This blog
post will consist of my interpretations and thoughts on “Section V: Concerning our Reasoning…” by Francis Hutcheson. This
essay took me quite some time to drudge through, as the 18th century
writing style was often cryptic. However, after some time and several re-readings
of paragraphs, I was able to gather what seemed to me to be Hutcheson’s main notion.
This notion being that humans’ share a sense of beauty, an appreciation for
regularity, uniformity, and consistency, of which can never come to existence
by randomness but by a designer. One sentence that somewhat summarizes this
notion sits in the third paragraph when Hutcheson proclaims,” that wherever
there is any Regularity in the disposition of a System capable of many other ,
there must have been Design in the Cause; and the Force of this Evidence
increases, according to the Multiplicity of Parts imploy’d”(Hutcheson, Concerning).
Hutcheson’s thesis presents a very interesting but dated argument. He uses the majority of the writing to defend his thesis through legitimate mathematical reasoning, however his conclusion many would debate. To summarize, Hutcheson claims that the regularity or “beauty” we see in the natural world is extremely mathematically improbable, therefore, this regularity could not come to existence by chance, but by design. Today, most scientific thinkers would of course agree that the natural world’s regularity and beauty was not brought about by chance at all, but through a selective process called evolution. In fairness to Hutcheson, he presented a very logical argument at the time he made it, as the theory of evolution did not come to presence until after Hutcheson’s death.
I think Hutcheson makes a very respectable claim, given the knowledge of the world he had at the time, as there seemed to be little alternatives. In terms of his work refuting or clashing with Mandeville’s, Fable of the Bees, I think some disagreements occur. To summarize, I think Mandeville gives mankind little credit and faith, whereas Hutcheson would argue that man naturally possesses an innate ability to see beauty and reason. One could then assume that Hutcheson would argue that this natural sense lead humanity to organizing itself into a civil society as it would be the reasonable action to take.
Hutcheson’s thesis presents a very interesting but dated argument. He uses the majority of the writing to defend his thesis through legitimate mathematical reasoning, however his conclusion many would debate. To summarize, Hutcheson claims that the regularity or “beauty” we see in the natural world is extremely mathematically improbable, therefore, this regularity could not come to existence by chance, but by design. Today, most scientific thinkers would of course agree that the natural world’s regularity and beauty was not brought about by chance at all, but through a selective process called evolution. In fairness to Hutcheson, he presented a very logical argument at the time he made it, as the theory of evolution did not come to presence until after Hutcheson’s death.
I think Hutcheson makes a very respectable claim, given the knowledge of the world he had at the time, as there seemed to be little alternatives. In terms of his work refuting or clashing with Mandeville’s, Fable of the Bees, I think some disagreements occur. To summarize, I think Mandeville gives mankind little credit and faith, whereas Hutcheson would argue that man naturally possesses an innate ability to see beauty and reason. One could then assume that Hutcheson would argue that this natural sense lead humanity to organizing itself into a civil society as it would be the reasonable action to take.
First off, I agree with you about the 18th century writing style being very hard to read. I also agree with you that Mandeville is pretty pessimistic about mankind. However, I do not feel that just because of the presence of the theory of evolution (which we too often take as fact) in today's world means that Hutcheson was entirely wrong, and just had a good attempt at trying to explain why beauty, regularity, and uniformity have always prevailed in nature. Hutcheson could still be right about his theory of this happening by design, which would, of course, include a designer. What if the designer designed it so that the beautiful, uniform, and regular survive? I don't disagree fully, necessarily. I just feel that these two concepts could still carry truth to each of them, and it does not have to be one or the other.
ReplyDeleteGotta agree with Jeff, and you, about the annoyance of the old language used.
ReplyDeleteI only wish that Hutcheson focused more on what is not beautiful, i.e what is ugly. If a grand designer made all that is, or will be, and design = beauty, what is ugly? idk...
The argument from design has been around for a long time, and it is a testament to the relevance of these texts that it still inspires controversy (despite the old language--but what do you expect? He's writing in his own time, not ours). It certainly seems that both you and Jeff are getting at the idea that, in some ways, both evolution and the argument from design work to solve a similar problem, namely, how is it, despite the improbability, that things are as they are? Why is there life at all?
ReplyDeleteEvolution is not an inherently Mandevillean idea I don't think, but I think the controversies it inspires shows why Hutcheson takes a detour through the notion of design. If you assume a designer, it is a lot easier to assume a universal, unchanging, benevolent human nature. If it's all just random, this does not imply that people are malicious or not benevolent, but it takes away a strong foundation for this worldview. It's not perhaps a surprise that many die-hard atheists today present a viewpoint with certain similarities to the Mandevillean position.
Steven, ugliness is a great question. how would Hutcheson attack it? Would it refute his theory? Is it lack of order, or is it rather a certain different type of order? Good question for a paper.
This section by Hutchenson about design felt very true. In life today it is appreciated more and more by design and less by nature and randomness. Now design is turning into electronics and even the designs of nature rather than just random nature. It is in humans to make things better in his/her own eyes rather than just liking nature.
ReplyDelete