Hume isn't laying out a rejection of external objects, knowledge or philosophy. — TheWillowOfDarkness
If you're not convinced there's nothing of value in one's philosophy that claims our understanding based on our observation cannot be justified, then that's your opinion. But Hume had made a statement that's deceptively simple it freaked the heck out of the entire caboodle of philosophers.I've read it very closely and can find absolutely nothing of value in it. His idea that our observations are just in our mind and that we cannot know if objects external to our mind exist or if they exist when we are not looking at them is completely irrational and leads to absurdities. — Ron Cram
Correct.What do you mean when you say we can observe kinetic energy being transferred? We can observe the first ball strike the second ball followed by the second ball moving. But you'd observe the same thing if you were watching an animation of pool balls. We can only observe phenomena, but not the reasons behind phenomena. Reasons are not available to our senses, only to our intellects. So I think proving that one pool ball causes the second to move would require a logical proof and not just an appeal to experience. — Dusty of Sky
If you're not convinced there's nothing of value in one's philosophy that claims our understanding based on our observation cannot be justified, then that's your opinion. But Hume had made a statement that's deceptively simple it freaked the heck out of the entire caboodle of philosophers. — Caldwell
Kinetic energy is implied in the the movement of the pool balls. We grasp its truth, but never the thing "kinetic". It's not separable from the other things in the room, like the balls. Yet you speak of it like you could literally hold it in your hand, with or without the balls. — Caldwell
For the same reason he cannot accept there are stairs, he cannot accept there aren't any. He cannot see the occurrence of either. — TheWillowOfDarkness
In making this point, Hume isn't trying to pose some kind of universe without external objects or even without external objects which we know, but laying out what is demanded by a certain kind of justification. The true sceptic doesn't deny himself the comforts of knowledge because they understand this scepticism isn't strictly a measure of what is known. It's a measure of whether a claim has been justified to a certain standard. — TheWillowOfDarkness
read section 119 closely) — Ron Cram
By what argument can it be proved, that the perceptions of the mind must be caused by external objects, entirely different from them, though resembling them (if that be possible) and could not arise either from the energy of the mind itself, or from the suggestion of some invisible and unknown spirit, or from some other cause still more unknown to us? It is acknowledged, that, in fact, many of these perceptions arise not from anything external, as in dreams, madness, and other diseases. And nothing can be more inexplicable than the manner, in which body should so operate upon mind as ever to convey an image of itself to a substance, supposed of so different, and even contrary a nature.
It is a question of fact, whether the perceptions of the senses be produced by external objects, resembling them: how shall this question be determined? By experience surely; as all other questions of a like nature. But here experience is, and must be entirely silent. The mind has never anything present to it but the perceptions, and cannot possibly reach any experience of their connexion with objects. The supposition of such a connexion is, therefore, without any foundation in reasoning.
— Hume
It is confessed, that the utmost effort of human reason is to reduce the principles, productive of natural phenomena, to a greater simplicity, and to resolve the many particular effects into a few general causes, by means of reasonings from analogy, experience, and observation. But as to the causes of these general causes, we should in vain attempt their discovery; nor shall we ever be able to satisfy ourselves, by any particular explication of them. These ultimate springs and principles are totally shut up from human curiosity and enquiry. Elasticity, gravity, cohesion of parts, communication of motion by impulse; these are probably the ultimate causes and principles which we shall ever discover in nature; and we may esteem ourselves sufficiently happy, if, by accurate enquiry and reasoning, we can trace up the particular phenomena to, or near to, these general principles. The most perfect philosophy of the natural kind only staves off our ignorance a little longer: as perhaps the most perfect philosophy of the moral or metaphysical kind serves only to discover larger portions of it. Thus the observation of human blindness and weakness is the result of all philosophy, and meets us at every turn, in spite of our endeavours to elude or avoid it. — Hume
Rather than get lost in details, I'll try to focus the issue. I don't think Hume doubted the existence of the external world. — joshua
I agree with Hume that no argument can prove that there is an external world. — joshua
It is a question of fact, whether the perceptions of the senses be produced by external objects, resembling them: how shall this question be determined? — Hume
You mention Kant being inspired by Hume. Indeed. Assuming that you like Kant, that also evidence of Hume's significance. — joshua
