might end up making them more miserable. So it's not that we should just like add virtues

[01:19:04] to people like in this sort of a linear fashion like shit's complicated. So even when you add virtues people might be making them miserable. Even though living a virtuous life in general is a better recipe for a happy life than leading a vicious life.

[01:19:23] It doesn't just mean it's not quantitative that all right, well, if you're mostly vicious but you add this virtue you'll be a little happier than if you did. Right, it's not like collecting Pokemon where you're like, oh, I have empathy and now all I need is love.

[01:19:37] Exactly, the empathy could like mess up for like the little happiness that you have. And I like the analogy, right? Which is in the paragraph before he says every bodily pain proceeds from some disorder in the part of Oregon yet the pain is not always proportioned

[01:19:55] to the disorder but is greater or less or according to the greater or less sensibility of the part upon which the noxus humors exert their influence. And so like a toothache produces more violent convulsions of pain than I don't know what these are, thesis or dropsy.

[01:20:12] But I assume they're much more like serious but if you have a toothache you feel more like you suffer more. You know, so then he says in like manner with regard to the economy of the mind we may observe that all vice is indeed pernicious

[01:20:31] yet the disturbance or pain is not measured out by nature with exact proportion to that degree of vice nor is the man of the highest virtue even abstracting from his external accidents always the most happy. A gloomy and melancholy disposition

[01:20:45] is certainly to our sentiments of vice or imperfection but as it may be accompanied with a great sense of honor and great integrity it may be found in very worthy characters though it is sufficient alone to embitter life and render the person affected with it completely miserable.

[01:21:01] On the other hand, a selfish villain may possess a spring and a lackity of temperament a certain gait of heart. This is like Al, which is indeed a good quality but which is rewarded much beyond its merit and when attended with good fortune will compensate for the uneasiness

[01:21:18] and remorse arising from all the other vices. So I think the area is just saying, look, it is, it's just luck. It's messy. And it's messy. Yeah, this is really like there's no rules to this shit. Like, you know, it- There's no rules to this shit.

[01:21:36] It could be, it could work out that in your pursuit of virtue you end up being happy and maybe that's even true statistically but on the other hand, remember elsewhere. Yeah, there's gonna be people who are not virtuous in a lot of different ways

[01:21:51] and yet are more liked and happier. Like maybe even a more fulfilling life. By the way, cause I had to, this is tuberculosis and dropsy is like edema, like swelling of the- They're very 18th century kind of dread. Add some gout in there. Yeah, so all right.

[01:22:17] I feel like he pulled through. It's great. Yeah, yeah. Great essay. The last few, I mean, read the whole thing, but it's short but the last few paragraphs are I think deeply wise. Yeah, we could spend a lot of time just diving into every one of those.

[01:22:37] Yeah, in a way that like, I just in my mind, I don't expect Hume to be that kind of philosopher. Well, you liked the standard of taste. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That even that seemed more analytic and less like meaning of life-y kind of stuff.

[01:22:51] So which is all just to say I enjoy this part of Hume. You know, I'm mad because I have a good friend who's a Hume scholar and I wish I had had the idea and time to schedule it to have him on.

[01:23:01] I had the idea a few days ago. I was like, oh, we should have Mark Collier on these old colleague. We were at University of Minnesota Morris together and but we should have him on for another bit of Hume. Maybe some more like metaphysical, epistemological parts of Hume.

[01:23:16] That's pretty big diss. Like if I were him, I would probably not be your friend anymore after this episode comes out. Well, he saw us do the standard of taste. Oh yeah, and yet, and still. So he's able to move beyond that event.

[01:23:33] But we should have, he is a great guy. Yeah. We should definitely have him on. All right. Yeah, anything, any final words on Hume? No, you know, one thing I wanted to say throughout is I think everybody knows this, but when he's talking about humors,

[01:23:50] he is referring to that old Galen view that the different ratios of liquids in your body actually affects your personality. So this was just like a theory of personality, humor. Which is recently vindicated. It resonates. Sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic and caloric. All right.

[01:24:13] Join us next time on Very Bad Wizard. The Queen and Pigeon to that man! Are you? Good man, thought and with no more brains than you have. Anybody can have a brain? You're a very bad man. And a very good man, just a very bad wizard.