QU HSUEH MING
10 Dec 2021
Associate Professor Qu Hsueh Ming (NUS Department of Philosophy) recently received the FASS Award for Excellent Researcher (AER), which is presented to researchers based on the overall impact and strength of their research. The successful researcher would have “achieved consistent research excellence, produced a piece of research of great impact and be recognised by the research community as having achieved a significant breakthrough.” A/P Qu received his PhD from New York University, and completed his undergraduate and B.Phil. at Oxford University. A/P Qu's latest book is Hume’s Epistemological Evolution (2020), which was recently nominated for the APA book prize. He has published 20 articles (along with two book chapters) in publications that include Mind, Journal of the History of Philosophy, Synthese, and Ergo. A/P Qu is one of the most prolific and cited authors in Early Modern Philosophy and is considered one of the top Hume scholars of his generation.
We congratulated A/P Qu and spoke to him about his research work.
1. What do you view as the most notable features of Hume’s change in his response to scepticism in Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) from how he discussed it in A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects (1739–40)?
As I argue in my recent Hume’s Epistemological Evolution (2020), while in his earlier Treatise, Hume relies on the passions to rescue us from scepticism, in the later Enquiry, Hume finds a way to drive off the spectres of scepticism without having to make such an appeal. Instead, Hume exhorts us to recognise the capabilities and limitations of our faculties, and to adjust both our confidence and our domains of beliefs accordingly. This, I think, is good advice even to this day.
2. How would Hume address current day scepticism about the efficacy of vaccines that many of us would be inclined to characterize as superstitious?
Hume is a big believer in science, and in empirical evidence. Although most well known as an inductive sceptic, Hume takes great pains to distinguish between better and worse inductive inferences in his ‘Rules by which to judge of causes and effects’. Hume famously remarks that ‘A wise man… proportions his belief to the evidence’. For those who fail to do so, Hume would undoubtedly consider them foolish, and urge them to more judicious in their reasoning.
3. In your article “Hume’s Deontological Response to Skepticism” (2020), published in Ergo, you stress that Hume takes a middle path in his approach to skepticism and credulity, and at the same time promotes science and philosophy over irrational thinking and belief systems. How can we apply Hume’s views on scepticism and credulity to our evaluations of news from sources that we are not sure are reliable?
In this paper, I argue that although there is a minimal level of reflection that is required of us as a duty, beyond this, reflection is supererogatory—which is to say it is good to do, but not mandated. Given our human limitations, we can only reflect and gather evidence up to a point—in this, there is an upper limit with how much we can question or investigate a given news report. But this doesn’t mean that we should accept them unquestioningly, which is where the minimal level of reflection comes into play. Of course, the real art is to discern how much reflection is insufficient, and how much would be more than is required. Context is key here, depending on the importance of being right about the news in question. News about which celebrity is dating which probably doesn’t merit too much reflection; news about climate change, the pandemic, and so forth probably needs a fair bit more.
4. Which of your recent journal publications are you most proud of and why?
In the history of philosophy, there is a spectrum ranging from more historically-based analysis to more philosophically-based one. Most of my work thus far has tended towards the latter end of the spectrum, but I am particularly proud of a recent work that somewhat bucks this personal trend. In my paper ‘Hume’s Stoicism: Reflections on Happiness and the Value of Philosophy’, forthcoming in the Journal of the History of Philosophy, I take a more textual approach in investigating Hume’s thoughts on the pursuit of happiness, and I am pleased with the result.
5. What has been your most memorable teaching experience at NUS?
One of the best parts of being a professor at NUS is the students. I have taught students at a number of different institutions, but I cannot think of another university that has philosophy students so motivated, interested, and committed to learning. Due to my commitments as Head of Department, as well as some sabbaticals and writing fellowships, I have not been able to teach as much as I would like, but I always relish my experiences.
Not to swim against the tide of recency bias, I particularly enjoyed my recent 2000 level class, ‘Hume and Kant’. I was worried since it was my first time teaching via Zoom, but the discussions were lively and rewarding, and the students excellent and engaging. I’ve also found it deeply rewarding working with my two PhD students, Daryl Ooi and Hongbin Zhao, who continually produce novel and interesting work from angles I had not previously considered.
6. Lastly, what future research projects are you working on?
I am working on a number of projects at the moment: a few papers on Hume’s metaphysics (in particular his Separability Principle: the principle that anything different is distinguishable and metaphysically separable), a few papers on Hume’s scientific methodology (particularly the value of simplicity, and his rules by which to judge of causes and effects), but perhaps the two papers that constitute the newest ground for me (and that I am thus most excited about) are as follows.
First, a paper I am co-authoring with my PhD student, Daryl Ooi, comparing Hume and Wang Yangming’s position on moral internalism, the thesis that the making of a moral judgment carries with it an intrinsic motivation to action. This would be my first work touching on Chinese Philosophy, which is an area that has perhaps been neglected by the philosophical mainstream. Given my own roots, and the NUS Philosophy Department’s position as arguably the leading philosophical department in Asia, it is apposite that we make an effort to bring Asian philosophy into the mainstream.
Second, a paper on Hume’s unfortunate racism and cultural bigotry, most explicitly highlighted in his essay ‘Of National Characters’. We should resist the understandable temptation to sequester the unsavoury aspects of Hume’s thought. Hume wrote what he wrote, warts and all. We will make no progress by ignoring, or making only token acknowledgements of, his racism and bigotry. As scholars, it is our duty to recognise, highlight, and grapple with not only the aspects of Hume’s thought that we admire, but also the aspects of Hume’s thought that we find abhorrent.
Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions, A/P Qu! And congratulations again on being awarded Excellent Researcher!