[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13642096 No.13642096 [Reply] [Original]

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

>> No.13642102

>You have TEN SECONDS to prove that Speed 2 wasn't the GOAT movie to end all movies and both #based and #redpilled (Protip: You can't. OWNED!!!)

Why does 4chan make people format their posts like this? It's just abrasive to read it, and it's not funny or interesting.

>> No.13642109

>>13642096
Why would we bother doing that? Kant already said it better than any of us ever could.

>> No.13642216

>>13642109
>Hume's skepticism is completely right BUT everyone at least agrees we have the same spatio-temporal experiences that tell us nothing about noumena
Meh

>> No.13642250

>>13642109
Kant really didn’t disagree with Hume, instead he tried to find an answer to all the questions Hume brought up and created a system to save mathematics, natural sciences and especially Metaphysics.
It is a lot more prevelant today to refer to Hume’s inquiries than to Kant’s philosophical system, because Hume is a perfect base to try to build on.

>> No.13642317 [DELETED] 

>>13642096
Hume is just "le epic skepticism, tip le fedora"
Everything you need is found in Christian Scholastics, read Aquinas and Feser. Ignore Hume.

>> No.13642330

>>13642102
It’s pretty funny though. I love the extremes applied to such petty and inane topics. Autism at its finest.

>> No.13642550

>>13642250
Did Hume really dispute that empiricism is nonetheless our only conduit to knowledge? It seems to me that his scepticism is just observation of the technical limitations of certainty (as is Kant's concept of the noumenal), not an attack on empiricism. I don't see how logic/science needed 'saving'. 'Metaphysics' isn't worth saving.

>> No.13642688

>>13642550
Antiskeptics just can't cope with the idea of ambiguity. The skeptic rarely or never says, "We should operate on the assumption that everything is a demon's trick, a brain-in-the-vat simulation, a butterfly's dream, etc."; instead they primarily indicate just that no things or few things are known surely, and that many of our present "truths" about things are merely confused and mutilated understandings which we will hopefully correct moving forward. Antiskeptic "realists" loathe this concept and pretend that skeptics believe that chairs don't exist despite sitting in them.

>> No.13643036

>>13642688
yeah i agree entirely.
except about religion but thats another matter