<p>I have revised it heavily by the way. I think I made the Hume reference more relevant, my logic more convincing, and the overall ‘point’ of the essay more clear. Here it is:</p>
<p>In his landmark philosophical treatise, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,” David Hume levies a devastating attack on what he refers to as necessary connection. He opens his critique by drawing the distinction between impressions and ideas. Impressions are the sensory experiences directly perceptible from the outside world. Ideas are the relationships we construct between these impressions by reflecting on them. The fallibility of human reason, Hume argues, lies in the assumption that these relationships are necessary. For example, one may observe that when it rains there are black clouds overhead, but it is not correct for one to assume that black clouds necessarily accompany rainstorms. This inference is based solely on past coincidence and rules out the possibility of a sunshower. Another faulty idea inferred from sensory perceptions is the relationship between mustard and hot dogs.</p>
<pre><code> As one browses the twenty-foot-high aisles of the local bulk food purveyor, a humongous jar of mustard is bound to catch ones eye. The innate framework of the human mind is such that one sensory impression triggers a recollection of past sensory impressions. So, the mere sight of the radiant yellow barrel releases a flood of memories of bar-b-ques, picnics, cookouts, and, of course, hot dogs with mustard. In addition to these recollection processes, one reflects on past experiences of big things complementing associated big things. Big shoes are associated with big feet, big forks are associated with big knives
So, because this particular jar of mustard is so gigantic, the shopper associates it with an appropriately Oldenbergesque hot dog.
The shoppers subconscious equating would follow something like this: a one-and-a-half foot tall jar of mustard with a diameter of nine inches has a volume of about one-thousand-one-hundred-and-forty-five cubic inches. A regular sized jar of Guldens Mustard (my favorite) contains eleven cubic inches of the condiment. The gigantic jar of mustard contains one-hundred-and-four times as much as the regular jar. Proportionality thus dictates that a hot dog flavored with this huge volume of mustard would be one-hundred-and-four times as large as a regular hot dog. This Brobdingnagian ballpark beauty would be twenty-eight inches long and weigh twenty-six pounds.
The shopper couples the association of mustard and hot dogs with the presumption that big goes with big. He sees the jar of mustard, which elicits the connection to hot dogs and the past delight experienced while eating hot dogs covered in mustard; he simultaneously reflects on past associations of corresponding size, and concludes that because this jar of mustard is so big, it must be associated with a level of delight that is proportionately big. Therefore, ideas inferred from past sensory experience entice the shopper to buy the huge container of mustard. But before he struggles to roll the yellow bounty into his cart, he must realize his fallacious logic. Hume (who I believe preferred beef Wellington) would argue that past coincidences of hotdogs, mustard, and gained happiness do not guarantee future such coincidences. Furthermore, past observation of complementary big things does not ensure that a package of twenty-eight inch, twenty-six pound hot dogs to go with his gargantuan mustard awaits the shopper in the next aisle. Concurrence does not dictate “necessary connection.” An increase in the amount of mustard the shopper buys, then, does not assure an increase in his happiness.
If we are to grasp the workings of the world, we must be skeptical of the misleading tendencies of our minds and must not overestimate the accuracy of the conclusions we draw from our sensory perceptions. Egotism, unfortunately, impedes our ability to think and act prudently. We often assume that our judgments are accurate, despite insufficient proof. In making deductions we must learn to assess the entire body of evidence and only draw inferences that are appropriate given the breadth and depth of that information.
If we adopt these critical techniques, our ascent towards understanding will be a steadfast and successful endeavor. At first, the light of truth will appear to us a mere sliver penetrating a crack in the wall of ignorance. But if we chip away at the crack with acute minds, we will gradually achieve our highest potentialgenuine knowledge. If we strike wildly at it, however, the wall will collapse on top of us. So, to ensure our escape from the cave, we must start by saying No to super-huge mustard.
</code></pre>