/lit/ - Literature

you made this up, only those who got filtered (most of this board) shit on plato
most of this board is between praise and scorn for nietzsche (isnt a philosopher to begin with)
and no one gives a rats ass about hume (correctly)

David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

>>23274154
So you do admit that anons shit on Plato and Nietzsche. Hume has been posted here wuite a few times but never shat on.

The final boss of philosophy who made hegel seethe and kant wake up, the bane of scientists and moral fags. We have never recovered from the problem of induction and the is-ought gap.

>>23274171
>scientists and moral fags
How? Wasn't he a sceptic?

>>23274154
>>23274146
how do you get filtered by Plato

>>23274174
He was skeptical of induction, yeah

>>23274146
>A Treatise of Human Nature
>An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

>>23274163
thats because he is boring.

He refuted cucks
>Whoever considers the length and feebleness of human infancy, with the concern which both sexes naturally have for their offspring, will easily perceive, that there must be an union of male and female for the education of the young, and that this union must be of considerable duration. But in order to induce the men to impose on themselves this restraint, and undergo chearfully all the fatigues and expences, to which it subjects them, they must believe, that the children are their own, and that their natural instinct is not directed to a wrong object, when they give a loose to love and tenderness. Now if we examine the structure of the human body, we shall find, that this security is very difficult to be attained on our part; and that since, in the copulation of the sexes, the principle of generation goes from the man to the woman, an error may easily take place on the side of the former, though it be utterly impossible with regard to the latter. From this trivial and anatomical observation is derived that vast difference betwixt the education and duties of the two sexes.

>>23274184
Don't read Plato (or any of the ancient greek philosophers) like an academician

Post what books of Hume's to start with, and its prerequisites?

>>23274211
but even 10 year olds can understand plato

>>23274208
So what does he suggest a man should do?

>>23274146
Hegel BTFOs him in the Preface to the PoS though

>>23274692
you're retarded
>>23274146
just start reading OP, Hume isn't meant to be shat on, he's a thinker who you read and accept as being unassailable and then you move on from because you can't live your life purely navigating from empirical truths. also, he was far more enlightened than most philosophers because he allowed himself to enjoy his life and not live in despair. the ultimate message of hume is not to get lost in the sauce even if the sauce is unfalsifiable

>>23274731
Which book of his to start with?

>>23274299
>>23274759

>>23274200

>>23274200
>>23274763
Thanks.

>>23274146
stole from the buddhists. read nagarjuna

>>23274731
Sick argument bro

>>23275059
Did he actually read them?

>>23274692
Lmao why did you abandon the thread where i ask you to elaborate how hegel btfos him?

When you are reading Nietzsche you are reading Hume made safe for a modern audience.

problem of induction has yet to and will never be solved

>>23276524
>problem of induction
Will I a nobel prize or a fields medal if I solve it?

>>23276094
I'm the anon who you were arguing with last week in the Schopenhauer thread, the anon you're responding to is a different one. Btw, it's more than a little disingenuous to pretend I backed out of the thread when I told you exactly where Hegel addresses Hume's problem of induction (not the Preface, like the other anon said, but ch. 1 of PoS), but you like taking philosophers like Schopenhauer on faith instead of checking their work. God forbid you look up and read any chapter at all of Hegel, even a relatively short one, to see what the argument in full is.

>>23274146
Kant raped him to death in critique of pure reason.

>>23276957
I replied to you but you never got back, how is that disingenuous? If you are not willing to defend your arguments, how do you expect to have a discussion? Telling me to read hegel does not mean anything, its just a diversion to escape from the fact that you don't want to defend him.

>>23276976
My last reply in that thread:

>>/lit/thread/23255403#p23259362

Nothing else that followed demanded a reply, ergo, you're being disingenuous. And that whole back and forth started because I addressed your basic claim, that Hegel never dealt with the problem of induction. That I'm hesitant to commit to trying to summarize eight pages of dense argument is evidence to you that either Hegel doesn't address the problem, or that I don't know what I'm talking about. I didn't even anywhere proclaim the truth of Hegel's arguments (because I'm not a Hegelian), but bare probity has apparently no place in "discussions" where the purpose is to argue about Hume and Hegel as if they were Sony and Microsoft, and admiration has to exclusively be for one or the other. But there's nothing stopping you from shutting up and just reading the fucking books.

>>23274171
>>23276524
Pragmatism’s epistemological stance makes induction no longer a problem. Also there is the ordinary language response that I don’t think too easy to dismiss.

>>23276963
Lol, Kant failed to answer Hume, so much so that post-Kantians literally used Hume to show how Kantian philosophy can be weak.

>>23277016
I asked you how hegel solved the problem of induction and you never answered, that was the original contention not whether hegel responds to anything. Our initial disagreement stemmed from my assumption that hegel's philosophy of change and becoming was ultimately futile because it was subject to hume's skepticisms. If you can't show how this assumption is contradictory without telling me to read hume then you don't understand him as well as you think. When i tell you that a square has 5 sides, will you refer me to euclid or proceed to show how my proposition is wrong?

>>23277016
I asked you how hegel solved the problem of induction and you never answered, that was the original contention not whether hegel responds to anything. Our initial disagreement stemmed from my assumption that hegel's philosophy of change and becoming was ultimately futile because it was subject to hume's skepticisms. If you can't show how this assumption is contradictory without telling me to read hegel then you don't understand him as well as you think. When i tell you that a square has 5 sides, will you refer me to euclid or proceed to show how my proposition is wrong?

>>23277019
>Pragmatism’s epistemological stance makes induction no longer a problem. Also there is the ordinary language response that I don’t think too easy to dismiss.
how?

>>23277054
By questioning the epistemological presupposition of a correspondence theory of justification and truth

How I Solved Hume’s Problem
https://philosophynow.org/issues/119/How_I_Solved_Humes_Problem_and_Why_Nobody_Will_Believe_Me

>>23277088
So you are questioning whether the knowledge that the sun rising tomorrow needs to be justified? How can you be said to know that without justification?

>>23274146
You're misunderstanding. They simply haven't read him, lol.

>>23277466
The questioning is a questioning of the need of justification that presupposes a specific epistemological commitment concering truth, that it must needs be as certain as a priori truth and that these were not derived from experience as well, just like truth is an abstraction of instantiated truths. Hume was an idealist (the Kantian dualism of understanding and sensibility is already found in him).

>>23277470
I doubt these people have read about the philosophers they shit on.

>>23277501
Deduction will not tell you whether the sun rises tomorrow, so how exactly is induction's search for truth questionable here, also your english is not very clear.

>>23277565
>so how exactly is induction's search for truth questionable here
That's the point, for the pragmatist induction does not presuppose the same conception of truth and justification that Hume's appealing to, which is a Cartesian conception of strong justification, its justification is grounded on the effects of believing in induction.

>>23274146
He got most things right. The only issue I have is his argument against miracles, and even then, that could just be me getting filtered.

This thread reads just like fantasy fags fighting about what author has the best world-building.

>>23277663
>argument against miracles
What's your problem with it?

>>23277674
>Vague critical statement without an argument, so that no one chance to refute him.
I wonder what this is called.

>>23277627
That's the whole problem of induction, its justification is circular, it has no other 'justification'

>>23277705
Hume's argument for the problem of induction is that inductive reasoning has not the same strength of justification as a priori reasoning, that event B does not follow necessarily event A, as grounded on logical principles. Pragmatism is not postulating a circular justification, but a different epistemological stance.

>>23277766
And i keep asking you what is epistemological if there's no justification? The justification that the sun rises tomorrow is what produces knowledge ergo epistemology. What is this new stance that you speak of that doesn't admit justification?

>>23277678
A lot of it seems to be question begging to me. Also his criteria for a sufficient testimony is subjective.

>>23274146
What is his biggest contributuon to philosophy besides the Is–ought problem?

>>23277875
The problem of induction

>>23277801
I didn’t say there is no justification, see >>23277627, the justification just deviates from the classical epistemological stance of demanding a strong justification in a Cartesian fashion.

>>23277801
his argument is circular and an answer better suited to a question of what we should do since the problem of induction cannot be solved

>>23277944
How is that circular?

Halfway through Enquiry on Human Understanding. How can one man be so correct about everything he discusses?

>>23277674
The ironic part is Hume would despise a lot of this bullshit, even a good portion of what's argued in his favor. EHU is short and elegant and very no-nonsense.

>>23274184
You take the dumb shit he says literally and as if he's claiming absolute certainty.

