HUM Grant recipient Brandon Ascione shares his research into philosopher David Hume’s work on human nature.
Before the development of psychology as a field of research, the study of human thought and mental health belonged to the realm of philosophy. For this reason, according to Brandon Ascione (Philosophy, ’24), “You can learn about your mental health by studying the philosophy of scholars from centuries past.” Under the advisement of Associate Professor Katie Paxman (Early Modern Philosophy, Philosophy of the Mind), Ascione received a Humanities Undergraduate Mentoring (HUM) grant for his research into the philosophy of the mind, which he says has taught him to have a healthier mindset. On July 22, 2023, Ascione presented his research, based on selections from 18th-century philosopher David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, at the 49th International Hume Society Conference here in Provo.
The Research
Ascione’s research and conference presentation responds to multiple other scholars’ research, including Oxford University Professor Peter Millican, University of Toronto Professor Donald Ainslie, and David Hume. Ascione specifically focused on an argument from Hume’s Treatise about a type of iterative (or repetitive) skeptical thinking process where people become more and more uncertain about their judgment each time they reassess an idea. For example, someone might have the thought, “It will take 10 minutes to get to the store.” If they think about their plan to go to the store again, they might decide it will actually take 15 minutes. If this pattern of reassessment continues, Hume’s argument suggests that each time they reevaluate their conclusion, they will become less certain that they have the correct answer, even to the point where they can no longer form any beliefs. Hume called this thinking process “contrary to human nature,” yet he still included the argument in his Treatise. Since then, many scholars have engaged with this passage, including Ainslie, whose work attempts to provide evidence in support of Hume’s argument.
Millican, on the other hand, published a rebuttal of Hume’s argument that caught Ascione’s interest and inspired him to also look into the topic. According to Millican, iterative skeptical thinking will lead people to have greater confidence in their conclusions rather than less. Using the same example, Millican’s argument states that when the person changes their conclusion about how long it will get to the store, they become more confident about the 15-minute answer than they were about the 10-minute answer.
While at first Ascione agreed with Millican’s view of the argument, he reconsidered based on his own experiences. He says, “I thought back to some of my own experiences with anxiety in cases where my mind could not help but continue to engage in that iterative thinking over and over again.” Neither Millican’s nor Hume’s arguments could fully explain Ascione’s experiences, so he launched into his own research on iterative skeptical thinking and took a deeper look at Hume’s work on human emotion.
Ascione recognized that Hume’s iterative thinking process resembles thinking patterns associated with anxiety. The propensity to ruminate, second-guess, and only become more uncertain about things can cripple someone’s ability to move through life with confidence. This kind of overthinking is a classic hallmark of anxiety. When a person with an anxiety disorder tries to evaluate how long they will take to get to the grocery store, reassessment may very well lead to greater uncertainty, until they feel the need to check their maps app to know how long their trip will take, even if they’ve been to that store many times before.
Based on this understanding, Ascione proposed that both schools of thought on Hume’s argument can be correct at the same time. Depending on a person’s emotional circumstances, iterative skeptical thinking can sometimes reinforce belief and sometimes cause increasing uncertainty. Ascione found support for this idea within Hume’s work on emotion and suggested that Hume included the passage in his treatise because he had experienced this kind of mindset on occasion and wanted to account for it.
After Ascione presented this new argument, two different scholars—who had both studied Hume’s treatise and come to conclusions in opposition to each other's—asked Ascione questions about his argument in the Q&A session. Ascione says, “Both felt that my view supported and built on their opposing views with one another.”
The Journey
Ascione’s journey into the philosophy of mental health began nearly two years ago, when he first started studying Hume’s work. In July 2022, he had the opportunity to attend the 48th International Hume Society Conference in Prague where he engaged with Millican in person about his work. In December 2022, he received the HUM Grant, which allowed him to keep working on his ideas. Now, after having presented at the conference this summer, he is continuing to refine the project, working with Paxman to prepare a paper on the subject for publication in an academic journal.
Ascione recognizes that Paxman’s excellent scholarship and desire to engage with other scholars from around the world has created many of the opportunities he’s had. He says, “One thing that's really important for undergraduate students to understand and remember as they're working on projects, or they're trying to figure out where they stand in their college experience: the faculty are wonderful. They are willing to help you learn and grow and pursue your interests. And it's okay to put yourself out there even though it's scary at times.”
Now in his senior year, Ascione plans to attend law school after graduation, but believes that philosophy will always be a part of his experience. He says, “Philosophy helped me acquire the skills to engage rigorously with my religious beliefs and some of my challenging circumstances and come to have a much healthier approach, attitude, and testimony.”
For information about the International Hume Society Conference, visit their website.