Hume’s use of analogy in his ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’ seem to indicate that his understanding of the principle of analogy was based on likeness. This is a partial view of course as he might have ascertained if he had taken a peek at the books of metaphysics before he cast them on the fire. Philo is taken by scholars to represent the views of Hume himself. Analogy by him is based on:
“That a stone will fall, that fire will burn, that the earth has solidity, we have observed a thousand and a thousand times; and when any new instance of this nature is presented, we draw without hesitation the accustomed inference. The exact similarity of the cases gives us a perfect assurance of a similar event; and a stronger evidence is never desired or sought after.”
To me this seems more like induction than analogy, a process which Hume impugned elsewhere on ‘metaphysical’ grounds. I hope that I will not be obscure if I say that the focus for Hume was on the relata rather than the relation. Now I am no Paleyite though I will confess to an interest in looking at youtube videos of watch repairs. Arriving at the level of complexity of the chronometer was an evolutionary process and likely analogically counter to the thrust of the design argument for the existence of God. In any case this has nothing to do with Philo/Hume’s understanding of analogy. God is to the world as the watchmaker is to the watch (God:World :: Watchmaker:Watch) It is the relation here that is suggestive and not our inductive encounters with god or gods in order to be able to claim an analogy. Rightly understood, analogy uses a commonplace example to demonstrate a relationship that exists in the difficult to comprehend instance.
Following Hume the perfect analogy would be identity. It is what it is. A rose is a rose is a rose. Contra Burns:
O my Luve is like a red, red rose
That’s newly sprung in June;
O my Luve is like the melody
That’s sweetly played in tune.
No comments:
Post a Comment