Only consistent atheist.
>>23277674
>faggot materialist detected
go back

Reminder that for Hume there is nothing behind the senses perceived, there is no matter in itself, no concept or form in itself, no-thing in itself.

>>23278350
>modern scientific models are purely mathematical, say matter can't be described as simple particles
>tardterialists still playing with billiard balls while pretending to be empiricists
Prove him wrong, fag.

>>23278379
Scientific models are based on empirically collected data and only have value after being experimentally tested

>>tardterialists still playing with billiard balls while pretending to be empiricists
nonsensical strawmen

>>23278420
No reason reality can't be sensory experience behaving in accordance with some mathematical model. There's no actual need to claim an alternate universe that behaves according to the same model, then creates conscious experience via magic.

>>23278379
>>23278440
>the map is the territory

>>23274146
He's a vikang in his direct paternal line which connects him to the royal families of Europe, Iceland and Trump.
Inventing trains is admirable, worshiping them is gay.

>>23278379
are you saying modern science vindicates Berkeley? lol

>>23277886
What is that stance? You never seem to want to demonstrate or describe it?

>>23274146
Hume shitposted himself and BTFO'd his own argument. He is a very interesting and productive person to read though.

>>23279468
Isn't idea of missing shade of blue formed due to impression from other shades of blue? Why would it refute the argument?

>>23278897
There's no need to vindicate Berkeley because Berkeley has never been refuted and can never be refuted, which caused men like Johnson to throw a tantrum. Also, I don't think anon is referencing Berkeleyan immaterialism.

>>23280013
Yeah, I don’t think Berkeley’s hypothesis is absurd, I regard it as possible, why not? And yeah I think the hypothesis of atomistic materialism perhaps not so tenable. But phenomenalism has its downsides as well. The anon’s appeal to mathematical models as grounding sense experience is literally going in the direction of a Berkeleyan immaterialism, is it what modern science suggests too? I’d say they don’t make such a decided claim.

>>23279458
I literally said here >>23277627, it is justified if it works and has effects.

>>23280053
I don't understand that cryptic statement mate. You hardly make any sense as your argument gets lost in descriptions of pragmatism and stances and justifications. I asked you a simple question of what the stance is and you keep talking about justifications, i ask about justification, you talk about stances??? Can you explain it like you are talking to a 10 yr old?

>>23277050
Hegelfags are always like this. They go on about how Hegel is supreme, but they can never summarize any of his points or explain how anything he claims has positive meaning or actually solves any specific problem. They appeal to the influence he has on other thinkers afterwards, but can't outline any actually meaningful points for shit, and each seem to have their own idea in their own head of what the real significance of his work is.

It's bizarre, because I really wanted to appreciate Hegel and looked forward to diving deep into his ideas, but every attempt at seriously engaging with his work has resulted in having piles of barely motivated abstractions shoved in my face without clear justification. It's a strange and disappointing experience, because it's unlike what I get from any other renowned philosopher, where, even if I disagree with them, they at least seem to be honestly trying to convey specific ideas convincingly, even 'tough ones' like Kant and Heidegger can at least seem to explain why they are trying to get at, and lay down the core of their aims, but Hegel seems to barely attempt such a thing and is quick to assume that he is justified and that he simply needs dismiss other ways of approaching the things he's talking about.

>>23280092
When I say that pragmatism diverges from the classical epistemological stance, I’m saying that it doesn’t try to appeal to that specific notion of truth and justification, which try to claim an agreement with a reality in itself and that has a justification as strong as a logical tautology. So in the case of induction, of course Hume’s dilemma is right, taking into account this classical epistemology, there is nothing in an inductive premise that NECESSARILY, a priori, binds an inductive conclusion. We can’t know its conclusion without looking into it, by merely analyzing that first premise. Now for Pragmatism those two elements form knowledge only if we understand by knowledge a justified belief that is expedient for dealing with experience, with its parts and as a whole.
Perice: “reality is independent, not necessarily of thought in general, but only of what any finite number of persons may think about it”, induction works and has effects, this is its universal claim, and this is why Kant is wrong in attributing its universality to a intersubjective category of undersanting, instead of its effects universally recognized.

>>23280196
Horseshit, you and the bullshitter anon would prefer Hegel be summarized in an edifying way with conclusions laid out so you don't have to follow the arguments, an approach that Hegel spends the preface of the Phenomenology shitting on as unphilosophical. That his work is making the legitimate effort to seek proper grounds can be observed in the fact that he abandoned three systems before writing the Phenomenology as being ground in too many presuppositions. And again, I'm not even a Hegelian, but intellectual probity doesn't matter to people who want to argue about philosophers like they're sports teams to root for. There are plenty of handholding books for Hegel's work, like the sentence by sentence commentary of the Phenomenology by H.S. Harris, but you and the other faggot would rather sit and bitch about a philosopher you don't want to put any effort into, whining about "what does in-itself and for-itself even mean?!" as if Plato never used such expressions.

>>23274146
That's some hat...
"Where did he get that hat..?"

>>23274146>>23277535I'm a literacy fan and even I hate this guy...>>23277813
He can provide no testimony in the eyes of god

>>23280032
As far as I know scientists don't make any claim about an underlying physical model of the universe that explains the data because no one can think of one. They just gave up and started pointing at math.

>>23280547
That’s why I referenced Berkeley since he also finds preposterous the claim that behind sense experience there are primary physical elements. And obviously he would agree that these primary causes of sense experience are caused by God, who is intelligent and thus mathematical formulae as the underlying layer would be tenable in Berkeleyan philosophy.

>>23279252
>You can show the problem of induction is a problem using deduction. It therefore can't be self refuting when it relies on deductive logic.

>And if you mean that you can't use experience-gained through induction, to show there is a problem with induction, that's is exactly what hume's problem of induction is about lmao. So how is this a refutation and not an affirmation? It seems like you are the one who needs to understand hume first.

No, if Hume wants to argue about induction, he has to have already inducted a host of concepts, such that he can speak about sense-perception, memory, etc. Strictly, by his position, he shouldn't be able to say anything but a series of "this"s and "now"s and "here"s, and even deduction shouldn't work, since it's taught externally and so just as subject to being a mere custom. Ergo, his position should spin in place instead of result in the Treatise of Human Nature or Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. That Hume settles for what's probable instead of spinning out into radical solipsism or relativism is what opens him to Hegel's critique, since what's probable has to admit to certain presuppositions about what Being is such that there's even relative stabilities in things.

>>23280231
What the fuck are you even saying? FIrst you reply to my post about pragmatism solving induction, whatever that means, then you say here that hume's dilemma is right using again cryptic language that seems to say nothing meaningful. Do you even understand what you are talking about or are you just quoting someone else?

>>23280374
Yet another empty reference to hegel saying absolutely nothing of value, why am i not surprised that you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>23280647
This reply is a verbatim quote in the other thread, to the greentext you included, it doesn't say anything new or lend any insights into your contention about hume's induction. Can you give a solid example using the sun rising, or some other empirical observation the way hume did or are you just going to keep quoting hegel and stances and justifications without saying anything meaningful to anyone.

>>23280950
I didn’t say Pragmatism solved the problem of induction, but that it ceases to be a problem in pragmatistic epistemology. I’m really tired of correcting your distortions of every post of mine. I literally gave you the condition in which Hume is right and the other condition in which induction is no longer a problem as constrained by former conditions. How is my explanation of why Hume is right “cryptic”? Have you even read Hume?

>>23280980
You keep making that claim but haven't shown anything to the effect. I ask you for a simple example and you never show any, just prattling on about justifications and stances. Can you give an example how this works or will you just write another 500 word essay about stances and justifications? Remember you replied to me, so the burden of proof is on you, you shouldn't complain when someone questions your claims.

>>23279686
Because the missing shade of blue is not in the senses before being in mind, the mind does the mixing and creates the shade the senses missed, one of the many faculties of the creative imagination. Leibniz BTFO'd empiricism more throughly with the simple:
>"There is nothing in the mind which was not first in the senses," except for the mind itself.
But the missing blue shade argument against empircism is Hume's own, and an example of him being an honest and interesting skeptic willing to be skeptical about his own positions.

>>23280545
Hume is an excellent literary critic and would be worth reading for his essays on taste alone if he'd written nothing else.

