/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15385823]

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

[Anonymous No.15385833]

you forgot "connexion"

[Anonymous No.15385843]

>>15385833
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.

[Anonymous No.15385856]

>>15385823
Are you kidding?

[Anonymous No.15385860]

>>15385856
No, he writes in an extremely convoluted way compared to the other empiricist and I'm having a hard time following his philosophical arguments.

[Anonymous No.15385871]

>>15385843
>for fuck's sake Hume is the worst writer I have ever had the misfortune to read.
>>15385860
>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?

[Anonymous No.15385878]

>>15385871
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.

[Anonymous No.15385898]

>>15385843
oh, I thought you meant he was using outdated terms. Hume is very easy to understand. are you esl?

[Anonymous 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.

[Anonymous No.15385907]

>>15385878
Post a screenshot

[Anonymous No.15385911]

>>15385878
There you go. Digital editions generally suck and are full of typos.

[Anonymous No.15385928]

>>15385898
yeah but as i said i went through seemingly harder texts and absorbed them without any issues.
>>15385907
https://www.amazon.com/Treatise-Human-Nature-English-ebook/dp/B088P8JBTF/ref=sr_1_2?__mk_it_IT=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&dchild=1&keywords=hume&qid=1589745734&s=digital-text&sr=1-2
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.

[Anonymous No.15385936]

>>15385928
Sure just a screenshot tho I'm curious haven't read it

[Anonymous No.15385946]

>>15385911

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

[Anonymous No.15385978]

>>15385946
After all the chicharrones we made for them? Son of a bitch!

[Anonymous No.15385983]

>>15385936

[Anonymous No.15386016]

>>15385983
Yeah it reads a bit anachronistic and like he could've substantiated his points with an actual logical system anywhere on that page

[Anonymous No.15386036]

>>15386016
he literally provides all the relevant definitions in the second paragraph, why are you people coping. and what do you mean by "logical system"?

[Anonymous No.15386048]

>>15386036
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

[Anonymous No.15386140]

>>15386048
>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?

[Anonymous No.15386173]

>>15386048
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 []

[Anonymous No.15386207]

>>15386140
>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.

>>15386173
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

[Anonymous No.15386222]

>>15386207
Learn English before trying to read and debate in English.

[Anonymous No.15386240]

>>15386222
You can analogize*, autocorrect anon. You can't think in an abstract sense or you have the sin of pride

[Anonymous No.15386252]

>>15386207
>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.

[Anonymous No.15386259]

>>15386252
Yes and I hold them equally responsible just the topic is about hume anon

[Anonymous No.15386260]

>>15386240
>analogize
not him but that's not the proper use of the word, logic isn't an "analogy" for reason

[Anonymous No.15386267]

>>15385833
That's the French word

[Anonymous No.15386270]

>>15386259
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

[Anonymous No.15386273]

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

[Anonymous No.15386278]

>>15386267
No that's how it was spelled at the time in English

[Anonymous No.15386279]

>>15386259
Hume died more than a century before the invention of modern logic by Frege and Peirce.

[Anonymous No.15386284]

>>15386240
None of what you are posting makes sense in English, anon.

[Anonymous No.15386295]

>>15386260
Clearly if I'm analogizing human reason with logic then it's meta to both of them not within logic.

>>15386270
I do particularly because I disagree with him. I'm not a fanatic empiricist.

>>15386279
Sure but it should be obvious that philosophy has to have some real systematic output and what closer than logic if not math

[Anonymous No.15386304]

>>15386278

English is a dialect of French

[Anonymous No.15386311]

>>15386295
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.

[Anonymous No.15386325]

>>15386311
I'm just speaking about the page and on the page it literally says to split human reasoning into those 3 branches, second paragraph

[Anonymous No.15386351]

>>15386295
>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?

[Anonymous No.15386356]

>>15386325
No, it does not. Learn English before trying to read philosophy written in English.

[Anonymous No.15386397]

>>15386351
>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

[Anonymous No.15386401]

>>15386356
It's italicized

[Anonymous No.15386432]

>>15386397
okay, how about this. finish this sentence
>By analogy, I mean []

[Anonymous No.15386454]

>>15386401
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

[Anonymous No.15386589]

>>15386454
This.

[Anonymous No.15386596]

>>15386432
By analogy, human reason and logic are the same. They're synonyms

[Anonymous No.15386604]

>>15386454
Yes because he disagrees with conflating a few of them together (because he's anti rational - not on page)

[Anonymous No.15386658]

>>15386596
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
therefore
>dogs eat food

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

[Anonymous No.15386672]

>>15386658
Okay human reasoning means x
Logic means x
Human reasoning should be broken up into 3 branches... (y)
Logic should

Happy?

[Anonymous No.15386687]

>>15386672
that's not even a syllogism lmao. anon, be honest, have you graduated high school?

[Anonymous No.15386725]

>>15386687
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

[Anonymous No.15386747]

>>15386725
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.

[Anonymous No.15386760]

>>15386747
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

[Anonymous No.15386787]

>>15386760
>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 []

[Anonymous No.15386830]

>>15386787
A 'term' is clearly defined in logic.
Logic is a synonym of human reason. Eat shit retard

[Anonymous No.15386840]

>>15386830
>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

[Anonymous No.15386855]

>>15386840
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

[Anonymous No.15386871]

>>15386855
>No because human reason isn't a systematized mechanism like logic
so you are saying logic isn't a synonym of human reason?

[Anonymous No.15386880]

>>15386840
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

[Anonymous No.15386888]

>>15386871
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

[Anonymous No.15386904]

>>15386840
>>15386855
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.

[Anonymous No.15386930]

>>15386888
>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.

[Anonymous No.15386940]

>>15386888
>>15386930

[Anonymous No.15386970]

>>15386940
Agreed