Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Was Hume an accidentalist?

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 10:28:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well he attacked the logical connection between events but it might seem like an epistemic criticism rather than a metaphysical one. For instance, he might admit that causation *might* exist, we just have no logical reason to assume so. Accidentalism looks to be metaphysical, not epistemological.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 11:17:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 10:28:29 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Well he attacked the logical connection between events but it might seem like an epistemic criticism rather than a metaphysical one. For instance, he might admit that causation *might* exist, we just have no logical reason to assume so. Accidentalism looks to be metaphysical, not epistemological.

Yeah. That's what I thought might be the case.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 12:03:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

I'd say your logic is sound.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 12:06:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 10:28:29 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Well he attacked the logical connection between events but it might seem like an epistemic criticism rather than a metaphysical one. For instance, he might admit that causation *might* exist, we just have no logical reason to assume so. Accidentalism looks to be metaphysical, not epistemological.

I thought Hume's arguments were nearly entirely metaphysical, given our understanding of reality was largely metaphysical to Hume and his detractors (such as Kant) in the absence of sophisticated physics.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 12:44:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 12:03:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

I'd say your logic is sound.

What? I'm asking a question.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 12:46:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 12:44:09 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:03:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

I'd say your logic is sound.

What? I'm asking a question.

What? I thought it was a yes or no question. My answer was yes.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 1:06:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 12:46:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:44:09 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:03:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

I'd say your logic is sound.

What? I'm asking a question.

What? I thought it was a yes or no question. My answer was yes.

Your answer didn't convey it as I was not posing any logic towards the affirmative or negative.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 1:38:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.

Hume was merely criticizing the fact that we always assume that repeated examples of a cause leading to an effect/result is grounds for valid induction to the notion that A causes B.

He suggests that just because A causes B three times in a row didn't mean that A will always cause B.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 1:57:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

Eh, he attacked the justification for causality, but provided what he considered to be an answer for it (namely, total derivation of causal laws from experience, a pretty unpopular theory).

It's best to see Hume not as someone laying out the foundation of a belief system but instead as someone destroying the foundations of everyone else's belief systems.

Otherwise, he will appear to contradict himself at times, such as assuming causality doesn't exist on one page and taking it as a given two pages later.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 2:19:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 1:57:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

Eh, he attacked the justification for causality, but provided what he considered to be an answer for it (namely, total derivation of causal laws from experience, a pretty unpopular theory).

It's best to see Hume not as someone laying out the foundation of a belief system but instead as someone destroying the foundations of everyone else's belief systems.

I agree. The end of Enquiry was pretty disappointing. He spent the entire book criticizing causality and the grounding of our knowledge and that at the end he was just like "well forget all of that because we just act based on custom anyways trololololol."

Otherwise, he will appear to contradict himself at times, such as assuming causality doesn't exist on one page and taking it as a given two pages later.

That's the problem skepticism and nihilism run into. Philosophers take stabs at these deeply held concepts but then forget that we don't originally believe in them because of reason at all. As Hume said it's just custom and habit. So at least Hume made it clear that he wasn't trying to exact a paradigm shift or anything.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 2:19:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 1:06:04 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:46:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:44:09 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:03:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

I'd say your logic is sound.

What? I'm asking a question.

What? I thought it was a yes or no question. My answer was yes.

Your answer didn't convey it as I was not posing any logic towards the affirmative or negative.

What did you consider your substantiation? Just some sort of random link?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 2:20:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 1:57:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

Eh, he attacked the justification for causality, but provided what he considered to be an answer for it (namely, total derivation of causal laws from experience, a pretty unpopular theory).

It's best to see Hume not as someone laying out the foundation of a belief system but instead as someone destroying the foundations of everyone else's belief systems.

Otherwise, he will appear to contradict himself at times, such as assuming causality doesn't exist on one page and taking it as a given two pages later.

There is no excuse for that, no matter your intentions.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 3:19:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 2:20:58 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:57:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

Eh, he attacked the justification for causality, but provided what he considered to be an answer for it (namely, total derivation of causal laws from experience, a pretty unpopular theory).

It's best to see Hume not as someone laying out the foundation of a belief system but instead as someone destroying the foundations of everyone else's belief systems.

Otherwise, he will appear to contradict himself at times, such as assuming causality doesn't exist on one page and taking it as a given two pages later.

There is no excuse for that, no matter your intentions.

I completely disagree.

You are ignoring the context of Hume's writings. He was waging a full-out war against a religiously based sort of empirical view that took as simply granted things like induction, causality, perception, etc. Questioning such things verged on religious heresy.

When we talk about the problem of induction today, it takes about ten minutes to explain and then we say "alright, now what's an answer?"

Hume's entire book was devoted to SHOWING THE PROBLEM EXISTED. That alone basically got him religiously ex-communicated (at least from his seminary).

His task was, in his writings, to question the existence of induction while simultaneously questioning topics that presuppose induction (i.e. experience related to morality). Unless he has a Theory of Everything up his sleeve, that will result in contradictions.

When he gives an answer to his own problem, he doesn't expect it to be the ultimate answer, but only as a potential solution.