>>23277684
Appeal to search within oneself, if that is what it seems to be. The appeal to search within oneself is an attempt to nudge the other party into insight into its own actions and its consequences. It's a parenting and teaching technique, and because it's very confusing, it can take years for the party to gain the insight. It borders on psychological torture because when thinking and pondering and 'philosophizing', problems can take two decades to resolve. This technique has been used on me and I'm all the happier for it, 'because it's given me something to think about'. It's a bit extreme in terms of the New Testament's 'Do unto others what you would want that they do unto you', but it's doubles as a way to learn not to overthink and engage in action where needed and wanted. The process behind that usually comes down to thinking 'God why?' and then it's a case of paradigm survival, realizing I can never answer that, I have to search for a reason, which in every environment there are many of. Most often my quibbles with the environment are really an effect of me not adapting or distractions from the tadk at hand. In the realm of ideas it might have to do with not enough idea input, sustenance, or the availability of and me applying myself towards to an expressive outlet. The appeal to search within oneself leads to me expressing, to which there'll be a reaction, leading me to search and the other party receiving its period of rest, and when I have completed the inner quest, I express again or become active. To allow for periods of rest is essential in peace of mind, and that idea comes from... being appealed to to search within myself. Related terms: 'Thinking about what I did wrong', 'Taking five', 'Action, reaction', 'Thinking my way out of it'. It's probably the 'death & rebirth' part in the hero's journey cycle, because every time I go through that process, I 'die a bit inside' or forget something or something, but then emerge out of the battle with more well-cooked pancakes than I expected at the beginning. It's akin to 'process art'.

>>23280196
That reads like the call to adventure to travel to where-ever the manuscripts of Hume are stored and gain permission to read them, read them, and come back with insights.

>>23280231
Have you tried cooking on an induction range yet? I find it different from gas and electric ranges, but the pancakes I made today are very real. It took some time adjusting and the correct pans and batter, but on the second time trying I was able to make some - I think good - pancakes, which are now tucked into a refridgirator in a community centre. Are the pancakes real? I don't know, I was wearing gloves to prevent tobacco sweat from touching the pancakes so I haven't touched them, but I saw them, worked for them, heard the sizzling of the fat in the pan. I can with confidence say that induction ranges work, even though I am not an expert on cooking with them, nor at cleaning them.

>>23281090
Sametyper here. Character limit.

...but to be honest, I spent some time writing while I should have spent more time cleaning the indiction cooking range after use, so that's me being distracted and adhering too much to a coffee-and-cigs-indulgent faux bohémian art style idealization.

>>23281039
You didn’t ask me for an example. Show me in any of your previous posts. Then I will give you an example.
>when someone questions your claims
You are not only questioning, you are literally distorting what I say.

>>23281062
Different anon, but would you say that a unicorn refutes empiricism? What does imagination mean in order to be something proving empiricism wrong? Hume says:
>It is evident that there is a principle of connexion between the different thoughts or ideas of the mind, and that, in their appearance to the memory or imagination, they introduce each other with a certain degree of method and regularity. In our more serious thinking or discourse this is so observable that any particular thought, which breaks in upon the regular tract or chain of ideas, is immediately remarked and rejected. And even in our wildest and most wandering reveries, nay in our very dreams, we shall find, if we reflect, that the imagination ran not altogether at adventures, but that there was still a connexion upheld among the different ideas, which succeeded each other.

Also, Leibniz is interesting but do we know what the mind is? His dualism of mind and sense is a problem too for we cannot know how monads become sense experiences.

Here's a simple challenge to you faggots who think the problem of induction has been solved by pragmatism or hegel or whatever other charlatan faggot you claim to know. How does your solution rescue us from this circular argument?

If the sun rose today, then it will rise tomorrow
Today, the sun rose because yesterday, we made the assumption that it will rise today.


Come now faggots rescue us from this and convince us how to otherwise gain any knowledge. And please don't type any retarded 1000 word references to hegel or any other fag, use your own reasoning.

>>23281227
I ask to demonstrate, explain like a 10 yr old, several times, you must be either retarded if you don't understand what that means, or your english comprehension is just very bad.

>>23274200
Based
I got these three so far

>>23274146
Why this nigga wearing a pink shower cap?

>>23281378
Yes, you asked and I explained everything I had said, this time in a more detailed way. But you still can't understand because you may have the intellect power of a literal 10 year old or you must be retarded. You don't even understand Hume, for I explained how Hume framed the problem of induction and you kept mistaking it for something completely unrelated.

>>23281371
In practice there's no problem, I know models are made up no matter how well they appear to predict things. It's only a problem if we want to present a model as divinely revealed truth.
>Today, the sun rose because yesterday, we made the assumption that it will rise today.
It didn't rise because of our assumptions.
>If the sun rose today, then it will rise tomorrow
The sun rising today doesn't cause it to rise tomorrow.
Observing how the sun behaves today is our only clue for how it might behave tomorrow so we build models resting on the assumption that it does until we have reason to believe otherwise.
>how to gain knowledge
We can't, it's all poisoned. We can't know if a demon made the world up with all its history 5 seconds ago and will make it disappear again in another 5. We can only crudely attempt to navigate our apparent surroundings by fumbling around in the dark.

>>23281590
This is supported by the theory of evolution. Our beliefs are like mutations that may or may not be advantageous. Time decides if those beliefs last. All beliefs require some degree of faith, especially those most recently acquired.

>>23274146
Refuted by kant so hard, he only exists for him to get btfo'd by Kant

>>23282216
Give one specific example of Kant refuted Hume. You literally can’t. You will just say “read 500 pages bro.” Even if you can’t explain the whole argument, you should be able to summarize Hume’s argument and Kant’s refutation.

>>23281371
Induction is perfectly straightforward.

Principle: If the sun rose yesterday, the sun will rise today.
Fact: The sun rose yesterday
Conclusion: The sun will rise today, and the day after that, and the day after that, and so on.

Naturally, you can critique it by attacking either the principle or the fact. However, neither case should suffer from any circularity because induction is perfectly linear.

>>23282218
NTA.

7 + 5 = 12

The brain is able to come to this conclusion without the use of sense experience. This simple example displays the brain's ability to form connections between individual concepts a priori, disproving Hume’s theory that the brain is merely a bundle of perceptions.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

>>23282247
>7 + 5 = 12
This only makes sense in reference to objects which are perceived via sense experience. Math could not be derived if it were not first observed. You are essentially saying “if I were to add five and seven objects, then, based on prior experience, they should equal that which we call twelve.” Pretty simple. Logic itself is only a general principle derived from experience. How could it be otherwise? You cannot come out of the womb knowing math

>>23282252
nta, but math isn't observed. Numbers are wholly fabricated by our minds. The physical entities they describe are observed, but those aren't numbers in themselves.
>if I were to add five and seven objects, then, based on prior experience, they should equal that which we call twelve
5+7 is 12 by our definition of addition, not by experience.

>>23282256
This is no different than saying that the sun will rise tomorrow by definition.

>>23282268
No, it isn't. Mathematics is a constructed discipline.

>>23282252
>This only makes sense in reference to objects which are perceived via sense experience.

What, are you thinking the example only applies to counting apples, or fingers and toes? The example holds with larger numbers of course, say 7,000,000 and 5,000,000, which cannot be said to be "in reference to objects which are perceived via sense experience."

The human brain can grasp that the separate concepts of 5 and 7 (or 5,000,000 and 7,000,000, if you prefer) will create a sum when added together. It is also able to intuitively and logically deduct that their sum will be another separate concept, 12 / 12,000,000. No need for "objects which are perceived via sense experience".

>You cannot come out of the womb knowing math
That's not the issue. The issue is the brain's ability to form connections between individual concepts a priori, without the use of sense experience. Thus we see that the brain is more than Hume's mere bundle of perceptions.

>>23282283
But you can add large numbers because of patterns in addition that are derived via sense experience. Math is built on axioms, and those are all derived via sense experience.

>>23282293
>But you can add large numbers because of patterns in addition that are derived via sense experience
These patterns are consistent with our perception, but they're not derived from them. Addition of integers works because we can express each integer as a repeated sum of the generator 1, and thus combine these sums.
This property arises from the way we construct numbers and define addition rather than being the product of sensory experience.
>Math is built on axioms, and those are all derived via sense experience.
Axioms aren't derived. If they were derived, they would be theorems and not axioms.

>>23282309
> Axioms aren't derived. If they were derived, they would be theorems and not axioms.
They’re not arbitrary. Axioms in math exist because they come from direct experience. Things start to go wrong when you assume axioms that aren’t actually related to experience, like the existence of actual infinities. Or the idea that an infinite set can somehow be larger than another infinite set. All of these results are meaningless because they have nothing to do with the real world. Every single useful mathematical theorem is falsifiable, as well as the axioms. It is all derived via sense experience.

