/lit/ - Literature

>>17746478
t.

1) Cutting your dick and eating estrogens is a violation of the known laws of nature;
2) We know these laws through repeated and constant experience;
3) The testimony of those who report they are women contradicts the operation of known scientific laws;
4) Consequently no one can rationally believe in transgenderism

hehehe I see... so this is the power of hume

>>17746525
Fucking based

>>17746478
I mean tbf almost everybody in Hume's time believed in miracles. This was a fairly bold claim for him to make and led to a major shift in the European mindset. You get to think "wow this shit is obvious" now because he made it obvious a few hundred years ago

>>17746478
I like Hume but this is the worst thing he wrote.

>>17746478
Alright /lit/cels, explain to me why this fat bastard is such an important philosopher

>>17746584
He isn't. His philosophy initiated the downfall of western society.

>>17746612
based retard

>>17746612
surely that would make him pretty important

>>17746478
did he really write that and mean it? what an absolute brainlet

>>17746633
important: "of great significance or value"
his philosophy has 0 significance and 0 value.

>>17746612
Kys

>>17746823
cope more, faggot

Could it be that while Hume was busy living life through books, those living got to experience the unexplainable?

>>17746525
i kneel mr Hume

>>17746525
>1) Cutting your dick and eating estrogens is a violation of the known laws of nature;
If it was a violation of the laws of nature it could not physically occur dummy

“humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.”

>>17746644

He helped Husserl by providing him someone to contradict.

>>17746644
the anal rape of religion, Platonic/Aristotelian metaphysics and objective ethics isn't enough of an achievement for you?

>>17747055
No, it is a violation of the laws of Nature specifically in that it is a degeneration of the ability to reproduce and thus goes against the (ultimate) natural end of human sexuality.
When idiots tradcaths calls faggots degenerates it is technically an abuse of the term, as fags do not alter their ontological nature by being fags, gays can still and have reproduced. Homosexuality is ontologically a deviation, which isn't in itself *against the rules of Nature*, as there are plenty of ontological deviations which are obviously not evil (bread is a deviation of the grains, for example).
Transgenderism, however, is 100% against the rules of Nature and a degeneration of the natural end of sexual reproduction. There is no coming back from that one. You are just ripping your reproductive function out and fleshcrafting a poor imitation of the other sex, purely for egotistical reasons. "Degenerate" is 100% applicable and warranted here.

>>17746478
literally a circular argument

>>17747125
>No, it is a violation of the laws of Nature specifically in that it is a degeneration of the ability to reproduce and thus goes against the (ultimate) natural end of human sexuality.
Lmao, do you think that's what Hume means by "Laws of Nature"? What he is talking about in the OP is efficient causality, not teleology, which Hume considered a fiction.
>When idiots tradcaths calls faggots degenerates it is technically an abuse of the term, as fags do not alter their ontological nature by being fags, gays can still and have reproduced. Homosexuality is ontologically a deviation, which isn't in itself *against the rules of Nature*, as there are plenty of ontological deviations which are obviously not evil (bread is a deviation of the grains, for example).
Doesn't seem like you understand either Hume or Aristotle. The Tradcath argument is that homosexuality is a disorder because the final cause of sexual organs is reproduction.

>>17746584
He created empiricism (opposed to rationalism).
He is basically the father of modern science and analytical philosophy

>>17746478
What'sw wrong with this argument?
He basically said that empirical evidence is more trustworthy that random anecdotes

>>17747275
Because... BECAUSE FEDORAS OKAY?!

>>17747212
>Lmao, do you think that's what Hume means by "Laws of Nature"?
Lol, of course no, this is Thomism (or at least inspired by it).
>>17747212
>The Tradcath argument is that homosexuality is a disorder because the final cause of sexual organs is reproduction.
Sure, but there is a complete ontology to explain why that disorder is classified as a deviancy and not as a degeneracy. Homosexuality doesn't destroy the ability of the reproductive organs to reproduce, it just puts it on hold. It does however goes against the express wishes of God, and as such it is a sinful deviancy.

