Thoughts against presentism (and an intro to critical study of Hume)

In my calling David Hume a racist or Aristotle sexist, professional philosophers such as Massimo Pigliucci have accused me of "presentism." (That said, I think Massimo seems to be softening, at least on Hume.)

I reject the charge because I reject the concept.

Briefly, here's why.

As I see it, "presentism" is an absolute adjective.

All I have to do is find one non-sexist in Aristotle's Greece, or one non-racist in Hume's Great Britain, and the idea is undermined.

And, while I may not think of particular Britons, some of the French philosophes were certainly anti-racist. And, I point to Aristophanes' "Lysistrata" as anti-sexist.

And, a quick Google let's me go straight to a contemporary of Hume's, per this piece:

Hume was challenged on his racist views in his own time, including by the Scottish philosopher James Beattie, who wrote: "The empires of Peru and Mexico could not have been governed, nor the metropolis of the latter built after so singular a manner, in the middle of a lake, without men eminent both for action and speculation.

"Boom," in a word. (That said, Beattie only challenges his anti-Indian racism directly. Of course, White Europeans knew little about Timbuktu and even less about the Great Zimbabwe at that time.) THAT said, per this philosophical essay, Hume revised his original racism agasint Blacks and American Indians to just an anti-Black racism in specific response to Beattie.

THAT said, the IEP, in its article on Beattie, reports that his magnum opus, "An Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth," made Hume mad in general. Wiki, in its piece on the essay, notes Beattie had a habit of slash-and-burn attacks on opponents. And, a note: The essay, in German, was part of what "awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumber."

Read the whole IEP article. Beattie offers a good refutation of racism in general.

Of course, Hume wasn't alone among Enlightenment philosophers, and said philosophers, while writing about morals, did little for practical moral advancement in their societies.

A second way of refuting Massimo, Dan Kaufman, Julian Baggini (added, see below) et al would be to hoist Hume by his own petard.

If nobody at the time of Aristotle were anti-sexist, and nobody at the time of Hume were anti-racist, than to use Hume's own phrasing, anti-racism or anti-sexism must have arisen "viz a miracle."

On anti-racism, the third way of refuting Massimo and Dan is to refer to any number of recent insightful books of social history which show the rise of "race" as a social construct in early Enlightenment Europe. 

So, I have three refutations of presentism in the charge of racism against Hume. (And, against Locke, Kant, Voltaire and others of this era.) I have two refutations of presentism in the charge of sexism against Aristotle.

And, bonus? One is directly philosophy-connected, via linguistic philosophy. (Sidebar: I wonder how much the issue of what is an absolute adjective and what is not has been studied in modern linguistics and philosophy of language.)

QED.

Update, Feb. 12: Baggini, per a new post in my series about Hume that I'm adding in response to him, wants to make "presentism" a non-absolute descriptor. I reject that, for the reasons above. Even if I accepted that the idea of presentism, empirically, should be defined in majoritarian terms, per the logical side, specifically, psychological logic, I would reject his claim that the minority side in 1700s Scotland was so small that we can essentially ignore it. This statement applies not just to him, and not just to the issue of presentism vis-a-vis Hume and racism.

Update, Feb. 18: Per a discussion of that Baggini post at MeWe, bringing up vegetarianism to defend charges of presentism while talking about slavery in general, rather than race-based slavery, as "race" is basically a human construct and "race" as understood in the modern West is an Enlightenment-times European intellectual construct, is a way to lose your argument from the start in my book.

As for the the analogy in general? I don't think it flies, for various reasons. One, science can never give us a straight, set-in-stone answer on what animals are sentient or not, if "sentience" is part of what drives vegetarianism. It's a philosophical demarcation problem, but one that philosophers won't agree on. Ditto on what animals suffer pain or not.

That said, vegans score vegetarians for inflicting pain on animals through milking, egg-stealing, etc.

==

Schedule of related blogging (now updated and expanded):

1. A more in-depth look at Harris' bio of Hume than my Goodreads review, Jan. 14;
2. A more in-depth look at Mossner's bio of Hume than my Goodreads review, Jan. 21;
3. Hume, racism and general bigotry, and ultimate rank hypocrisy, Feb. 4;
4. Julian Baggini goes in the tank to defend Hume, Feb. 18
   
5. Le bon David: David Hume as litterateur, March 4;
6. Is David Hume just a bundle in my mind? Or just a petard hoisting? March 18;
7. Young Hume vs Old Hume: The passions and more,  March 25;
8. And, an add-on, on the issue of Hume, race and slavery: Exposing what seems to be willing lying on his part in "Of the Populousness of Ancient Nations," June 12.

The addition of the Baggini piece is the key change from the original number of posts, and in turn affects the full schedule. Given that I've been on an alternate-weeks schedule, the last post may move to April 1. 

==

More here on Hume's racism, which also notes that Hume believed in polygenesis.