These ultimate springs and principles are totally shut up from human curiosity and enquiry. Elasticity, gravity, cohesion of parts, communication of motion by impulse; these are probably the ultimate causes and principles which we shall ever discover in nature; and we may esteem ourselves sufficiently happy, if, by accurate enquiry and reasoning, we can trace up the particular phenomena to, or near to, these general principles. The most perfect philosophy of the natural kind only staves off our ignorance a little longer — Hume
Thus the observation of human blindness and weakness is the result of all philosophy, and meets us at every turn, in spite of our endeavours to elude or avoid it. — Hume
Reality [...] is "what you run into when you are wrong." — Ron Cram
Hume's idea that causation cannot be observed is counter to our everyday experience and completely irrational. — Ron Cram
If constant conjunctions were all that is involved, my thoughts about aspirin and headaches would only be hypothetical. For belief, one of the conjoined objects must be present to my senses or memories; I must be taking, or just have taken, an aspirin. In these circumstances, believing that my headache will soon be relieved is as unavoidable as feeling affection for a close friend, or anger when someone harms us. “All these operations are species of natural instincts, which no reasoning … is able either to produce or prevent” (EHU 5.1.8/46–47). — SEP - David Hume - 5.3 Belief
For example, Aristotle's physics are terrible. He was wrong about many things. But he is also the author of deductive logic. — Ron Cram
A rational person would not request a proof. The request is irrational. — Ron Cram
Why is Hume not openly mocked in philosophy texts for saying "these are probably the ultimate causes and principles which we shall ever discover in nature?" — Ron Cram
The most perfect philosophy of the natural kind only staves off our ignorance a little longer — Hume
Do you see what nonsense this is? There is currently strong tension between the disciplines of science and philosophy at the university. This tension, I believe, is largely the result of Hume's followers being irrationally skeptical and anti-science — Ron Cram
..as perhaps the most perfect philosophy of the moral or metaphysical kind serves only to discover larger portions of [our ignorance] — Hume
I dare say, Athenians, that someone among you will reply, "Why is this, Socrates, and what is the origin of these accusations of you: for there must have been something strange which you have been doing? All this great fame and talk about you would never have arisen if you had been like other men: tell us, then, why this is, as we should be sorry to judge hastily of you." Now I regard this as a fair challenge, and I will endeavor to explain to you the origin of this name of "wise," and of this evil fame. Please to attend then. And although some of you may think I am joking, I declare that I will tell you the entire truth. Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess. If you ask me what kind of wisdom, I reply, such wisdom as is attainable by man, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I am wise; whereas the persons of whom I was speaking have a superhuman wisdom, which I may fail to describe, because I have it not myself; and he who says that I have, speaks falsely, and is taking away my character. And here, O men of Athens, I must beg you not to interrupt me, even if I seem to say something extravagant. For the word which I will speak is not mine. I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit, and will tell you about my wisdom - whether I have any, and of what sort - and that witness shall be the god of Delphi. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the exile of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether - as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt - he asked the oracle to tell him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself, but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of this story.
Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, "Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest." Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him. — Socrates/Plato
Philosophy will never progress out of its current darkness until Hume is seen as entirely refuted. — Ron Cram
You had such a vision of the street
As the street hardly understands — Eliot
I greatly like this statement. But I so far also don’t find anything in Hume that would at all contradict its stance. — javra
Causation is an abstract concept or reasoning and, as such, is not directly observable via the physiological senses. — javra
I agree that science has progressed, but I think you are missing the point. There's a tendency to explain things in terms of basic principles which themselves remain unexplained. Sometimes we find a more general theory or set of concepts that offer an explanation, but now this more general theory is true for no reason (or seems true enough for now for no reason.) — joshua
I find it implausible that 'Hume's followers' are anti-science. Instead I see Hume as a scientist's philosopher. I read him as anti-religious and anti-dogmatic. Consider the part you left out: — joshua
Yet he also sees that science has no deductive justification, which is fascinating. — joshua
Yet I think you agree that nobody needs an OCD proof of the external world. — joshua
I suspect that there are lots of people out there who don't make much noise (what's the point?) and yet take science for a useful best guess and philosophy as a bag of tricks that might be good for this or that situation. And as an amusing zoo of vivid personalities who think they've finally got it right. — joshua
Refute what? That induction is unjustified? They all joined him on this!Yes, it did freak out a bunch of philosophers and no one knew how to refute him. — Ron Cram