>>23282332

>>23274158
a man of culture

>>23282227
The sun has no reason to rise tomorrow and that argument doesn't follow because its circular

>>23281590
What do you mean in practice? We observe then theorize, there is no in practice anymore than there is in theory, there is no delineation as perfectly as you want it to be. A model doesn't care whether anything is divine or not, we can predict the sun rising tomorrow and call that god's divination or science, it doesn't matter as long as the prediction comes true. But that also doesn't matter because it does not follow. The sun has no reason to rise tomorrow other than that we believe, and we believe based on it rising, hence the circularity that you don't seem to understand.

>>23274184
By being a big old dumb modern day retard

>>23281461
You explained nothing, all you do is shuttle btn justification and stances and you are too stupid to see that that is no explanation at all, or just too retarded to put it in your own words.

>>23279468
Idiot. Look up Hume Gold Mountain.

>>23281371
Do you not know that the earth (globe) spins around its axis and around the sun regardless of your assumption? It's because of gravity fields. Come on, use your common knowledge, it's allowed, you know. Think outside the highly specific literature box, open another mind drawer.

>>23282942
Lmao, that's irrelevant, its a belief we tell ourselves but are nontheless ignorant of the true facts, if any exist at all. No one has ever been to space to observe this and even if it was true, it doesn't escape the circular argument. We believe the sun will continue rising because our belief it rose yesterday was confirmed. The sun has no reason to rise beyond that, I mean using your model of the universe, it is the case that a blackhole or some supernovae event could delay this or destroy the earth or flung us out of orbit, in which case the sun will rise no more, our predictions are based on confirmation of previous beliefs and not on incomplete physical theories based on mathematical proofs.

>>23282631
>the sun has no reason to rise tomorrow other than that we believe
Our belief has nothing to do with it. I explained that but you keep saying this shit. The words in your posts are incoherent nonsense. The actual problem you're trying and failing miserably to describe is only a problem if you want to think of the answers provided by our models based on logic as definite answers that are able to account for everything. It's only a problem for braindead materialistic empiricists who claim empiricism can account for everything. When they make that claim we can counter with a million problems like the point that induction isn't some reliable magic trick to extract truth, it's a rule of thumb to make up and refine models based on observations.

>>23283022
Even if it didn't account for anything, it would still be subject to the problem of induction. If you don't believe, kek, that empiricism can account for 'everything';making sweeping generalization about things that haven't even happened, then you are basing that on the 'knowledge' that it hasn't accounted for 'everything' yet; as if you have access to such knowledge, this is also inductive lmao. Your new belief is only based on the old belief not having worked, you have no more a reason to hold your belief than you did throwing dice on the floor and choosing what to believe based on the outcome. You can't escape induction retard, you need to think harder than you are attempting in these half-baked monologues about empiricism. The problem persists until we have access to 'knowledge' of 'everything' if that is even possible.

>>23282283
Read the introduction to Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge (25 paragraphs)

>>23282332
>They’re not arbitrary. Axioms in math exist because they come from direct experience
I never said that they are arbitrary. Axioms are consistent with our direct experience, and we use direct experience to justify them. However, they are not derived or proven because of anything.
>Things start to go wrong when you assume axioms that aren’t actually related to experience, like the existence of actual infinities
The existence of infinities is central to the proper functioning of mathematics. This is something that has been relevant since the days of Euclid and even more so with the development of calculus and analysis.
>Every single useful mathematical theorem is falsifiable, as well as the axioms
If an axiom can be falsified, it isn't an axiom.

>>23282624
You're just challenging the principle without any justification and calling it circular. All it tells me is that the Humean position is a fundamentally flawed epistemological model in which one can know nothing.

>>23283087
Calling it circular removes all justification. A circular argument refers to itself. You have no reason to believe the sun rising other than referring to a previous reason that it already rose when it doesn't have to, what with the chaotic cosmic geography around us. If you were an alien living underground and saw the sun rise for the first time, you wouldn't believe it will rise again because you have no reason to yet. For all we know, you could be in a planet in which the sun rises, monthly. Your belief forming habit is circular, its not deductive and for this reason, its no different from basing the sun rising on any other belief like your family amulet always giving you luck.

>>23283122
>Calling it circular removes all justification
No, it doesn't, just as calling someone's argument retarded doesn't remove all justification.
>You have no reason to believe the sun rising other than referring to a previous reason that it already rose when it doesn't have to, what with the chaotic cosmic geography around us
Except the movement of many celestial objects, particularly the Earth and the Sun, is quite stable.
>Your belief forming habit is circular, its not deductive
No, it isn't. I don't believe the sun will rise today because I believe the sun will rise today. I believe the sun will rise today because the earth rotates every day as it revolves around the sun. This in turn I believe for some other reason, which has a reason behind it, and so on.
This is a sequence of deductions, not circular reasoning.

>>23282732
You are braindead. I challange you to point out in this post >>23280231 where its explanatory parts failed.

>>23282216
Why retards never care to read post-Kant philosophers who actually challenged Kant’s philosophy BY LITERALLY USING HUME against it? Read a fucking book retard.

>>23283131
I challenge you to use your own words retard, justifications and stances don't explain anything.

>>23283128
Lmao, it doesn't matter what you believe. Those theories subsist because beliefs have been confirmed not because the theories of physics work. If theories of physics worked all the time, there would be no reason to falsify them, and einstein's relativity would not be a thing, this is basic epistemology, you must be an undergraduate if you think you are making a valid point.

>>23283205
>Lmao, it doesn't matter what you believe
But it does when we're talking about what I believe.

>>23283200
I think you don’t know what those words mean since you keep repeating them as if they were unconnected with the very sentences they were in. Everything I posted was I who wrote, retard, I even cited a Perice’s quote. I think you are just too retarded to understand philosophy, just move along.

>>23283215
This isn't about you, its about general human beliefs.

>>23283253
If it can't account for me, then Hume's model is faultier than Newtonian physics.

>>23283252
Use your words faggot, perice won't save you. You are just another pedantic midwit who is triggered when something their favourite author disagrees with is mentioned. I mentioned induction and you sprung to life eager to pepper your 1000 word essays with the spirit of your favourite philosopher. You can't even explain what you mean in simple language, you don't even know how to convert that to examples in real life yet keep talking about pragmatism. All you know is quoting other people because you have no ability to think for yourself.

>>23274146
OP you posted a picture of Nicholas Cage.

>>23283264
>hume's model
lmao, you are an undergraduate, read more and come back

>>23283269
So we're in a Hume thread and not even discussing his ideas?

>>23274299
No prereqs other than reading comprehension. If you want to know the history of thought surrounding him, that's one thing, but it won't do much to help you better understand his ideas. They are perfectly clear in themselves.

(In fact, I would recommend that young people starting in philosophy should read Hume's Enquiry very early, after a primer such as R*ssell's 1912 book)

>>23283273
How do we discuss if you don't even get basic epistemology? You don't even know the difference induction and deduction.

>>23283277
>You don't even know the difference induction and deduction
There isn't a difference. Induction is merely the repeated application of a principle, given one start case. In other terms, it's repeated deductions.

You should try studying mathematics after you graduate high school.

>>23283285
>retard doesn't understand the difference btn mathematical induction and philosophical induction
when did you drop out when they found out you were too stupid?

>>23283293
Logic is logic. If your epistemology can't handle mathematics, then it's fundamentally flawed.

Hume lacks groupies so shitting on him would evoke no emotional response. His philosophy undermines both religion and New Atheism and is written in a straightforward style rather than rhetorical so debate over what he means is difficult as it is clear; no esoteric appeal

>>23283303
We are not talking about mathematics you ignorant faggot. God how can you be so stupid as to stumble into a hume thread and think it has anything to do with math. Keep replying with your shitty takes and i'll keep humiliating your ignorant ass.

>>23283322
No, we're talking about logical reasoning, which is the same in both disciplines. Though I suppose you're incapable of using it in either

>>23283330
Of course we are, keep talking about reasoning then, and don't forget to compare set theory with hume's induction, it will show everyone that you are an expert.

>>23283266
Besides being a dumbfuck you are also mentally ill, insane. Do you think my posts had the weight of being extracts from a more or less widely read philosophy book? I appreciate the admiration. Hume is among my favorite philosophers. What now? It is just a fact that Pragmatism has its particular view, which considers induction differently. And I explained very clearly. I literally quoted an author ONCE, and I literally marked the quote as a fucking quote, you dumb nigger. You said you asked for examples but I challenged you to show me where you had asked for it previously and you couldn’t prove that I failed to supply it (because you had never asked before making that dishonest claim, which you are repeating again).
You are dishonest, low iq, mentally ill and unable to understand philosophy.