>>17747264
>He created empiricism
>He is basically the father of modern science
holy fuck you are uncultured

>>17747264
>who is Bacon
>who is Locke

>>17747275
Nobody says the contrary. But in order to prove "miracles" there is scientific research involved.

>>17747280
He also proved that humans do not posses inborn knowledge about the world (opposed to rationalists). All knowledge is acquired.

>>17747292
Well, I wouldn't call Bacon the forefather. Hume might have been the most important out of all empiricists

>>17747275
The argument is literally "I ain't seen it so it can't be true".

So the argument basically says that what we perceive through experience cannot be contradicted. Yet the repeated and constant experience of miracles and the paranormal through history contradicts our experience of the known laws of nature. So I can say that science is not to be believed as it contradicts our repeated constant experience of the paranormal :^)

>>17747079
What did he say about religion? Something along the OP? If so he had no idea about what religion is.

>>17747308
>>17747316
There is nothing with logical positivism. Quines arguments can be countered. You can go ahead and create new ones.

>>17747313
Not like someone before him went to strenuous efforts to prove those exact things

>>17747346
>Quines arguments can be countered
go ahead

>>17747356
I don't see your problem. Hume continued the work of Locke. Defended Lockes position. I think that Hume did a much better job than Locke.
Why do you seethe this much?

>>17747371
1."Except this one" - and there is nothing wrong with this response. Everyone has base assumptions. Dogmas, if you will.
2.External world is created by language. Everything is. So it's not really an argument. We live in an ideal (idealistic) world.

You are pushing logical consistency to much. It will lead to nothing. To emptiness.

>>17746478
How could an alleged empiricist even begin to presume to prescribe laws onto nature itself? At the very most he could say that a given phenomenon is outside the realm of human experience, and even that absolute would be ruled out by the very fact that some people claim to have experienced miracles and have no indication of being liars. If anything I can only presume that he only signals the virtue of being empirical in order to better sell his terrible headcanon.

>>17747288
>Lol, of course no, this is Thomism (or at least inspired by it).
That's right. So let's be clear that the anti-trans argument you are using is based on Aristotelian metaphysics (or something close to it), since Hume wouldn't accept it.
>Sure, but there is a complete ontology to explain why that disorder is classified as a deviancy and not as a degeneracy. Homosexuality doesn't destroy the ability of the reproductive organs to reproduce, it just puts it on hold. It does however goes against the express wishes of God, and as such it is a sinful deviancy.
That doesn't seem to me a good representation of the Thomist position. A homosexual act is sinful because it uses the sexual organs contrary to their natural ends. Sin doesn't require complete destruction of an organ.
Of course the problem here is what exactly it is meant by "using an organ contrary to its natural end". Does it mean using the organ for a different purpose than its natural end? Or it means preventing it from accomplishing its natural end by constantly using it to do other things? If it's the former, the acrobat is committing a sin when he walks with his hand, which is absurd. If it's the later, homosexual acts are not immoral as long as you do heterosexual sex occasionally. So in a sense I agree with you that their argument doesn't work even granting Final Causation, but it seems our reasons for thinking so are not the same.

>>17747478
Yes. He had language naivety. However, everyone did back then.
It's not really fair to argue like this. Modern philosophy undergraduate would shit on any philosopher in the past just by knowing rules of logic

>>17747522
>Modern philosophy undergraduate would shit on any philosopher in the past just by knowing rules of logic
you are completely deluded

>>17747534
Elaborate, If you care

>>17746478
Maybe I’m wrong but doesn’t be slightly contradict this with the problem of induction?

>>17747547
I don't really remember the context of OP's argument, but I think Hume was one of the creators of problem of induction. I don't remember how he treats it though.

>>17747542
explain why knowing modern logic instead of traditional logic would make you
>shit on any philosopher in the past
(in a debate I assume)

What about miracles that leave physical evidence behind, like the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe?

