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

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15385823 No.15385823 [Reply] [Original]

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

>> No.15385833

you forgot "connexion"

>> No.15385843

that spelling of the word is prevalent in Locke and every other philosopher of the time but for fuck's sake Hume is the worst writer I have ever had the misfortune to read.

>> No.15385856

Are you kidding?

>> No.15385860

No, he writes in an extremely convoluted way compared to the other empiricist and I'm having a hard time following his philosophical arguments.

>> No.15385871

>for fuck's sake Hume is the worst writer I have ever had the misfortune to read.
>he writes in an extremely convoluted way
Really? The general consensus is that he was the clearest writer of his time. What edition are you reading?

>> No.15385878

I picked up the first digital edition on amazon because libgen only had incomplete versions or shitty formats. Also gutenbeg has been dead for over a week and I can't access it from any device, not even with a vpn.

>> No.15385898

oh, I thought you meant he was using outdated terms. Hume is very easy to understand. are you esl?

>> No.15385903

I've read the Treatise and I wouldn't say the writing is convoluted or complicated so much as that it's just so extremely dry the overall experience is similar to reading the phonebook.

>> No.15385907

Post a screenshot

>> No.15385911

There you go. Digital editions generally suck and are full of typos.

>> No.15385928

yeah but as i said i went through seemingly harder texts and absorbed them without any issues.
it was this version which i think it's taken straight out of the Gutenberg website, but since I can't access it for some reason decided to give it a shot and bought it anyway.

>> No.15385936

Sure just a screenshot tho I'm curious haven't read it

>> No.15385946


Just wait until everyone who tried to become a Library Genesis autodidact realises the Filipino children they get to upload the files have been randomly inserting or changing random passages

>> No.15385978

After all the chicharrones we made for them? Son of a bitch!

>> No.15385983
File: 2.56 MB, 2175x4161, 1589746271877.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15386016

Yeah it reads a bit anachronistic and like he could've substantiated his points with an actual logical system anywhere on that page

>> No.15386036

he literally provides all the relevant definitions in the second paragraph, why are you people coping. and what do you mean by "logical system"?

>> No.15386048

I mean he argues reason should be split into a trinity logic w probability, proof and experience in 3 branches. If it's true then he can make a logic system out of it, if he can't then it's fluff

>> No.15386140

>I mean he argues reason should be split into a trinity logic w probability, proof and experience in 3 branches.
No, he doesn't. Are you ESL?

>> No.15386173

no I mean when you are using the term "logical system" what are you talking about. do you mean he should create his own system of logic or do you mean construct any given system as a sound logical argument? do what Hume does, finish this sentence
>By logical system, I mean []

>> No.15386207

>distinguish human reason into 3 kinds
You can analogies human reason with logic anon, if you can't even conceptualize it you should probably not be reading philosophy.

If he has a system of human reason then where is humean propositional logic or modal etc. It's just abstract crap that has no relevance on human knowledge

>> No.15386222

Learn English before trying to read and debate in English.

>> No.15386240

You can analogize*, autocorrect anon. You can't think in an abstract sense or you have the sin of pride

>> No.15386252

>If he has a system of human reason then where is humean propositional logic or modal
what? I am confused what sort of standard you are holding him to. most philosophers don't attempt to reformulate abstract logical systems, they use them. philosophers basically used Aristotelian logic for two millennia.

>> No.15386259

Yes and I hold them equally responsible just the topic is about hume anon

>> No.15386260

not him but that's not the proper use of the word, logic isn't an "analogy" for reason

>> No.15386267

That's the French word

>> No.15386270

right but I still don't know what you are criticizing him for, that he didn't present a new form of propositional logic in the pic I sent you? you can't be this retarded anon

>> No.15386273

hume and locke are probably the worst philosophers i have ever read.
what was their problem?

>> No.15386278

No that's how it was spelled at the time in English

>> No.15386279

Hume died more than a century before the invention of modern logic by Frege and Peirce.

>> No.15386284

None of what you are posting makes sense in English, anon.

>> No.15386295

Clearly if I'm analogizing human reason with logic then it's meta to both of them not within logic.

I do particularly because I disagree with him. I'm not a fanatic empiricist.

Sure but it should be obvious that philosophy has to have some real systematic output and what closer than logic if not math

>> No.15386304


English is a dialect of French

>> No.15386311

The point is Hume does NOT argue that "reason should be split into a trinity logic w probability, proof and experience in 3 branches". You clearly haven't read Hume beyond the single page posted.

