Giants of the Scottish Enlightenment Part 1: Francis Hutcheson

Подписаться 295 тыс.

Просмотров 27 тыс.

50% 1

Prof. James Stacey Taylor discusses the contributions of Francis Hutcheson, an intellectual of the Scottish Enlightenment who was instrumental in advancing the sentimentalist approach to morality. In this approach, Hutcheson acknowledged the conventional five senses, but in addition, identified three additional senses:
1) The public sense
2) The sense of honor
3) The moral sense
Hutcheson had a tremendous influence on his contemporaries, including Adam Smith and David Hume and is still important and influential today.
Watch more videos: lrnlbty.co/y5tTcY

Опубликовано:

22 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 96

@erchibaldwittenbrog2993 6 лет назад

Hutchesons ideas about beauty and morality are simple fascinating. On german universities, we don´t learn anything about scottish philosophers (a bit Hume and Smith, ok). I think it is necessary to discover this forgotten geniuses. There is no denying that this sensual approaches would promote our aesthetic mindsets...

@walden411 12 лет назад

That was very interesting. I never heard of Hutcheson before. I hope more people get to see this!

@chuckfrmgamestop 12 лет назад

They are both correct in a way. We always do act in our own self interest, but because we naturally care about other people many times it makes us feel better to help others more than ourselves. We are still serving our self interest while helping others because it satisfies a desire most likely developed over millions of years of evolution. Survival of the cooperative.

@pumpkinspicelatte3 3 года назад

It is very helpful, thank you.

@LearnLiberty 3 года назад

Büşra, glad to hear that!

@Bmanstudios101 12 лет назад

Where is the second part?

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

@heymisterderp You are absolutely right that the concepts involved in our debate are relative / subjective. That is why it is illogical and superficial to attach the label of "sacrifice" onto the actions of another person. Values are subjective based on individual needs, preferences, circumstances. etc. When one person "hoards" their wealth and another gives it freely to help others, judge them if you will, but both are acting to give themselves the most satisfaction - this is self-interest.

@Cornampoo 12 лет назад

@regelemihai thanks, that adds another piece to the puzzle.

@PrincessPebbles0_0 24 дня назад

My grandmother was a Hutcheson and we have a great grandfather who was a Hugh. I wonder if they are related to these men. My mother would have probably known… She did a lot of research on our family history/genealogy.

@TraveltheRedRoad 6 лет назад

eh...a wee bit patronising there pal

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

@heymisterderp "It's not always voluntary" - exactly - as I said, "in VOLUNTARY interactions between human beings, "sacrifice" is a logical impossibility". By contrast, if someone is FORCED to surrender something they value more for something they value less, then we can say that something of value has been lost ("sacrificed").

@BachGuitar3 12 лет назад

awesome

@regelemihai 12 лет назад

@Cornampoo Indeed. I have Leviathan, but never managed to crack through significantly. Maybe I should do taht ove the Holidays.

@soratsol 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer It seems to me that this idea of benevolence is simply the thing that makes us feel it is worth our while when we help people or give things away, when these actions otherwise seem to be against our own interests. I was down in Baltimore the other day, and I felt bad seeing a homeless person in the rain, and seeing homeless people on the side of the road, therefore, I wanted to help them. Benevolence is empathy, as I see it; just feeling for others.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

One must accept a very simple premise to understand Hutcheson correctly. It is that benevolence acts against one's self interest such that it prevents one from from enjoying one's own wealth and resources. This is a sacrifice whether it's not a net loss, or a circular self interest, or a demonstrated preference. We correctly perceive one who hoards money and assets for themselves as driven by their own self-interests, that is, their self interests do not include the interests of others.

@tropicalterrarium1742 4 года назад

My last name is Hutcheson, spelled the same way. My lineage is scottish American, I am sure we are related in distant or recent history. cheers!

@amberhutcheson9629 8 месяцев назад

Mine is too. I'm Scottish and have the same spelling of hutcheson's last name and if you removed his curly white wig, he could pass as my littlest sisters twin. I wonder if there's a lump sum of money or prestige of any kind over in Scotland or Ireland waiting for a Hitcheson to claim it. I seriously wish I could figure out how to see if I'm related to him or not.

