Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.16553864 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16553864

Gentlemen, my disappointment knows no bounds.

>> No.16448509 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16448509

*blowns the fuck out all morality laws*

>> No.16337935 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16337935

How do you deal with people that, when arguing for what would be better in society, just continually employ the is/ought dichotomy? What about when they give examples of other cultures or peoples who used different moral standards than our own?

>> No.16220796 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, 17542756423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16220796

>causes

>> No.16070379 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16070379

>>16070130
Probability like causality is not an a priori category, Hume (pbuh) refuted the Monty Hall paradox

>> No.15767213 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15767213

>>15765713
Anything can be morally justified, given that morality is inherently arbitrary.

>> No.15635125 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15635125

>>15632711

>> No.15629378 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15629378

How do ethical philosophers explain their ought statements?

>> No.15627386 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15627386

>>15624922
Because Cucksley, like the majority of westerners are made to pursue "meaning" and other non-scientific, spooky nonsense due to implicit Christfag moralfaggotry. Free drugs that make you coom all the time is the peak of human existence.

>> No.15568214 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15568214

>>15568126
>Ted doesn't touch on this topic at all. Is he actually just a midwit reactionary that shouldn't be taken too seriously?
Absolutely. His writings are entirely fallacious, moralizing nonsense that seems to stem entirely from his individual neuroses and emotional fragility. He should try reading Hume some time.

>> No.15567069 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15567069

>implying implications

>> No.15415782 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15415782

>>15415577
Science doesn't explain anything, while philosophy does.

>> No.15401318 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15401318

>The final compound passion is "the amorous passion", i.e. romantic love. It consists of three distinct passions: a sense of beauty, libido, and kindness. These three passions are bound together both by "resemblance" (all have a pleasant sensation) and by "a parallel desire" (all have related motivational tendencies).
>Accordingly, any one of them can end up producing the other two, with beauty most likely to produce the other two (kindness and libido being "too remote" from each other, and beauty "plac'd in a just medium betwixt them").

TL;DR if you didn't win the genetic lottery you're fucked and you will never find love. When even the pseuds you're reading are aware you're a genetic abomination you know it's officially over.

>> No.15394051 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15394051

>we have no conception of self because our only sense of self is fictional and based on biased associations
Holy shit...

>> No.15385823 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15385823

>extra
>it's miles
>gadgets
>a ardour
>super distinction
an easy writer he was, I'm racking my brains to make sense out of the shit he wrote, but I always end up reading the summary of his epistemological argument on wikipedia because he's such a fucking awful english writer. I hope his ethics will be smoother than the first sections of his work, and I'm saying this as someone who managed to understand more or less the neoplatonists.

>> No.15054792 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, 61589916-80F1-4B41-88F2-CE8487A68026.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15054792

Why hasn’t been there no great Anglo philosophers after him? What happened to Anglo s?

>> No.15025010 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, F3CAE4D5-C47A-431D-B9D9-D7041F9BAD7B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15025010

Why does this guy receive an immense amount of hate from people here?

>> No.14954249 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14954249

If what Hume said is right, causality cannot be logically proved.

Therefore, science, based on causality, is a worthless and unreliable source of information.

Therefore, logic and rationality is self-defeating. A system that relies on logic can't produce anything meaningful.

Therefore, philosophy is worthless.

Only systems of belief that reject logic for emotion, such as superstition (religion) or hedonism (political-economy) can offer us any valuable insight into the world.

>> No.14922945 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14922945

>>14920288
Almost as if it's just made up nonsense by a people so lacking in cleverness, that they have yet to discover in-door plumbing and thus continue to shit in the street.

>> No.14519203 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14519203

>>14519173
Arguably the most based Chad in the history of Western thought?

>> No.14504307 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, corpulant and cringe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14504307

>>14504222
>>Be me
>>Hume
>>Oppose subjugating passions to reason
>>Become obese

>> No.13642096 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13642096

Explain why it isn't the rightful job of every modern philosopher who touches on a topic Hume did to merely build on the foundations he left behind rather than try and diverge. That is to say, try to point out something in philosophy he wasn't fundamentally correct about.

>> No.13617389 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, Hume2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13617389

If I had to define based, that would be him

>> No.13436966 [View]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, Hume2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13436966

>>13435111
he was retroactively btfo



Navigation
View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]