What is a dogmatic slumber?

I find it amusing and at the same time odd that when you introduce the subject of metaphysics to people, a lot of them say that their approach to life is scientific, as distinct from metaphysical, and that metaphysics is nonsense anyway. But they fail to realize that everybody, by virtue of being a human being, is a metaphysician. That is to say, everybody starts from certain fundamental assumptions such as to what is the good life, what are his her personal principles for living, what are his views about the social landscape in which he exists and so on.

Scientists in particular, generally tend to be blind to these fundamental assumptions. They tend to feel that they are scientists, and having the status of being "scientific" is fashionable in our age. But, you know, it’s so amusing. Let’s take psychoanalysis for example – as pointed out to many philosophers (like Nietzsche) that their philosophical ideas are capable of being shown to have a psychoanalytic reference. For example, John Wisdom wrote a book about the philosophy of George Berkeley, in which he attributed a great deal of his point of view to his experiences at toilet training as a child. The philosopher is very grateful to the psychoanalyst for revealing to him his unconscious and its emotional contents, but the psychoanalyst must in turn await a revelation from the philosopher as to his philosophical unconscious and the unexamined assumptions which lie in it. However, to me it seems many scientists are not willing to open up to such an exchange of ideas.

Such an attitude towards metaphysics in this scientific age has generally resulted in what has been labelled "a dogmatic slumber". A dogmatic slumber is that easy and comfortable state of resting on one's unexamined assumptions. But who can blame someone who lives by a dogmatic slumber? After-all a dogmatic slumber has been shown in multiple studies to be greatly desirable for promoting health of mind and body. Moreover, most people have little trouble achieving this dogmatic state, and indeed many are seldom roused from it. If, however, you are one of those miserable unfortunates who suffer from dogmatic insomnia, or a perpetual restless examination of what most people take for granted, welcome to the club - you are not alone. Every generation has its unfortunates.

The works of David Hume are frequently blamed in cases of dogmatic insomnia, but unjustly so. The problem is not in the works themselves, but in our employment of them. In particular Hume's Treatise on human nature, a weighty tome in every sense, is often misused. The mistake sufferers have made is to open the book and read it, exposing themselves to the disturbing ideas in the text. If, however, when you retire for the evening, you instruct one of your friends to smack you forcefully on the head with the book, you will be virtually assured of a good eight hours of dogmatic slumber.

x