>> No.15386325

I'm just speaking about the page and on the page it literally says to split human reasoning into those 3 branches, second paragraph

>> No.15386351

>I do particularly because I disagree with him
right, I have been trying to figure out why, but you don't seem to have a reason
>Clearly if I'm analogizing human reason with logic then it's meta to both of them not within logic.
anon this isn't even philosophy at this point wtf are you talking about? what is the "it" in this sentence?

>> No.15386356

No, it does not. Learn English before trying to read philosophy written in English.

>> No.15386397

>I've been trying to figure out why
Read the rest of the sentence

The 'it' is analogizing. I can't say human reason is analogized w logic and then place analogizing as a form of logic. It would be like saying an apple and orange are both fruits then saying a fruit is an apple

>> No.15386401
File: 229 KB, 1440x217, Screenshot_20200517-140607_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It's italicized

>> No.15386432

okay, how about this. finish this sentence
>By analogy, I mean []

>> No.15386454

not that anon but if you read the whole page, he says that for the discussion at hand it's convenient to distinguish between 3 distinct types of reason which philosophers have talked about previously

>> No.15386589


>> No.15386596

By analogy, human reason and logic are the same. They're synonyms

>> No.15386604

Yes because he disagrees with conflating a few of them together (because he's anti rational - not on page)

>> No.15386658

okay, since you seem to not know what analogy means in philosophy, this is an analogical argument:
>cats eat food
>cats are animals
>dogs are animals
>dogs eat food

this is your analogy anon:
>reason and logic are the same
do you see how is isn't an analogy?

>> No.15386672

Okay human reasoning means x
Logic means x
Human reasoning should be broken up into 3 branches... (y)
Logic should


>> No.15386687

that's not even a syllogism lmao. anon, be honest, have you graduated high school?

>> No.15386725

That's a 4 line syllogism like urs, the terms are in different spots tho I think mine is more traditional.
A is X
B is X
A is Y
B is Y

>> No.15386747

yes but you can't just leave the variable in lmao, it actually deeply concerns me that you aren't trolling right now. in order to construct an analogy you first have to explain in what respects two different things are similar. you literally just said they are both x. wtf am I supposed to understand by x? anon, please, take a few years off, read a lot, don't try and do philosophy. I can tell you are too young for this.

>> No.15386760

You're being childish, logic is clearly abbreviated by terms and has been. You specifically argued w the form so I showed u the form and if u need to transfer it back out then reread the past posts

>> No.15386787

>logic is clearly abbreviated by terms and has been
what terms? just say what you mean, stop giving these non-answers. this will be the third time I have asked you to define a word you are using, you weren't able to define the last two, so this is your big chance here. third time's the charm. finish this sentence:
>By logic, I mean []

>> No.15386830
File: 135 KB, 1427x631, Screenshot_20200517-150203_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

A 'term' is clearly defined in logic.
Logic is a synonym of human reason. Eat shit retard

>> No.15386840

>Logic is a synonym of human reason
great, so you have to admit then you couldn't possibly construct an analogous argument between the two and you have been talking nonsense this entire thread

>> No.15386855
File: 127 KB, 1440x349, Screenshot_20200517-150427_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No because human reason isn't a systematized mechanism like logic is so to say that if he argues human reason is in such a way, then he should build a logic similarly is perfectly analogical

>> No.15386871

>No because human reason isn't a systematized mechanism like logic
so you are saying logic isn't a synonym of human reason?

>> No.15386880

So logic is a system of human reasoning but that he only used human reasoning without a system of logic shows they are dissimilar enough to allow it to be an analogy to say they must both go together

>> No.15386888

It is but he clearly doesn't use it in that manner. His human reasoning necessitates an actual logical system which he not only doesn't provide, he seems to down the idea of logic entirely

>> No.15386904

From what I can tell neither reason or logic really have a consistent universal definition, but logic seems to have the connotation of an explicit system, whereas reason just refers to everything humans do to 'make sense' of stuff.

>> No.15386930

>His human reasoning necessitates an actual logical system which he not only doesn't provide, he seems to down the idea of logic entirely
do you have a quote to support this position? seems like you pulled it entirely out of your ass. do you know how I know that? beacause I have read the book. this is literally from the fifth paragraph from the introduction. please anon, you are still young, what, 15? 16? don't go down this path. study hard and pay close attention to the world around you, and get ready to be wrong sometimes.

>> No.15386940
File: 19 KB, 521x186, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15386970


Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.