>>23282736
I’m not that anon, but yes, Hume’s point about the Gold Mountain example is a response to the missing shade of blue. But I read that phenomenalism has a weak side of ignoring exactly that which is not in our sense perceptions. Do atoms, quarks exist? We don’t have their impression, why should I not think, according with phenomenalism, that it is just our imaginary faculty making the material things divided to small pieces we see smaller to such imaginary degrees?

>>23283365
Justification and stances faggot, they are all you have, le pragmatism destroys the problem of induction and other monologues you tell yourself. Go on now, quote me another 1000 word essay about perice and hume being your favourite philosopher while managing to say nothing at all.

>>23282736
Lol, Hume's cope circumscription of the imagination to the mixing and rearrangement of sense data, borrowed from Hobbes mind you, has always been recognised as failed and inadequate. And even mere mixing disproves the empricists premise: the mix wasn't in the senses before being in the mind.

>>23283087
> The existence of infinities is central to the proper functioning of mathematics.
Wrong. You do not need the existence of ACTUAL infinities to do math. Which should be obvious considering all practical results deal with finite math, since the world around us is finite. The other guy was right, you’re an undergraduate. But let’s see how much you know. You think the real numbers are uncountable, right? Did you know that the diagonal proof requires undefinable numbers? That is, numbers that can ONLY be represented by an infinite sum, and not a finite description? For if you listed all the real numbers with a finite description, then they would be countable, since you could just order the list in increasing length of the descriptions, and the diagonal number itself would not be a valid construction since it must be at a specific place in the list, so it would be defining itself to be different than itself. So this whole theory of larger infinities depends on numbers that can’t even be defined. If you need an infinite universe just to write down the number, then what use is it? Do you know why the Continuum Hypothesis is unsolved? Because it’s useless, unfalsifiable nonsense.

>>23283481
>That is, numbers that can ONLY be represented by an infinite sum, and not a finite description
Prove that the square root of two is a rational number

>>23283487
What does have to do with anything? The square root of two can be described with a simple polynomial equation:
>x^2 = 2
or simply…
>sqrt(2)

Similarly, pi can be described with various equations and sums using a finite length of characters. These numbers are DEFINABLE. Every single number that you have ever interacted with is definable.

>>23283513
This is exactly why "definable" is a cope. The moment you identify an "undefinable" number, it becomes definable. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, for the same reason pi was a real number before we identified the existence of pi.

Also, countable numbers like the integers and rationals are still infinite.

>>23283545
Either a number can be described in finite characters or it can’t. If all real numbers can be potentially definable, then the set is countable. If not, then most “real” numbers are useless and it doesn’t matter anyway. By the real, the real number axioms don’t even need undefinable numbers, since they can be constructed without them. Even if you accept uncountability, this only suggests that you can’t create a 1:1 mapping, which certainly has to do with the fact that you are dealing with things that can’t be defined, and not because one infinite set is somehow “larger” than the other.
> Also, countable numbers like the integers and rationals are still infinite.
Potentially infinite. It makes no difference whether they are actually infinite. There are some numbers that humans will never interact with, so why could we not say that they don’t exist? A thing does not meaningfully exist unless you can interact with it, directly or indirectly. If this universe is finite, there is clearly a limit to the natural numbers. So you’re assuming that there “are” infinite numbers even though you have no good reason, no direct experience to such a truth.

>>23283476
>the mix wasn't in the senses before being in the mind.
are you retarded? the mix ARE the senses, conjoined.

>>23283408
You need help.

>>23274146
you can't shit on hume if you're an empiricist (which most people low key are as proved by the way they live) since Hume took a massive shit all over empiricism. And Rationalists don't shit on hume because humes unhinged autism unintentionally furthered the rationalist cause to the superior level of German Idealism.

>>23283572
>If all real numbers can be potentially definable, then the set is countable
I'm not sure I can agree with this line of reasoning, but I will concede that I can't think of any objections. If true, it would mean that we're operating under a weaker set of assumptions regarding the nature of the real numbers than how the numbers are in reality.
>There are some numbers that humans will never interact with, so why could we not say that they don’t exist?
It's poor practice to engage in willful ignorance when pursuing truth to its fullest.

>>23283601
I suppose perice also wrote that didn't he lmao? Is he now teaching you how to wipe your ass too?

>>23283615
How? Didn't the blind test prove empiricists right and the rationalists wrong?

>>23274692
yeah, your path to riches is kinetic energy

>>23284049
> the blind test
?

>>23284080
People who were born blind but gained sight through surgery were asked to pick out shapes just through their newly gained sight. They failed.

>>23284122
>tries to use empiricism to prove empiricism

>>23284149
Well, how would a rationalist approach the Molyneux’s problem if not through experimentation?

>>23284169
The issue here is not that some conclusions can be drawn from experience. The rationalist can experiment just as much as the empiricist. The issue is whether ALL knowledge comes from experience. Emphatically, the rationalist would provisonally accept the conclusions of the blind test as valid within the domain of the world of physical experience, but this in no way proves ALL knowledge is derived from experience.

>>23284245
And what knowledge doesn't come from experience?

>>23284261
the concept of causality for one

>>23284274
You have to experience change for you to even think about causality.

>>23283277
>>23283285
Mathematical induction means something different than philosophical induction.

>>23284274
what

>>23284293
read Hume

>>23284293
>though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion)

>>23284371
I get what kant is saying, our minds are wired to understand math, language etc, but you still have to experience to know anything. For instance, children who don't learn language before they reach 3 never do, which means experience restructures the brain, children form neural memory structures--especially those linked to language, as they experience the world, You take that away and the brain can't learn language or even in some mice which were bred in darkness, sight.

>>23284371
>faculty of cognition supplies from itself
These are impressions themselves, that are stored. Where is reason and logic?

>>23274154
How is Nietzsche not a philosopher.

>>23275059
Kantians (or even better, phenomenologists like Heideggerians) are in a much better position to truly understand Buddhism, than Humeans.
Phenomenalism contradicts a lot about Buddhism.
And Hume’s ‘bundle of perceptions’ no-self theory, is easily ripped apart by common Advaita (or even Kantian) critiques, unlike Buddhist anatman.

>>23284427
>I get what kant is saying, our minds are wired to understand math, language
no you don't

>>23284444
>These are impressions themselves, that are stored.
you are assuming this, in a Hume thread, where Hume proved certain concepts and judgments are not legitimately derived from sense impression

>>23284427
>experience restructures the brain
In the widest sense we can think of "experience" as all external input including the environment brains themselves adapted to. Even though I do like to think in evolutionary terms like this bringing it up in philosophy is adding presuppositions based on empiricism, one of the ideas we're critically analysing. An appeal to conclusions derived from empiricism in defence of the presuppositions of empiricism is circular. That may not be a problem when it comes to applying empiricism, as in adapting to the environment but it is a problem when it comes to evaluating empirically derived claims as objectively true or false according to the rules of logic.
>our empirical knowledge is a compound
The colour red is empirically a wavelength of light but our experience of it is redness, a phenomena we can't reproduce empirically. It doesn't come from the colour red it comes from our cognition of the colour. We can reproduce redness in our minds by memory without direct experience so the capacity to reproduce it was also there before we experienced it. We could have experienced the same thing by randomly connecting the right neurons.

>>23284881
You are using empricism right now to critique my critique of kant so how exactly are you not presupposing anything?

>>23284881
>We can reproduce redness in our minds by memory without direct experience so the capacity to reproduce it was also there before we experienced it
No it wasn't. Capacity is formed by repeated experience and exposure, just like language persists by repeated exposure, if you don't you forget, if you are not exposed to red, you forget, those neurons need constant exposure, hence experience.

>>23284359
The guy isn't wrong, you need experience to posit a principle like causality. Event B following event A. That this nexus is necessary is something different, but the observation is empirical. Hume is not doubting that this knowledge comes from the senses, but that it can be posited necessarily, a priori, that is, that it is a specific kind of knowledge.

>>23284864
Yes, like the gold mountain passage. Where is that anon wrong?

>>23284915
That anon is trying to push on with that Leibniz quote against empiricism so hard since yesterday.

>>23281090
> I can with confidence say that induction ranges work
kek nice

>>23284902
>so how exactly are you not presupposing anything
By not assuming the models derived from presuppositions are objectively true or false. I'm adapting models to observations like an animal adapts to its environment not proclaiming my adaptations as the final form. Empiricism is a tool to navigate life not a key to objective answers.
>>23284915
>Capacity is formed by repeated experience and exposure
The information is impressed by exposure to a system that already has the capacity to encode such an impression, real or not. The mind is capable of representing red whether it has been exposed to it for real or not. Random input over enough time would eventually trigger the same experience.