>>17747623
Wasn't the traditional logic very flawed? I don't think syllogisms make the cut.
It's wrong to generalise, but in the past people weren't even aware of their base assumptions and their language-naivety.
Besides, this student would also know the history of philosophy and past debates. He might have discussed these philosophers with his professor. He is taught to argue against them.

>>17746525
Daily reminder (latest comments are from a month ago.)

>>17746478
>miracles aren't real because they contradict firm laws of physics
>but causation isn't real

what did he mean by this?

>>17746525
>1) Cutting your dick and eating estrogens is a violation of the known laws of nature;
False. One is an object of simple mechanics and the other of biological chemistry.

>>17747125
>No, it is a violation of the laws of Nature specifically in that it is a degeneration of the ability to reproduce and thus goes against the (ultimate) natural end of human sexuality.
This is LITERALLY deriving an ought from an is. Retarded moralfaggotry like this is about as far away from Hume as one can get.

>>17746478
>MIRACLES. AREN'T REAL BECAUSE...THEY JUST AREN'T, OK?

>>17747673
>Wasn't the traditional logic very flawed?
no
>people weren't even aware of their base assumptions
i don't know what you are getting at. you mean justification? is been a thing since forever
>and their language-naivety.
you mean all the linguistic turn thing? it doesn't invalidate older philosophies

>>17747151
explain

>>17746478
If the existence of God is even possible, Hume's argument seems to fall away, as it is still possible that God acts on the world and produces miracles.

>>17746478
Hey faggot maybe nature doesn't reveal all her mysteries all the time u ever consider that
Maybe she just whips out miracles every 10 00 0000 0 000 years just to fuck with you ever think of that
The arrogance of man thinking he totally understands nature

>>17746478
Also nature isn't static bruh catch up

>>17746478
This is why not even scientists take philosophy of science very seriously. A miracle, it's implied, would violate the known laws of nature. As every law is not known, it can't be said a seemingly miraculous phenomena is strictly impossible. Plus, only certain phenomena are observed to obey natural law and only through experiment are our theories validated. It pisses me off that people think this is how science works, like it's some kind of alternative to religion

>>17748166
>we know the laws of nature can never be violated
>miracles are violations of the laws of nature
>therefore miracles are impossible

or
>miracles are impossible because miracles are impossible.

>>17749817
>This is why not even scientists take philosophy
Why do you say even as if even the top tier of scientists have the intellect to understand philosophy much less criticize it. Einstein read philosophy for decades and never had an original thought. The same with Newton. Darwin read history, philosophy, ethics, he couldn't add a thing.

>>17747718
Well you could say that certain things follow other things and that constitutes the natural law. Which just pushes the skepticism back by one tier, but that's Hume for you, he was never deep.

>>17746478
ask a physicist how they know physical laws remain constant across both time and space :^)

>>17746612
Yes.
>>17746622
>>17746633
>>17746823
Pseud.

>>17749946
Philosophers unironically don't have the intellect to understand science. I'd be interested to know what you consider an "original thought."

>>17746478
All it takes to expose how much of a pseud you are is a simple reversal of your syllogism

1. Laws of nature exist, i.e the principle of uniformity is true
2. Therefore a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past
4. A miracle implies the falsification of the principle of uniformity, namely, that what nature operates the same everywhere
5. Therefore no one can rationally believe in miracles.

This is basically just saying if A, then not B. Therefore B is false. Any member of a category, (a phenomenon) must conform to the rule of the category (the laws of nature).

>>17749984
>Philosophers unironically don't have the intellect to understand science
Descartes, Leibniz, Bacon, Barrow, I can name plenty. Descartes may be one of the greatest men who ever lived, in both fields.

An original thought is a new development that has been taken before. It doesn't have to be major. It could be minor. But so far I have never seen one from a person who is primarily a scientist.