@pumkinpi2 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer I can see what you are saying. If a fire fighter gives his life attempting to save a child from a fire, he is giving something, his life, which he values less than the child's well being. My question is, does that disqualify Hutcheson's idea that the fire fighter was compelled in the first place by a moral, or public sense?

@siabaa 11 лет назад

True. I'm writing an Adler syntopical term paper on the Scottish Enlightenment. I'm still in the research phase and can't help but notice the Scottish Enlightenment is succinct and able to be contrasted with the French and American ones. To assert that there was not an American one is to discredit the idea of a Scottish version. Hallmark of a separation from the main Enlightenment is a gathering together of thinkers and exchange of thought. What is Philadelphia if not an American Edinburgh?

@usandmexico 5 лет назад

Amen. I'm an American, and there has never been an American Enlightenment. People like Hume, by the pure force of his ideas, made people think all while being ostracized from academic institutions (partly, if not entirely, due to the requirement to submit to Christianity to teach). In America, you had and have to take what the founders said seriously because they won the revolution at the end of a gun. Those who did not agree with the revolution were forced to remain quiet or flee to what is now Canada. They left us with law, and some traditions, we are forced to follow. And it is extremely difficult to change some of those laws. As I think about it more, arguing about what is and isn't an enlightenment can be subjective.

@ShaneyElderberry 11 лет назад

Agreed. He first explains that the American Revolution and its developers were based upon Scottish thinkers, but doesn't confront the Scottish Enlightenment's foundation in the 17th century's continental Enlightenment (especially the book printing culture of the Dutch Republic and Catholic Baroque architecture).

@byouno93 12 лет назад

@freesk8 exactly!!! or even the mere care of the less fortunate is simply satisfying one's own personal desire to help them.

@chuckfrmgamestop 12 лет назад

@Alectr0n I'm not assuming we'd all behave like sociopaths and I agree we evolved empathy for a reason. In fact I don't disagree with anything you've just stated. My point is that the result of our having evolved empathy and sympathy (for an over all good reason) provides a way we can view acting in other's interest despite the act being against our own as still fundamentally acting in our own self interest.

@chuckfrmgamestop 12 лет назад

@Alectr0n yes but you still always work to please your own senses. Sometimes rationally and sometime irrationally, but the goal is always to please your own senses so it is self interest.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer And someone else will choose the option that's the most objectionable to themselves. There may always be a loss, and in the case of "sacrifice" which you cannot redefine, there always is. Whether there's the circular element of self-interest or not and whether there's a quality of "net" loss or not. Moreover, you might make a value call and be wrong about it, and hence there is even a net loss. What is so difficult about this?

@freesk8 12 лет назад

@byouno93 It certainly makes ME feel better to help others...

@Kylegreigwalker 7 лет назад

DANK

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer My "idea" of sacrifice comes from the dictionary. A definition which you fail to be able to handle. That there may be some circular self interest in sacrifice or not does NOT falsify Hutcheson's message in this video.

@regelemihai 12 лет назад

@Cornampoo Very much so, yes.

@GregoryTheGr8ster 12 лет назад

With regard to the hypothetical cute doggie at 3:37, cute doggies are indeed the way to a man's heart.

@Joannafwatson 8 месяцев назад

Not sure I’m that impressed by what this chap has to say about Scotland 😮

@suttonsantamaria2332 2 года назад

I would say the American Enlightenment was the Native American contribution to the Enlightenment, which has been overlooked and erased from European history.

@xcvsdxvsx 12 лет назад

humans are rationally self interested predators, however there are two forces used to determine the proper self interested choice, there is the product of reason and abstract rationalization and there is instinctual drive. the reason we experience these benevolent senses is because it was in the self interest of our forefathers who lived in small tribes where the good of the tribe was in the interest of the individual, and was therefor built into our instinct as a product of evolution.

@Eire2004 11 лет назад

Francis Hutcheson what a irish man !!!