By showing such problems existed, he directly inspired philosophers to challenge him. Kant (and I am in the same boat) claims Hume is what initially sparked a fire in him to study philosophy (this came for me with learning of the is-ought problem).
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 3:26:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hume definitely was contradicting at times. The is-ought problem juxtaposed with his empirical investigation into morality is almost too obvious. But by far I think he was the most important philosopher of his time, possibly excluding Kant as an equal.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 3:26:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 2:19:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:57:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

Eh, he attacked the justification for causality, but provided what he considered to be an answer for it (namely, total derivation of causal laws from experience, a pretty unpopular theory).

It's best to see Hume not as someone laying out the foundation of a belief system but instead as someone destroying the foundations of everyone else's belief systems.

I agree. The end of Enquiry was pretty disappointing. He spent the entire book criticizing causality and the grounding of our knowledge and that at the end he was just like "well forget all of that because we just act based on custom anyways trololololol."

Otherwise, he will appear to contradict himself at times, such as assuming causality doesn't exist on one page and taking it as a given two pages later.

That's the problem skepticism and nihilism run into. Philosophers take stabs at these deeply held concepts but then forget that we don't originally believe in them because of reason at all. As Hume said it's just custom and habit. So at least Hume made it clear that he wasn't trying to exact a paradigm shift or anything.

Hume pushed western philosophy forward but showing that its current foundation was insufficient.

It's hard for modern westerns to really grasp the idea of having to write a book to simply show something is wrong. We expect a critical analysis to provide some sort of substantial alternative.

But the reason is because we are so USED to being critical. But in philosophical matters, the majority of Europeans in the 15-17th had their worldview completely fed to them by the Catholic Church. Critical thinking about the bible not done by the Church is essentially useless. Protestants changed that by being forced to critically read the Bible without a church authority.

So showing the Problem of Induction existed was essentially heresy.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 3:37:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 2:19:36 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:06:04 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:46:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:44:09 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:03:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

I'd say your logic is sound.

What? I'm asking a question.

What? I thought it was a yes or no question. My answer was yes.

Your answer didn't convey it as I was not posing any logic towards the affirmative or negative.

What did you consider your substantiation? Just some sort of random link?

My substantiation to what?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 3:41:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 3:37:48 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 2:19:36 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:06:04 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:46:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:44:09 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:03:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

I'd say your logic is sound.

What? I'm asking a question.

What? I thought it was a yes or no question. My answer was yes.

Your answer didn't convey it as I was not posing any logic towards the affirmative or negative.

What did you consider your substantiation? Just some sort of random link?

My substantiation to what?

Are you serious right now?

"Was he an accidentalist, yes or no? Here's a link to explain what an accidentalist is."

"Yes, and your logic for it seems sound."

What aren't you getting?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 3:53:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 3:41:47 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 3:37:48 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 2:19:36 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:06:04 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:46:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:44:09 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:03:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

I'd say your logic is sound.

What? I'm asking a question.

What? I thought it was a yes or no question. My answer was yes.

Your answer didn't convey it as I was not posing any logic towards the affirmative or negative.

What did you consider your substantiation? Just some sort of random link?

My substantiation to what?

Are you serious right now?

"Was he an accidentalist, yes or no? Here's a link to explain what an accidentalist is."

"Yes, and your logic for it seems sound."

What aren't you getting?

You make it sound as if I was arguing he was. I don't know what was sound about my logic that you're referring to, nor how pointing out the soundness of it would imply that he was an accidentalist. I didn't post any logic for him being one. You just said my logic is sound and assumed that meant yes which is rather confusing.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 3:58:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 3:53:57 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 3:41:47 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 3:37:48 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 2:19:36 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:06:04 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:46:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:44:09 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:03:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

I'd say your logic is sound.

What? I'm asking a question.

What? I thought it was a yes or no question. My answer was yes.

Your answer didn't convey it as I was not posing any logic towards the affirmative or negative.

What did you consider your substantiation? Just some sort of random link?

My substantiation to what?

Are you serious right now?

"Was he an accidentalist, yes or no? Here's a link to explain what an accidentalist is."

"Yes, and your logic for it seems sound."

What aren't you getting?

You make it sound as if I was arguing he was. I don't know what was sound about my logic that you're referring to, nor how pointing out the soundness of it would imply that he was an accidentalist. I didn't post any logic for him being one. You just said my logic is sound and assumed that meant yes which is rather confusing.

If you weren't arguing that he was, then you may have asked, "what was the general philosophical school to which Hume subscribed?"

But, instead, you asked whether he was specifically accidentalist, which suggests that you at least suspected that he may be. Therefore, it stands as an argument that can be either confirmed or refuted (yes or no).

Your logic for him being one is the definition of accidentalist.

I don't really get your contention. You trying to correct me on something? If so, you might want to be more direct.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 4:12:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 3:58:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 3:53:57 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 3:41:47 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 3:37:48 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 2:19:36 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:06:04 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:46:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:44:09 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 12:03:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:16:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Accidentalism: "system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazard or by chance" http://en.wikisource.org...