>>17750036
>Laws of nature exist, i.e the principle of uniformity is true
>2. Therefore a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past
This is still nonsense since it assumes a miracle must violate these facts fundamentally. A sufficiently advanced society could violate certain laws of weather, not by suspending but by using the laws of physics.
So it still comes down to:
>things have always happened like this
>therefore they always will under all circumstances
stupid argument

>>17750062
>This is still nonsense since it assumes a miracle must violate these facts fundamentally.
So therefore a there is no such thing as a single true natural law? You do not have to have complete knowlege of natural laws to no that if gravity is true, inertial masses will always move towards the largest local mass in space, rather than away from it unless there is a force acting against the force of gravity.

>stupid argument
It is the laws of nature that the principle of uniformity claims are true and invariant, not specific events. In fact, the certainty that we can rely on the laws of nature is the only case in which induction is valid. Have you actually read Hume? He was the one who pointed out the problem of induction.

>>17749931
Not a circular argument, it's transitive property. It's a completely valid argument.
Of course, you could argue the axioms it started with is false, but it's still valid nonetheless.

>>17750044
I misspoke. I meant philosophy majors generally can't read texts of hard science, while science majors usually are able to understand whatever philosophy they read. Speaking from personal experience. Obviously with top writers there's overlap, due to the existence of polymaths.

If you can't see original developments from scientists you aren't looking. Every scientific advancement represents an original idea/development. Example: the positron. If science seems slower on original ideas it's because the process is more rigorous, so a lot of thinking is discarded

>>17750090
>So therefore a there is no such thing as a single true natural law?
It depends what you mean by that. The son will rise tomorrow, provided an agency above it doesn't change the course of the planets.
>>17750111
>miracles (events violating the laws of nature) are impossible
>therefore miracles are impossible
great argument

>>17750156
>It depends what you mean by that. The son will rise tomorrow, provided an agency above it doesn't change the course of the planets.
Anything that can happen must conform to the laws of nature. Therefore anything perceived to be a miracle must instead be the product of a convergence of natural laws, and it is therefore only out of ignorance that we consider it a miracle--that is, having supernatural causes. You're essentially making an argument from ignorance.

>>17750156
>great argument
Anything that must happen must be consistent with the laws of nature. Until you can show me how to levitate against gravity without exhibiting a force greater than the force of gravity, I will continue to disbelieve that Jesus can walk on water. Unless he did so with rocket boots, but he'd probably go zig zagging all over the place if that was the case.

The simple fact is that the believe in natural law has overwhelmingly abundant examples in support of it. They are everywhere you look. The believer in miracles has only hearsay.

>>17750190
>Anything that can happen must conform to the laws of nature. Therefore anything perceived to be a miracle must instead be the product of a convergence of natural laws,
At that point we just extend the laws of nature to the point where they can hardly be called laws. We're just circling around the same point and I think at bottom we agree. But Hume is arguing against practical miracles, not against whether or not truly fundamental laws can be violated.

>>17746478
jeez remember when you could make philosophy like this. gosh. imagine living during those times as a well off person.

>>17750156
But that's not Hume's argument.

>Consistent laws of nature and miracles cannot coexist
>The laws of nature have shown to be consistent
>Therefore miracles don't exist

He's arguing in favor of a consistent set of rules the world works in, as opposed to one where outcomes are unpredictable, using the consistency of science as evidence.

>>17750190
>The simple fact is that the believe in natural law has overwhelmingly abundant examples in support of it. They are everywhere you look. The believer in miracles has only hearsay.
Unless he himself has witnessed one, then he has something else. But otherwise you come under this criticism, that you cannot prove your position: there is no good reason to believe what you have not seen. That is a pretty weak argument and ends in nothing but an appeal to common sense. But then you'd have to shut yourself into a box of narrowness, because even the historian has to believe a million improbabilities which he has never seen. He weighs the evidence to decide which he should believe.