@williammackenzie6115 5 месяцев назад

Sorry for the late reply as i have just come across this,he was an Ulster man of Scottish Presbyterian ancestry whose roots were in Ayrshire Scotland .

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

@heymisterderp This proves, as I've said before, that your conception of value / wealth is rooted in materialism - again - for the last time - if I trade a material object for the satisfaction of helping others, it is because I value that satisfaction more than the material thing I gave up - therefore, logically - acting in self-interest, I helped someone else and made myself wealthier - a net gain, not a sacrifice.

@siabaa 11 лет назад

What is the American Revolution and the founding fathers if not the American Enlightenment?

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer There are differences there it is not a matter of black and white or moral equivalence. If we're going to the show and I'm the lug that's standing in line to buy our tickets for it, I'm the one that's sacrificing for you while you do whatever you value more at that time, whether or not the value of seeing the show eventually makes standing in line worth it or not. Yes, the loss doesn't last forever, and that's not saying much because nothing ever does.

@Valhalla88888 3 года назад

Francis Hutchison is Scots Irish born in Ulster to Scottish parents

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer No I'm implying that the loss of zero lives didn't require any sacrifice that resulted in the loss of either one life or the loss of two, or perhaps all three. Applying your own logic, you choose A and sacrifice yourself because you'd rather your children live with the misery of their loss than you with the misery of yours. If you're incapable of understanding that sacrificing your own life is a loss to you, then perhaps you can acknowledge it's a loss to others.

@byouno93 12 лет назад

@chuckfrmgamestop wow I thought I was the only one that could understand that point. It's so true. Complete and total altruism doesn't come without some degree of selfishness.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer You're rejecting most examples of sacrifice using that curiously narrow definition of it.

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer I'm not claiming that nothing is given-up if I trade my life to save my children - in all human action there are trade-offs. The paths we choose as opposed to the paths we didn't choose. Logically, we always choose the course of action we value most - in the case of my death, I valued my life less than preserving the lives of my children. "Sacrifice" is the surrender of personal value for something of less value, but even when giving my life, this wasn't the case.

@stephentaylor8862 10 лет назад

Bravo! Hutchison was a scots planter in Ireland, much like me.

@Plasmafox 6 месяцев назад

So he claims that these further senses are innate and require no judgment or processing to discern, just as spoiled milk doesn't need to be pondered before discarding it by smell alone. Yet, his idea of a public sense, where we sympathize with the plights and triumphs of others, seems to fail as a model if you imagine someone you loathe as the object of these feelings. We just as naturally despise seeing our enemies win and celebrate when they stumble, but the very idea of an enemy is judgment, a belief. Spoiled milk's rottenness is an experience agreed upon by everyone(cheese notwithstanding.)

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

@heymisterderp It's not a "narrow" definition, it's a logically-consistent one. Give me any example of what is commonly called "sacrifice", and I will show you an example of a person who valued helping others more than what they gave up (time, money, etc.) Note, this doesn't in any way diminish the act of helping others - it's just a way of understanding peoples' motivations, and understanding that human cooperation is a win-win proposition, not a win-or-lose one.

@freesk8 12 лет назад

@byouno93 Ayn Rand's position (and perhaps Adam Smith's as well) is that if you do what is TRULY in your own long term rational self interest (eg, stealing is not really in your LT RSI) then you wind up automatically doing what is in the interests of those around you. Rand rejected altruism as a way for church and other authorities to control us.

@BMerker 4 года назад

One has to distinguish self-interest - the endeavor to improve one's lot in life, as Adam Smith put it - a morally unexceptionable and indeed laudable motive - from selfishness, which is doing so at someone else's expense, which deserves moral censure. Hutcheson's importance and influence is not in doubt, but the nature of that influence is a mixed bag. His stress on disinterested benevolence eventually led him to conclude, via the step that universal benevolence would evoke the greatest approval of all, that "that action is best which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers." That standard transfers the ethical criterion from the spontaneous feeling of approval supplied by the "moral sense" in Hutchesons earlier formulation to the consequences of action. And with that we have entered the territory of utilitarian ethics proper, and the disastrously false moral criterion it supplies.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer It's not a logical impossibility AT ALL. Just because you might sacrifice yourself for the lives of your children doesn't mean that you don't lose something. You lose your life. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Before you died, both you and your children lived. When you die so they can live, there is a loss involved. There is a sacrifice. Comparing relative values don't prevent the possibility of net loss. Or in the case of sacrifice, the necessity.