Irrational in what way? And why would a philosopher add to our knowledge all the time instead of just invalidating what we're accustomed to already? Skeptics do this and we take it for granted! And yes they are philosophers, just so you know.But Hume's idea was still completely irrational. He did not add to our philosophical knowledge because he was wrong and I can prove it. — Ron Cram
No you're not. But your teachers must have told you so.I think you are trying to draw too fine a distinction here. When you see motion, you are looking at kinetic energy. — Ron Cram
Science is much more than a "useful best guess" because it results in useful products and medicines that improve and lengthen our lives and also gives us new facts about which we can philosophize. — Ron Cram
Philosophy is important for a vast number of reasons, — Ron Cram
I would say that nobody needed a proof before Hume asked for one. Once people were stumped, the proof became necessary which is why I'm publishing one next year. — Ron Cram
Why do massive objects cause the spacetime continuum to warp? We don't know and so there is room for a deeper theory than Einstein's. — Ron Cram
Science doesn't need deductive justification. Let that sink in. — Ron Cram
Not true. We can and do observe causation. We observe the transfer of kinetic energy when one pool ball strikes another. We observe causation when we observe the flame consume the match. We observe causation when we observe a brick shatter a window. There is nearly an endless supply of these simple examples. — Ron Cram
Refute what? That induction is unjustified? They all joined him on this! — Caldwell
Offer the average person a proof that the world exists and they might think you are crazy. — joshua
For me the problems are X,Y, and Z, and no grand solution is apparent. I can offer trivialities like eat healthy food, don't waste your money on stupid sh*t, try not to need so much, seek employment that's fulfilling, blah blah blah. I think this is good advice for those who generally want to survive, but I see no master plan that makes that comfortable survival important to strangers. And I see no grand purpose for the species. And the problems I see in the world are (to me) manifestations of the opposed forces in my own 'soul', while for a different type of personality the world's problems are the result of a conspiracy of the bads, who of course are other-than the diagnostician. — joshua
And isn't it you who are concerned with a proof of the external world? A deductive enterprise which you claim is somehow needed? — joshua
I think you are missing something important here. It is conceivable that the brick will bounce off the window. Of course we don't expect that to happen, but we can't prove that because bricks usually smash through windows that they will always do so. — joshua
But the silent assumption is that nature is uniform, that the past determines the future. I know of no non-circular and therefore genuine proof of this. — joshua
The question I'm asking is specifically relating to Book 1 of Hume's Treatise. I've read it very closely and can find absolutely nothing of value in it. — Ron Cram
I wouldn't even say that about those philosophers I really can't stand. This is surely a personal problem for you, rather than a problem generally speaking. — S
But that doesn't change the fact that when we see a brick go through a window, we are observing the glass break the window. — Ron Cram
This is a very interesting topic. If you are interested, I will provide you with some book titles. — Ron Cram
The best we can say of a hypothesis is that up to now it has been able to show its worth, and that it has been more successful than other hypotheses although, in principle, it can never be justified, verified, or even shown to be probable. — Popper
Philosophy, at least originally, was about life. It was about gaining wisdom to live a better life, accomplish the right things, and be a good citizen. My philosophical interests are very much in this direction. In addition to being interested in philosophy of life, I'm also interested in epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science and philosophy of religion. I believe all of these areas of study can help me build a better philosophy of life. — Ron Cram
It is however conceivable that a normal brick would just pass through a normal window without damaging it. — joshua
From what you've written so far, I have the sense that you aren't seeing the strange problem of induction as I do. Yet this is one of the reasons Hume is great. — joshua
Thanks for the links, but I'd prefer to hear your thoughts on topic, or paraphrases from those sources. After all, I think Hume destroyed the metaphysical foundations of science. Or showed that science never had one. Which revealed that science never needed one, though it's natural for philosophers to step in and try to invent one. — joshua
I very much relate and agree.
For better or worse, though, I do think that existence as a whole is absurd. I think the times we live in are part of that. I imagine the philosophers from centuries who expected technology and the ideology of freedom to transform the world into a paradise. — joshua
Anyway, that leaves me with some blend of stoicism, epicureanism, cynicism, existenialism, humanism, etc., etc. Eat well, exercise, maybe buy some land and build a tiny house, work at something I believe in. Die well at a good moment if possible. Tho more likely by being run over by an Amazon Prime truck. — joshua
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.