>>17750249
>Consistent laws of nature and miracles cannot coexist
Which is already flawed and borderline circular. His argument is essentially: I have never observed these things to happen, therefore they are impossible. That is the practical effect. All this stuff about consistency just ends in an appeal to common sense, because purely logically there's no reason why something must always be a certain way. Also, he defines everything he sees as a law of nature and every exception is therefore a violation. I'm sure a primitive seeing a man in a hovercraft would think it a violation. But the man in the craft knows that the laws are more fundamental than that.

>>17750226
I mean at some point this becomes a play of language. What is a miracle? It is that which has supernatural causes. What is a natural cause? You can't go looking to Hume for answers on this because he was skeptical of the idea of causality, pointing out that causality itself is not an object among objects. The same can be said of natural laws. They have no agency. They cannot be "found" out there. They are inferred from the fact that things have always behaved in certain ways under certain conditions and we build our world around this.

The difference is that we can specify formulas for natural laws, they are intelligible, and we can recreate an event by applying these principles. Miracles cannot be formalized. And they are by definition rarities. There is no rule by which to bring them about, and if there was, we'd consider it a natural phenomenon.

It really goes back to Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason. Everything that happens has a rational explanation. Miracles do not, so there is more reason to doubt them than phenomena that can be derived by the application of a rule.

>>17750255
>that you cannot prove your position:
Neither can you :^) But I can point to everything that happens all the time as supporting evidence while you have none. What is probable is more certain to be true than what is improbable.

>>17750314
>>17750314
>And they are by definition rarities. There is no rule by which to bring them about, and if there was, we'd consider it a natural phenomenon.
You mean there is no rule by which WE can bring them about. But that does not mean they have no law or reason to them.

And that last argument doesn't follow, that you must disbelieve something because it is rare and because you don't understand it, is what it amounts to. Not much more than that. It really ends in a silly position: I use my hoverboard to visit some semi-civilized people, they marvel, they doubt their own senses because they have not witnessed this before. It is difficult to argue that repeated experience somehow defeats a direct experience not repeated.

>>17747125
Doesn't that fact that homosexuality occurs in animals suggest that its not a deviation of nature, as its been happening since before humans were humans?

>>17750333
>Neither can you :^)
I'm not attempting to just now. I'm attempting to discuss whether or not it is possible. You don't look at the proof because you think it is impossible, but you cannot prove it is. Your argument comes to this absurdity: nothing rare is to be believed.

>>17750356
There's a pretty easy solution to that in that animals operate on pure instinct. They can't murder, steal, etc, they are beholden to impulse.

I haven't read Hume that much, but how does his critique of miracles square with his critique of nature's uniformity? According to that, the premise 2) should be evidently false: we don't know these laws, nor repeated and costant experience will ever be enough to know them (since at best they can ground an inductive inference).

>>17748115
kek

A miracle by definition is a state of exception to natural laws yes. Saying a miracle goes against natural laws is just pointing out that it's a miracle. That's the point. Whether or not miracles are possible would depend on God

>>17751288
The definition itself doesn't prove that miracles happen. I think Hume's point is that never justified in thinking that we have witnessed a miracle, exactly because that's the definition of "miracle"

>>17751048

Yes. Previously:

>>>/lit/thread/S14766341#p14768492
>According to Hume, "knowing the laws" by repeated and constant experience is precisely what one CANNOT do. He rebukes himself when taken for his word, like all empirishitters. Regardless, even if one could "know a law", there is nothing to say that said law was THE law, not even when appealing to the Ideal, but when one is truly Empirical. Imagine a check valve with the "known law" and the Phenomena is pertains to in the receiving side, and laws and Phenomena unknown and unknowable in the giving side. Claiming the latter can be known through the former is anathema to Hume, as is claiming the former is sufficient to make such statements on the "plausibility of miracles". As retarded as he is conceited. I hate Anglos.

>>17746478
>so this is the power of [ANGLOID SOPHISTRY].... wow!

>>17746478
anglos are bugs