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

@heymisterderp It would be preferable not to have to choose between my own life and the lives of my children, but given that scenario, I will still choose the path I find preferable (least objectionable to me) - Again, this does not conform to the commonly understood "dictionary definition" of "sacrifice" which says I am giving up something of value and getting nothing in return. Clearly, this isn't the case in our scenario.- I chose the path I valued more, Q.E.D.

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

@heymisterderp As I said before, I'm not claiming that nothing is given up when I sacrifice my own life to save others, merely that I choose the path that I value most - all choices have trade-offs, but the concept of sacrifice implies that I trade something I value more for something I value less - this is totally illogical.

@Cornampoo 12 лет назад

So Keynes's "animal spirit" argument is actually very Hobbes-like?

@magnushansen2412 9 лет назад

Best part (3:30-): "People like little furry dogs" :-D

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

@heymisterderp (sigh) If the only choice is between A) loss of one life or B) loss of two lives - then choice A) is a net gain / preservation of one life. You areimplying that there was a third choice C) loss of zero lives, but that wasn't the scenario. Anyway, the point is: if choice B means sacrificing two lives and causing me to live in complete misery and choice A means saving the lives of those I love at the cost of my own, I would choose A because I prefer that outcome.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer Sacrifice does not need to be put in quotation marks, its definition is already established by others, not you, whoever you are. It is not a "logical impossibility". It's not always voluntary. It's also incidental. Values that may extend from self interests do not make Hutcheson "simply wrong" about benevolence. It's not one's self interest to die; for a cause greater than oneself or not. How preposterous.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer A real example can be shown by comparing two individuals. One hoards capital all for himself. The other gives freely to charity and thus sacrifices the consumption he would otherwise have been able to enjoy so that others can do so in his stead. You've rejected dictionary definitions to claim Hutcheson "wrong". These concepts are not absolute, they are relative. Benevolence is outwardly separate from self interest with -or despite- an inner psychological basis.

@madeinbrechin 3 года назад

Scotland is still a spectacularly interesting place.

@locomuchacho1 12 лет назад

0 dislikes because it's Scotland hell yeah

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

@heymisterderp You've lost sight of the original point - Hutcheson's claim is that our "public sense" compels us to do things that are against our self-interest. This is a logical fallacy - my life would be a living hell if I allowed my children to die, so trading my life to preserve theirs would be preferable to me. Furthermore, if the choice is losing my life or losing the lives of my two children, by surrendering my own life, the result is a net GAIN (preservation) of one life.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer If you really think that, then you don't understand the definition of sacrifice, much less malevolence. I suggest doing homework on these terms before going overboard claiming Hutcheson is "wrong". You can just as well trade something you value for just the chance of an equal or lesser value for the sake of others which you won't get to personally consume/enjoy. If you value something greater than your own self interest that, would be charity, not the lack of it.

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

@heymisterderp Seriously? Please give an example (hypothetical or real) where someone chose an option that was more objectionable (less valuable) to them. It's illogical on its face - human beings do not give up things they value more in exchange for things they value less - the very act of choosing is an act of preference - you are arguing that its possible to prefer something I don't prefer.

@TheChilidog028 10 лет назад

I disagree with him slightly. It all sounds good, but it breaks down when looked at further. The opposite view also breaks down pretty fast. People seem to be a mixture of both these views. There are some who do good works for good works' sake but there are others who do good works knowing that it will elevate their status in some way, no matter how small. Everyone has a sense of self need, but some put it aside for others. I'd say it's about 50/50 or close thereabouts in general.

