I have read Hume's work very thoroughly and came across loads of points where he acknowledged his ignorance of the internal workings of the human brain.
Here is a sample [there are more] where Hume acknowledged his ignorance of the depth of the knowledge that is pertinent to the issue.
A Treatise of Human nature [1739]
- Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
1. those of SENSATION and
2. those of REFLEXION.
The first kind arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
The second [impression of reflexion] is derived in a great measure from our ideas, and that in the following order.
An [8] impression first strikes upon the senses, and makes us perceive heat or cold, thirst or hunger, pleasure or pain of some kind or other.
The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.
………………..
Its effects are every where conspicuous; but as to its causes, they are mostly unknown, and must be resolv’d into original qualities of human nature, which I pretend not to explain.
SECTION IV.: Of the connexion or association of ideas.
What Hume claimed is Moral Conclusions of oughts are derived from these sources which to him is unknown.
During Hume's time there was little knowledge about the human brain, emotions, neurosciences, etc.
However, by now we have sufficient knowledge to understand more about the human brain, emotions, neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, etc.
Yes it is the works of anatomists and natural philosophers [scientists] to dig deeper into the roots of sensations.Hume wrote:The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.
Then it is from these scientific facts that we can understand the Moral Potential therein as the inherent moral facts derivable from a moral framework.
This conclusion is not a derivation from impressions as Hume spoke within his limited knowledge but a conclusion of the direct evidences of the cause, i.e. the moral potential and moral facts.
The point is those who echo blindly what Hume supposedly said NEVER research into the depths of his works to have a thorough understanding of his philosophy.
Views?