>>23285109
Absolutely braindead.

>>23285137
this anon gets it. The other anon does not.

>>23285142
Here is the post where it started: >>23281062. The enthusiasm is very funny.
Then there is this one >>23283476
And then your previous post >>23284881 with that ''We can reproduce redness in our minds by memory without direct experience so the capacity to reproduce it was also there before we experienced it''. Not to mention that empiricism has nothing to do with presuppositions of evolutionary theory.

>>23285090
>Event B following event A. That this nexus is necessary is something different, but the observation is empirical.
The concept of causality is the concept of necessary connection. The issue isn't that we observe one event temporally follow another one, the issue is that repeated observation can never yield the concept that one event NECESSARILY follows another event because induction is not a logically valid inference. If we actually believe in causation then we have to explain how we arrived at the concept of necessary connection apart from inference from repeated empirical observations, which at best can give degress of probable belief in the continuation into the future of past contingent connections between events.

>>23285173
Is this a bot?

>>23285196
no it's me. what made you say that?

such a good thread
I wish /lit/ was more well known
Reddit never talks about guys :(

>>23285239
*about you guys
sorry tee hee

>>23285226
You only repeated what I said, lol

>>23285269
no I didn't. I am saying Hume said the necessary nexus is NOT an empirical observation.

Is it still worth reading Hume in a post-kantian era? I can't think of any big post-kantian names who engage with him in a major way.

>>23285279
I literally said that, anon, lol.
I said ''That this nexus is necessary is something different, but the observation is empirical'', that is, the necessary nexus is not observed, but the event B following event A is, and the necessity of the nexus is grounded on this observed succession (repeatedly).

>>23285303
>the necessity of the nexus is grounded on this observed succession (repeatedly).
it's not though. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

>>23285308
The succession is observed, the necessity of the nexus is not. The mountain is observed, gold is observed, the conjunction of the two ideas and the production of the image of golden mountain is not.

>>23285349
Yes I know this. The issue is where does this concept of necessary nexus come from? because it is NOT grounded on repeated observations since induction is NOT logically valid and does NOT yield necessary connections. This is where empiricism fails and Kant enters the scene.

>>23285371
But who said that because it comes from observation it is logically valid? That is the point of the problem of induction.

>>23285166
Not the same guy or saying the same thing but that's only one level on which your replies are noise.
>Not to mention that empiricism has nothing to do with presuppositions of evolutionary theory.
Like your other post the only information you're conveying is that you don't understand what you're replying to but you make no attempt to clarify this misunderstanding, you just make up stories.
A "naturalist" who travelled the world gathering empirical data accounted for that data in his model, the theory of evolution by natural selection. When I rest an argument on humans being biologically evolved creatures I'm appealing to that model and the methodology it rests on or similar models that rest on the same methods. If I say a claim based on evolution is objectively true then evolution must also be true but the only thing telling us it's true are empirical observations.

>>23285396
I know that dude. You are missing the whole point. IF necessity is more than just a figment of our imagination THEN where does it come from if we cannot arrive at it from empirical observation? Hume couldn't answer that and left the concept of necessity as a imaginary albeit useful concept; Kant on the other hand did what no empiricist could do, and proved its objective reality and valid use in physical reality.

>>23283017
>Lmao, that's irrelevant, its a belief we tell ourselves but are nontheless ignorant of the true facts, if any exist at all. No one has ever been to space to observe this and even if it was true, it doesn't escape the circular argument. We believe the sun will continue rising because our belief it rose yesterday was confirmed. The sun has no reason to rise beyond that, I mean using your model of the universe, it is the case that a blackhole or some supernovae event could delay this or destroy the earth or flung us out of orbit, in which case the sun will rise no more, our predictions are based on confirmation of previous beliefs and not on incomplete physical theories based on mathematical proofs.
Do you write for Black Mirror?

>>23285426
What's your point?

>>23285434
You're a fucking idiot despite your knowledge of philosophy.
Close the books and save yourself the disappointment of the realisation before it's too late.

>>23285438
you can't refute something so you go on a tantrum? So philosophy refutes common sense but you'd rather remain in the comfort and safety of your unexamined presuppositions?

>>23285419
>IF necessity is more than just a figment of our imagination THEN where does it come from if we cannot arrive at it from empirical observation?
But I think Hume would find no problem with it being really a figment of our imagination, not too much different from the golden mountain.
>Hume couldn't answer that and left the concept of necessity as a imaginary albeit useful concept
Yes, but that is where its universality comes from, believing in its necessity works. Simple. No need for categories of understanding being universal and intersubjective a priori concepts interacting with sensible data and whatnot. I'm actually discussing with another anon in another thread about this point, where Kant's category of causality is criticized by Maimon.

>>23285410
Your claim was:
>we can think of "experience" as all external input including the environment brains themselves adapted to. Even though I do like to think in evolutionary terms like this bringing it up in philosophy is adding presuppositions based on empiricism, one of the ideas we're critically analysing.
How am I supposed to take it into account if not referring to the empiricist epistemology itself? Is it absurd to demand you to show how 17th-18th century empiricists' epistemological arguments presupposed evolutionary theories, based on that claim? How can the fact that experience give us some knowledge (more or less justified) be a circular argument?

>>23285471
>that is where its universality comes from, believing in its necessity works. Simple.
no it does not. it still has no necessity because it's working in practice is an empirical observation and induction based on empirical observation does not ever lead to the concept of necessary connection. Without Kant's solution causality is a convenient fiction.

>>23285486
>Is it absurd to demand you to show how 17th-18th century empiricists' epistemological arguments presupposed evolutionary theories
It's like randomly shuffling around the words I used. The guy I was replying to was appealing to biology / evolution. I mentioned that I like to do that too but using it to support empiricism is logically circular. This doesn't really work on the level these philosophical questions are actually being posed. On this level we can't say we're sure that a demon didn't make up everything we believe or whatever. We don't really have anything to counter those random ideas definitely except to say nothing we have access suggests they're true.
>How can the fact that experience give us some knowledge (more or less justified) be a circular argument?
It's saying "my methods are right because my methods tell me I'm right".
The methods at least appear useful to predict things but we can't use them to tell us if they're telling us the truth. If "knowledge" is defined as that which experience gives then the statement is a tautology not circular but then we're not necessarily discussing what's actually true.
>how do you know you're not a brain in jar or an AI being fed inputs, matrix etc
>I know thanks to the biological monkey brain in my body
Is circular. It's not unreasonable to think you have a body and birds are real but you can't know absolutely.

>>23285679
this anon gets it.

>>23274146
His prose is dreadful, that's all.

>>23274184
Mountains of incompetent translations and worse commentary.

>>23280196
The French misappropriations of the canon have been a disaster for the philosophical race. If they stan Kojeve they are lost-- this is the only heuristic you need to evaluate the quality of the Hegelfag facing you.

I think empiricism is kinda boring

>>23280196
The Owl of Minerva takes flight at dusk. You won't get Hegel and will never get Hegel unless you actually do the work of reading the whole system and acheiving an intellectual intuition of the idea of the system as a whole and the role all the parts and moments play in the system and their true meaning in the context of that intuition of the whole. In simple terms, Hegel requires initiation (running through the course of dialectic) to be understood. You are either take the leap of faith and run through the dialectic hoping in the end it'll all make sense and enter into the ranks of the initiates or drop out and remain with the profane and seethe and cope as you do now.

>>23285619
I'm not saying it is necessary true because it works, but that its universality comes from its effects in practice.
>Without Kant's solution causality is a convenient fiction.
None says this, but that simply we have no proof of its necessity being actual in the world itself. We can proceed pragmatically and skeptically at the same time.
Plus, Kant is no solution, his category application is defective as shown by Maimon, his understanding-sensibility dualism is criticized too, his thing-in-itself is incoherent, etc. People should stop taking Kant as a prophet.

>>23285679
>The methods at least appear useful to predict things but we can't use them to tell us if they're telling us the truth
I agree. I thought you were appealing to rationalism and Kant like other people here. I can separate very well empiricism and its claim to experience and restricted knowledge from metaphysical claims that cannot be proved and verified, but which nevertheless are possible hypotheses.