@wed3972 2 года назад

OK IDIOT SHUT UP 'THECHILIDOG028' I DONT CARE BE QUIET

@abbaar 12 лет назад

Drop the comment about dogs and I would have naturally taken this guy much more serious.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer I'm not so much rooted but I'm not exclusionary either. I realize that I don't get to exclude the examples that make Hutcheson right just so I can show up here like some kind of authority figure bereft of the dictionary to claim he's wrong. Repeating yourself is pointless. I don't have to deny the point you're making, but the point you're making does not rise to your rejection of Hutcheson and the dictionary.

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

@heymisterderp what I'm "qualified to do" is follow a line of logical reasoning, not spend time parsing dictionary definitions. Your idea of "sacrifice" is a manifestation of arbitrary, external, materialistic criteria. When I was a poor student intern and I offered half my PB&J sandwich to a homeless man, it was because I valued helping him more than having a full belly. The thing I got - satisfaction - was worth more to me, hence I was better off (i.e. nothing was sacrificed)

@jerichosfumato 11 лет назад

I disagree that Bush's views on bio ethics were purely sentimental. In biology, you can observe that the DNA of a zygote is a human being's DNA, as opposed to a gorilla's DNA, and biology also defines what makes a living organism, and an embryo is definitely a living organism. In other words, it's a living human thing. Is it a person with rights? It seems to me the burden of proof is on those who want to experiment on it.

@rexultimatum2588 8 лет назад

Don't know why it's called the "Scottish Enlightenment" ? like what makes it any more "unique" than any other Enlightenment that was taking place in Europe. Aside from this; the Enlightenment occurred throughout all of Britain as well (England & Wales too.) Or is just the Scots trying to make themselves look "worthy" ?

@hannahsheepie 8 лет назад

+Rex .Utimatum It's just like you said, there are different Enlightenment's taking place in Europe. When speaking about the Enlightenment a lot of people generally relate it to the (broadly speaking) anti-secularism etc. of France but there were different Enlightenment ideologies being developed in different places including Scotland, and Russia and Germany. So the Scottish Enlightenment philosophers all seen to have a generally common theme of a sense of morality or benevolence that isn't necessarily agreed with in German Enlightenment. Basically there's just different types of Enlightenment and it's pretty impossible just to paint them with one brush. Hope this helps!

@mattsmiddy40 6 лет назад

Rex Ultimatum Jealous!

@lewistaylor2858 5 лет назад

Voltaire said it is too Scotland we look for our ideas. It was Edinburgh, like Athens 2500 years ago, that was at the top of the academic world.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer Yes I'm keeping well within the context of Hutcheson's claim, and no, you don't understand what GAIN is either. If you have two children and save them both by sacrificing your own life, the result is a net LOSS of one life so to prevent an even greater loss. You're on the verge of denying the definition of the word Loss too from the look of it. Unbelievable.

@freesk8 12 лет назад

These three are not senses in the same sense (sorry) as the five senses are. Hutcheson's public, honor and moral senses are emotions, not senses. They may be important or valuable emotions, but to call them senses is to create confusion.

@Berelore 12 лет назад

If he's actually correct in describing Hutcheson then not only is Francis wrong the presenter also gives poor examples to support the assertions. For example, when he tries to support the claim that there are benevolent actions that are directly in conflict with ones rational self interest his examples don't support his claim. Furthermore, they demonstrate that he doesn't understand rational self interest enough to be making a judgment on the validity of Hutchesons arguments.

@Cornampoo 12 лет назад

@benxr2006 that's why you have so little friends.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer You're effectually making the claim that there is no such thing as sacrifice, or that all sacrifice is involuntary, and you need to change the definition of the word in the dictionary in order to pull that off, and I don't think you're qualified to do that. There is an element of loss in sacrifice whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Interests do exist outside of oneself. Your circular distinctions don't withstand that quality nor prove Hutchenson "wrong".

@itonner231 12 лет назад

Scots wha hae!

