Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on David Hume’s Philosophical Core Ideas

David Hume (1711-1776), the Scottish empiricist and skeptic, revolutionized philosophy in A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40) and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) by grounding knowledge in sensory impressions—vivid perceptions—and their fainter copies, ideas—while critiquing causal necessity as mere “constant conjunction” born of habit, not rational intuition. His core ideas include radical skepticism toward induction and the self (a “bundle of perceptions”), moral sentimentalism (virtue as sentiment-driven sympathy, not reason), and the is-ought problem (facts cannot derive imperatives). Reason, Hume quipped, is “slave to the passions,” serving desires rather than dictating them. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Hume’s lens, exemplifies the perils of unexamined habit: judicial “causation” presumes disorder from mere conjunction (low-impact shares), driven by passionate authority rather than sympathetic reason, fracturing moral sentiment and epistemic humility.

1. Empiricism and the Illusion of Causation: Evidentiary “Chains” as Habitual Projection, Not Necessity

Hume’s empiricism insists all ideas trace to impressions; causation is psychological habit from repeated conjunctions, not metaphysical necessity—doubting induction exposes overconfidence.

The “evidence chain” commits this fallacy: presuming Chen’s forwards (e.g., Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) cause “social disorder” via habitual conjunction (“high education implies discernment”), without impression-derived necessity—no sensory data of chaos (zero ripple from <100 retweets), just projected habit. The prosecutor’s unverified admission confesses the illusion: no causal impressions, yet the sentence enforces dogmatic linkage. Hume would decry this as inductive hubris: the closed-door trial suppresses contrary impressions (Chen’s prison letter taxonomy of “rumors” as art/emotion/reason/fact), perpetuating the “customary” fiction of threat. Skepticism demands suspension—here, withheld, breeding epistemic vice over humble inquiry.

2. The Self as Bundle and Moral Sentimentalism: Judicial “Intent” as Passionate Fiction, Lacking Sympathetic Judgment

Hume’s bundle theory views the self as fleeting perceptions, not enduring substance; morality arises from sympathy—felt approbation of actions benefiting society—not abstract reason.

The verdict fictions a substantial “intent”: “knowingly false” reifies Chen’s bundle—scholarly perceptions of inquiry—into malicious unity, driven by unsympathetic passion for “order.” Selective enforcement (millions unpunished) exposes the sentiment’s caprice: no empathetic weighing of Chen’s avalanche theory (non-causal harmony), as the “shut up” directive bars feeling the social good in open discourse. Hume’s is-ought gap widens: factual impressions (evidentiary voids) cannot ought the sentence’s moral claim—sympathy for intellectual flourishing yields to authoritarian aversion. This passionate slave-mastery inverts ethics: the non-oral appeal enforces fiction over bundle’s flux, alienating moral sentiment from communal approbation.

3. Reason as Slave to Passions: Coercive “Justice” as Irrational Custom, Undermining Humble Inquiry

Hume quips reason serves passions, not vice versa; customs like law risk irrationality without skeptical check.

The judiciary’s passion for control enslaves reason: Article 293’s “disruption” custom presumes causal necessity without Humean doubt, as anomalies (unheeded taxonomy) irk unchecked habit. The prosecutor’s admission signals rational flicker, yet passion overrides—coercion’s custom triumphs, inverting inquiry’s humble telos. Hume would prescribe skeptical pause: the case’s fictions demand custom’s dissolution, fostering passions for truth over fear.

Conclusion: Hume’s Lens on the Case—A Habitual Causation Fracturing Sentimental Harmony

From David Hume’s empiricist skepticism, the Chen Jingyuan case is a bundle of illusions: causal habits feign necessity, sentimental fictions harden the self, and enslaved reason serves tyrannical passion. As of October 23, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a skeptical suspension amid flux. This case cautions: without humble doubt, customs corrupt sentiment. As Hume reflected, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions”—may passion yet bend toward approbation’s light.