>>23285746
>I'm not saying it is necessary true because it works, but that its universality comes from its effects in practice
that ironically is what you are saying and again no it does not. Hume already showed this. The observation of its repeated success in practice in no way demonstrates its universality, because, for the n-th time, induction will never yield the concept of necessary connection, which you admit when you say

>we have no proof of its necessity being actual in the world itself.

except we DO have a proof if by "the world itself" you mean the world as empirically observed, i.e. the phenomenal world, and Kant DID provide it.

>>23285746
In what way is his category application defective? How is his understanding-sensibility dualism criticized? How is the thing-in-itself incoherent?

>>23285791
>>23285264
>>23285336
etc.

>>23285780
>in no way demonstrates its universality
it works universally, not that it is necessary

>except we DO have a proof if by "the world itself" you mean the world as empirically observed
See above about the criticism of Kant's application of the category of causality. We observe, validate the utility, the positive effects of believing in it, we, however, have no possible means of verifying an a priori category for it.

>>23285746
>its universality comes from its effects in practice.

>>23274154
No, the only reason anyone reads Hume is because they're in a philosophy programme at university. I'm surprised more people don't read Berkeley though.

>>23274208
bitches don't be loyal

>>23285821
>it works universally, not that it is necessary
universality and necessity are identical. you cannot have one without the other. if you say it works universally then you are also saying its necessary.

>we, however, have no possible means of verifying an a priori category for it.

literally the transcendental deduction of the categories lmfao

>>23284598
Learn to identify pseuds and never encourage them, anon.

>>23285838
I'm saying its effects are the same everywhere not that its effects are necessary in relation to its cause, because this necessity is not empirically verifiable. You are confusing practical universality with theoretical universality.
>literally the transcendental deduction of the categories
The point is that there is no possible means of verification whether it is an emergent, derivative principle or not. Plus, even if we disregard this, there are the problems of the application pointed out by Maimon, for instance.

>>23285859
>I'm saying its effects are the same everywhere
and you know that how? pro tip: without a priori categories you can't

>The point is that there is no possible means of verification
because IT'S NOT AN EMPIRICAL CONCEPT. come on dude. Hence, the reason Kant needed to produce the transcendental deduction.

>>23285872
>and you know that how? pro tip: without a priori categories you can't
By observing and accounting for the same observed conjunctions. What kind of question is this? Neither I nor the whole of humanity needed to appeal to Kant in order to know that when it rains, the street becomes wet, be it in Canada or in Taiwan.

>because IT'S NOT AN EMPIRICAL CONCEPT.
But that is my point above, it is much simpler, much more direct, to give its universal recognition by its effects everywhere being repeated and functioning in experience than by appealing to something outside experience.

>>23274363
not going to lie this is a midwit take that shows you only read the words Plato wrote for 10 year olds

>I mean, for example, that in the case of this very hypothesis of Zeno's about the many, you should inquire not only what will be the consequences to the many in relation to themselves and to the one, and to the one in relation to itself and the many, on the hypothesis of the being of the many, but also what will be the consequences to the one and the many in their relation to themselves and to each other, on the opposite hypothesis. Or, again, if likeness is or is not, what will be the consequences in either of these cases to the subjects of the hypothesis, and to other things, in relation both to themselves and to one another, and so of unlikeness; and the same holds good of motion and rest, of generation and destruction, and even of being and not-being. In a word, when you suppose anything to be or not to be, or to be in any way affected, you must look at the consequences in relation to the thing itself, and to any other things which you choose-to each of them singly, to more than one, and to all; and so of other things, you must look at them in relation to themselves and to anything else which you suppose either to be or not to be, if you would train yourself perfectly and see the real truth.

>>23274154
Where do we lie on Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein?

>>23285884
>By observing and accounting for the same observed conjunctions.
which never yields the necessity or universality required for the concept of causality PER HUME NOT KANT. Kant is simply solving the problem that HUME put forth. You got stuck at Hume, and like him, returned to the common sense understanding of causality out of the mental discomfort it causes you.

>it is much simpler, much more direct, to give its universal recognition by its effects everywhere being repeated and functioning in experience
this is called being delusional. the whole issue in question is whether IT IS IN FACT everywhere being repeated-- and you cannot, for the n to n-th power time, answer this empirically. You are in effect condoning blind faith that causality is an actual attribute of the empirical observable world rather than rational proof. You are admittedly taking the easy way out when instead you could have taken the difficult road of rational demonstration, i. e., philosophy, which Kant provides.

>>23283252
Sorry that idiot is sperging on you. Some points could have been clarified but he’s just trolling or retarded.

>>23274200
I'm shattered that it took that long for a real response. This board is something else.

>>23274146
"In consulting the excellent commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Parva Naturalia of Aristotle, I was struck at once with its close resemblance to Hume’s Essay on Association. The main thoughts were the same in both, the order of the thoughts was the same, and even the illustrations differed only by Hume’s occasional substitution of more modern examples. I mentioned the circumstance to several of my literary acquaintances, who admitted the closeness of the resemblance, and that it seemed too great to be explained by mere coincidence; but they thought it improbable that Hume should have held the pages of the Angelic Doctor worth turning over. But some time after Mr. Payne showed Sir James Mackintosh some odd volumes of St. Thomas Aquinas, partly perhaps from having heard that he had in his Lectures passed a high encomium on this canonized philosopher; but chiefly from the fact, that the volumes had belonged to Mr. Hume, and had here and there marginal marks and notes of reference in his own hand writing. Among these volumes was that which contains the Parva Naturalia, in the old Latin version, swathed and swaddled in the commentary afore mentioned."

Coleridge'd

>>23285970
"If in ourselves there be no such faculties as those of the will, and the scientific reason, we must either have an innate idea of them, which would overthrow the whole system; or we can have no idea at all. The process, by which Hume degraded the notion of cause and effect into a blind product of delusion and habit, into the mere sensation of proceeding life (nisus vitalis) associated with the images of the memory; this same process must be repeated to the equal degradation of every fundamental idea in ethics or theology."

"After I had successively studied in the schools of Locke, Berkeley, Leibnitz, and Hartley, and could find in none of them an abiding place for my reason, I began to ask myself; is a system of philosophy; as different from mere history and historic classification, possible? If possible, what are its necessary conditions? I was for a while disposed to answer the first question in the negative, and to admit that the sole practicable employment for the human mind was to observe, to collect, and to classify. But I soon felt, that human nature itself fought up against this wilful resignation of intellect; and as soon did I find, that the scheme, taken with all its consequences and cleared of all inconsistencies, was not less impracticable than contranatural. Assume in its full extent the position, nihil in intellectu quod non prius in sensu, assume it without Leibnitz’s qualifying praeter ipsum intellectum, and in the same sense, in which the position was understood by Hartley and Condillac: and then what Hume had demonstratively deduced from this concession concerning cause and effect, will apply with equal and crushing force to all the other eleven categorical forms, and the logical functions corresponding to them. How can we make bricks without straw;--or build without cement? We learn all things indeed by occasion of experience; but the very facts so learned force us inward on the antecedents, that must be presupposed in order to render experience itself possible. The first book of Locke’s Essay, (if the supposed error, which it labours to subvert, be not a mere thing of straw, an absurdity which, no man ever did, or indeed ever could, believe,) is formed on a sophisma heterozaetaeseos, and involves the old mistake of Cum hoc: ergo, propter hoc."

Coleridge'd more

>>23274146
I’m reading Locke right now and it’s brutal. Wish I had taken the advice to skip straight to Hume. Chapters 16/17 was stoner talk on eternity. 18s now back on track. Maybe it will improve but just warning others.

