Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Pamphilus Has the Last Word
Pamphilus concludes at the end of the Dialogues, "Philo's principles are more probable than Demea's, but those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the truth" (89). What are we to make of this observation? Is this supposed to be the judgment of Hume? Is this supposed to be ironic in some way? Does this statement tell us anything about the arguments -- or more about Pamphilus?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think there really is no way to determine why exactly Hume put this in. It seems odd that he would say one theist is better than a skeptic who is better than a different theist. Plus, there may have been religious oppression which forced him to report this as he did. By saying a theist was better than a skeptic, he would be able to expound his own beliefs while pretending to fit in with those predominant in society.
ReplyDeleteMore interesting in my opinion than the fact that Cleanthes is on top, is that Philo is second. By saying that Philo is better than Demea, Hume at least says that he refutes faith-based religion. While it isn't a complete refutal of religion it is more than he could do with Philo on the bottom of the three. By saying Philo is better than Demea, he soundly says that he is against faith-based religion. Even if the time of writing may not have allowed a full refutal of religion, he found a way to refute what he probably saw as the worst form of religion. Pamphilus isn't an important person or character in my opinion, he's only there to say this at the end.
So essentially the ending of the book is a censored version of Hume's beliefs. He is probably a religious skeptic who could not speak his mind due to the popular opinions of his time, but figured out a way to both say his arguments and refute part of his opposition.
I agree with Josh that Hume obsucured his views so that they will be better accepted by the public. Ideas that go against God are usually not recepted well by the masses, and are viewed as heretical. Hume wanted to disprove the Theist view of God, which Demea represented, but he knew he could not outright say it. So he ended with Cleathes , becuase it is still a slightly religious view, but not a full out thiest victory. The effect of this is that any 'conservative' Theist reading his book will not get completely offended, and his views will still get exposure. Anyone who actually read the book carefully and tries to fully understand it should realize that Philo is actually the winner, while the masses who just skim the book will . Also, the fact that people will still read his book adds significance to his findings. Even if the majority of people do not read deeply and think Cleanthes is the winner, they still will have bee nexposed t ohis ideas, and the his ideas will be planted in their minds. the people reading it may not fully realize it, but by reading objections to the common Theist beliefs they are slowly learning and accepting Hume's ideas.
ReplyDeleteAs for the character of Pamhpilus, I believe that his purpose is a kind of inside joke to Hume. He represents the masses who would ligthly read the book and (wrongly) conclude that Cleanthes is the winner. Since Hume realized he had to 'sugar coat' the ideas in his book, he decided to have fun, and sublinally poke at those people hewas doing this for. Other than that, Pamphilus doesn't really have a purpose.
Through the conclusion that Cleanthes is the winner, Hume strategically proves his point while maintaining his cover and ensuring that his book is read by the public.