@gergenheimer 12 лет назад

Hutcheson is simply wrong about benevolence - it IS based on self-interest. If you give money away, it is because you value the satisfaction of having helped other people more than the alternatives for which you could've used that money. This is called "demonstrated preference". When we talk about people voluntarily "sacrificing" things they want to help others, this is a logical fallacy - you valued helping people more than the alternatives - you didn't sacrifice anything.

@RitchLouis2 10 лет назад

I hope you do well in your studies! My concern is that Hutcheson's rather nice, gentlemanly idea of moral sense simply cannot explain the endemic cruelty and depravity of certain cultures. For example, Islam. If it is true that Islam is a slaving fraternity with a doctrine of war then we should expect them to lie about their doctrines shouldn't we - indeed we are deceived at our peril. /watch?v=bKyGxBCR_HE /watch?v=kf5rGvKD9gA /watch?v=AU13D4ZPtQM Hutcheson is proposing a VOLUNTARY morality.

@RustyIronloins 12 лет назад

a bit of a strawman of hobbes... but I am used to hearing those.

@hannahsheepie 8 лет назад

Not sure if it's an attempt at humour but calling Scotland words such as 'dank' is ignorant and a bit offensive. Saying things you literally pulled out of nowhere, 'Smell rotten milk... a common experience in Scotland.', totally takes away the credibility of what you're saying. Have respect for the country, not just the people that come out of it.

@user-ht4gb2fw4e 8 лет назад

+Hannah Downie I'm Celtic/Scandinavian. But I realize that standing beside these two glorious cultures is also two other very Dank things. And that is the dark side found in every nation on earth! Scotland produced David Hume, but it also created a beast named Captain Robert Campbell. He guilty of the Glencoe massacre of 1692, a "Dank" killer with the blood of his own country on his hands!...And, I believe there was later a Mr. Quisling in Norway in WW2. So you see, Dankness permeates and must be exposed!

@user-ht4gb2fw4e 8 лет назад

+Hannah Downie Pt.2>>As for the countrys themselves, there was poverty, criminality, hunger, and that's quite Dank I would say! Rotted milk and all!

@hannahsheepie 8 лет назад

+acerb45666555 I appreciate your response and I absolutely agree that 'dankness' resonates throughout humanity, not quite the sentimentalist that Hutcheson was. However I feel that in this particular context Taylor was not referring to such personalities. To be sure there was extreme poverty and criminality, but the professor himself does not address the reasons such as the one's you have provided to explain why it could be termed 'dank'. I just feel like his central points are really useful, but opening with the line 'Something spectacularly interesting happened in Scotland, which may come as a surprise because most people don't think it's spectacularly interesting', is completely unnecessary to be honest. He knows his stuff, but categorising eighteenth-century Scotland as 'dank' is completely reductionist to a diverse and innovative period in Scottish history. Thanks for your response again, maybe the patriot inside me is flaring up a bit;) Away to read on Quisling now!

@studmalexy 6 лет назад

Hannah....the white race is dying and being taken over......that being said.....wanna become my wife and "breeding cow!"?(provided you are over 16)

@madeinbrechin 3 года назад

Why is smelling rotten milk a common experience in Scotland? This boy is off his trolley.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer Your death, whether in the defense of your children's lives or not, is not always your choice and in far more cases than not, it isn't. You are incapable of providing an example of sacrifice with your own demented definition of the word because you've developed a bad habit of denying the actual definition of the word.

@GregoryTheGr8ster 12 лет назад

Yes, that's true. But it seems like Europeans are socialist and happy. The Europeans love their socialist and statist beliefs. The state is something that is so rock solid and unshakable that it enables people to sleep well at night, and have no fear of the future. The state is a replacement for God, in fact.

@fifteenbyfive 12 лет назад

@gergenheimer You are not qualified to tell anyone what definitions established in the dictionary are incorrect. You need to appeal to the authorities in the sky who maintain the definitions of words of our language and convince them, not me, that the definition needs to be changed, and best of luck to ya with doing that. Meanwhile, I'm going to stick with the dictionary, and by extension this video, no matter how personally upset by that good choice you continue to appear.