>>23286174
>>23286191
coleridge got it

>>23286198
The writings of the illustrious sage of Koenigsberg, the founder of the Critical Philosophy, more than any other work, at once invigorated and disciplined my understanding. The originality, the depth, and the compression of the thoughts; the novelty and subtlety, yet solidity and importance of the distinctions; the adamantine chain of the logic; and I will venture to add—(paradox as it will appear to those who have taken their notion of Immanuel Kant from Reviewers and Frenchmen)—the clearness and evidence, of the Critique of the Pure Reason; and Critique of the Judgment; of the Metaphysical Elements of Natural Philosophy; and of his Religion within the bounds of Pure Reason, took possession of me as with the giant’s hand. After fifteen years’ familiarity with them, I still read these and all his other productions with undiminished delight and increasing admiration. The few passages that remained obscure to me, after due efforts of thought, (as the chapter on original apperception,) and the apparent contradictions which occur, I soon found were hints and insinuations referring to ideas, which KANT either did not think it prudent to avow, or which he considered as consistently left behind in a pure analysis, not of human nature in toto, but of the speculative intellect alone. Here therefore he was constrained to commence at the point of reflection, or natural consciousness: while in his moral system he was permitted to assume a higher ground (the autonomy of the will) as a postulate deducible from the unconditional command, or (in the technical language of his school) the categorical imperative, of the conscience. He had been in imminent danger of persecution during the reign of the late king of Prussia, that strange compound of lawless debauchery and priest-ridden superstition: and it is probable that he had little inclination, in his old age, to act over again the fortunes, and hair-breadth escapes of Wolf. The expulsion of the first among Kant’s disciples, who attempted to complete his system, from the University of Jena, with the confiscation and prohibition of the obnoxious work by the joint efforts of the courts of Saxony and Hanover, supplied experimental proof, that the venerable old man’s caution was not groundless. In spite therefore of his own declarations, I could never believe, that it was possible for him to have meant no more by his Noumenon, or Thing in itself, than his mere words express; or that in his own conception he confined the whole plastic power to the forms of the intellect, leaving for the external cause, for the materiale of our sensations, a matter without form, which is doubtless inconceivable. I entertained doubts likewise, whether, in his own mind, he even laid all the stress, which he appears to do, on the moral postulates.

1/2

>>23286198
An idea, in the highest sense of that word, cannot be conveyed but by a symbol; and, except in geometry, all symbols of necessity involve an apparent contradiction. Phonaese synetoisin: and for those who could not pierce through this symbolic husk, his writings were not intended. Questions which cannot be fully answered without exposing the respondent to personal danger, are not entitled to a fair answer; and yet to say this openly, would in many cases furnish the very advantage which the adversary is insidiously seeking after. Veracity does not consist in saying, but in the intention of communicating, truth; and the philosopher who cannot utter the whole truth without conveying falsehood, and at the same time, perhaps, exciting the most malignant passions, is constrained to express himself either mythically or equivocally. When Kant therefore was importuned to settle the disputes of his commentators himself, by declaring what he meant, how could he decline the honours of martyrdom with less offence, than by simply replying, “I meant what I said, and at the age of near fourscore, I have something else, and more important to do, than to write a commentary on my own works.”

2/2

Coleridge'd even harder

>>23286210
good cause i don't kek

>>23286213
>>23286217
Biographia literaria?

>>23285137
You are presupposing the assumptions are true using your experience. You don't even have to explicitly state this but you are still using experience to try to refute me.

Your second argument is like saying that humans have the capacity to walk which is saying nothing because if you never walk your muscles will atrophy and bones will never form necessary support. The human mind has no capacity separate from experience, you can't even call such, a mind.

>>23285173
It doesn't have to yield that concept because humans try to find patterns everywhere. One repetition is enough to do this. Humans love connecting unrelated patterns in nature to their life, this is how causality is perceived, it doesn't need any logical validity to happen.

>>23286313
not even gonna bother replying to this.

pic related

>>23286318
Necessary connection is a deductive term that assumes induction needs the same assumption. If it was necessary to do this, induction would never be a thing. You are throwing a tantrum that an apple is different from an orange and that they need to be the same??

>>23286334
I can help those with poor eyesight see, but I can't cure blindness

>>23286356
good luck with that blind man, it is a necessary connection that those with poor eyesight are yet to be blind

>>23274146
David Hume? More like David hm, should I eat this cake? Yes I should eat it.
>Gets fat

>>23274146

Empiricism is a culture-bound (Anglo) syndrome.

>>23274146
One of the most cynical and evil little guys there ever was, only beaten out by Hobbes and Shakespeare IMO.

>>23286664
>>23286672
malding frenchmen

english is the free tongue and thus the greatest

deal

>>23287326
Anon, empiricism was influential in France in the 18th century. Positivism was, as result, born in France, anon. Use your banter in football but not philosophy.

>>23286304
>You are presupposing the assumptions are true using your experience.
I'm presenting models / ideas based on logic not presupposing anything including that the world is real or that logically built models have any special significance. Each model rests on assumptions because that's how models work. "If x then y" does not mean I'm presenting x as true, it's an exploration of the consequences of x according to a set of rules. A statement can only be true or false in a given logical context, given some set of assumptions. all models are flawed representations of what they model so they're never fully true. This only rests on understanding logic, it's an appeal to logic not my own subjective experiences or understanding of history or how brains developed.
>like saying that humans have the capacity to walk
How is it like that retard?
I'm pointing out the distinction between light as empirically measured and the representation of that light in the mind. At the time of perceiving that light the mind is already set up to represent that light using elements not inherent to the actual light, the input is modulated by cognition so the experience is a mix of both the input itself and its representation. I already talked about "experience" in the other sense as all input including that which shaped the mind to represent light in that way but that's an appeal to our ideas of history and evolution not just what we immediately experience and logic itself.
I'm not interested in spoonfeeding you the same basic shit over and over any more. The biggest mystery in this thread is what's wrong with your brains. How did you become like this? Are you children?

>>23287804
ill listen to goofs from the nth republic if and when they recover an ounce of their fathers' daring...til then theyll have to take my cracks. small revenge for brittany...

>>23285940
Wittgenstein is an absolute genius.
As far as Kierkegaard goes his ideas are resonant but mostly stuff I’ve already considered given my own faith in Christianity or atleast a God (read: prime mover or first will)

>>23277419
Thousands of words that could be summarized in three lines.
I hate how analytic philosophers write even worse than continental ones, it's truly an astounding feat.

>>23288341
>different than
kek

youre gonna have to tell me what the three line summary is because as far as I can tell he's just inserted "probably" everywhere and marked the problem solved. this guy is a professor?

this guy seems exceedingly arrogant and not very bright...it is in fact completely true that nature could operate differently in the very next moment at any time; this is a pretty basic consequence of quantum theory. there is an infinitesimally small chance at any given moment that the particles in your pinky will spontaneously fly off in different directions the next moment. it's impossible to have a completely evacuated void in reality because particle-antiparticle pairs literally pop into existence from nothing and mutually annihilate almost all of the time...but not always, resulting in hawking radiation for example. the only question, from the perspective of a quantum physicist, is how there came to be a preponderance of matter over anti-matter in the universe, or at least in our observable part of it.

there are also unanswered questions like "what is the stuff of thought?" but here we are thinking we'll wrangle life, the universe and everything with one weird trick...i can't believe these people get paid for this.

>>23287808
You are using your knowledge of the world to intuit that whatever i am saying doesn't work dude. You wouldn't assume this if you had no experience, why is this so hard to understand?
You are implicitly using induction whether you prefer to or not.

>>23287808
Also if x then y is presupposing so many logical axioms like x and y are distinct, or that x can be represented in variable form or that modus ponens works or that you have the necessary senses to observe that change,etc, you need to go back and relearn logic.

>>23289526
He literally said:
>A statement can only be true or false in a given logical context, given some set of assumptions. all models are flawed representations of what they model so they're never fully true.
I feel like you're talking past each other. He's talking about the purely abstract and you're talking from the perspective of an ultimate reality. At some point something came from nothing, or nothing perceived itself, and as to how that happened, I don't know any more about it than you, other than that's exactly what happens in a natural vacuum, but at any event that "at some point" could be the sudden appearance of the universe fully formed in any state.

I find it strange personally that we know so little about things as basic to us as thought, that is, the nature of it, how it is that we are able to represent the abstract and nonreal to ourselves. Such a great mystery confronts us all at every moment that I find it strange we wonder about anything else.

>>23289620
Him saying that presupposes some form of experience. You have to experience something being true or false to even talk about it, why is this so hard for you retards to understand. Babies did not just wake up and start doing calculus, they had to experience mutliplicity, identities, change etc, through their senses.

Explain the is/ought problrm to a retard?
>Raping people is bad
>Therefore you oughtn't rape people.
What is wrong with this?

>>23289968
Define bad? Some people have rape fantasies btw

>>23274146
Hume Fags Get The Rope

>>23274146
Hume was the one that lead Kant to his transzendental idealism... because he thought we can not see that something is causal... we only think it... but that is the worst philosophy of all time... of course causality is in the things and not just in our head...

>>23274731
>Hume isn't meant to be shat on
But I’ve done that in writings

>>23289968
>rape is
>rape ought to be bad

>>23289969
>>23290166
So, the "is" statement has to be definity true?

>>23290189
No, it can be anything, but then again that is no grounds for deriving an ought statement.

>>23290216
But isn't Hume doing the same by saying you oughtn't derive an "ought" from an "is"?

>>23290218
He is not claiming you ought not to, he is saying you can't do it logically. The former is prescriptive while the latter is descriptive.