Just wandering because of his attacks on causality.

I'd say your logic is sound.

What? I'm asking a question.

What? I thought it was a yes or no question. My answer was yes.

Your answer didn't convey it as I was not posing any logic towards the affirmative or negative.

What did you consider your substantiation? Just some sort of random link?

My substantiation to what?

Are you serious right now?

"Was he an accidentalist, yes or no? Here's a link to explain what an accidentalist is."

"Yes, and your logic for it seems sound."

What aren't you getting?

You make it sound as if I was arguing he was. I don't know what was sound about my logic that you're referring to, nor how pointing out the soundness of it would imply that he was an accidentalist. I didn't post any logic for him being one. You just said my logic is sound and assumed that meant yes which is rather confusing.

If you weren't arguing that he was, then you may have asked, "what was the general philosophical school to which Hume subscribed?"

But, instead, you asked whether he was specifically accidentalist, which suggests that you at least suspected that he may be. Therefore, it stands as an argument that can be either confirmed or refuted (yes or no).

Yes I thought he may be, but as SP pointed out, it was an epistemological stance stance not metaphysical, which is what I also thought might be the case. I didn't know which is why I asked the question.

If I was arguing he was I would have just stated he as, or provided an argument instead of saying I was "wondering".

Your logic for him being one is the definition of accidentalist.

How would a definition of accidentalism imply I was arguing he was one? It would only be an argument if I stated he fit the definition. But I merely stated the definition to ask whether Hume fit it.

I don't really get your contention. You trying to correct me on something? If so, you might want to be more direct.

You obviously just misunderstood my meaning which resulted in confusion.

But this is a useless conversation so this is my last reply.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 5:50:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 12:06:10 PM, Ren wrote:
I thought Hume's arguments were nearly entirely metaphysical, given our understanding of reality was largely metaphysical to Hume and his detractors (such as Kant) in the absence of sophisticated physics.

Hume was the destroyer of metaphysics and, despite his attacks on the Logical Necessity of Causality, a man very much in touch with and in support of Empirical Science
(having written a renowned series of short biographies of all the contemporary scientists of his time putting their discoveries in context with one another to comment on it's development)

Hume Said:
"Hostility to metaphysics, however, isn't entirely unjustified. It isn't merely obscure; it is also "the inevitable source of uncertainty and error." This is "the justest and most plausible objection against a considerable part of metaphysics, that they are not properly a science." Instead, these theories "arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to the understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselves on fair ground, raise these entangling branches to cover and protect their weakness"

and more bashing any metaphysical claims and in support of Empiric understandings:
"any hypothesis, that pretends to discover the ultimate original qualities of human nature, ought to be rejected as presumptuous and chimerical." Once we see the "impossibility of explaining ultimate principles," we can reject theories that pretend to provide them. And once we do, we can get clear about the proper way to study human nature: "The essence of the mind being equally unknown to us with that of external bodies, it must be equally impossible to form any notion of its powers and qualities otherwise than from careful and exact experiments, and the observation of particular effects, which result from different circumstances and situations." So the Treatise also recommends the repudiation of metaphysics, and outlines a positive program whereby "the only solid foundation" for the science of human nature "must be laid on experience and observation"

He Acted in his life assuming causality... and Wanted people to do so, thought it was most useful and most intelligent to do so, Wanted people to study and make observations and act upon those observations.

He just acknowledged that Although the patterns by which we come to understand things can be useful and Seem Constant, that there was no Absolute Necessity that they actually Be constant.. or actually Reflect some thing, or some relationship, that must be constant.

I say he was the destroyer of metaphysics because of this. He advocated coming to understandings, but not calling those understandings absolute... and Showed why those understandings Cannot claim to the absolute.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 5:57:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 12:06:10 PM, Ren wrote:
I thought Hume's arguments were nearly entirely metaphysical, given our understanding of reality was largely metaphysical to Hume and his detractors (such as Kant) in the absence of sophisticated physics.

also... Newtonian physics (which he was probably Much more adept at than you are) is still our basic notion of the world... and provides a plenty good framework for an understanding of things that Needn't be Metaphysical..

also... The only difference between an understanding of something and a Metaphysical understanding is how far you think that understanding Reaches into explaining the nature of things..

Though hume did Indeed have a similar understanding of Physical reality as us, Even If he didn't, that wouldn't mean his understanding must necessarily be a "metaphysical" understanding....

Metaphysical just means it claims to describe the Root nature, absolute nature, of things.. That nature which explains, accounts for, and fits in Fits in all other things.. A nature in which everything else falls under.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 6:05:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 2:19:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The end of Enquiry was pretty disappointing. He spent the entire book criticizing causality and the grounding of our knowledge and that at the end he was just like "well forget all of that because we just act based on custom anyways trololololol."

I thought it was awesome :)

But I agree that he didn't do any kind of thorough job as to explaining Why we should go with our Habits in this regard... Which he pretty clearly thought we should.

I don't know why he didn't go on to do so.. but I think it can be easily and convincingly done.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 6:07:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 5:57:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Metaphysical just means it claims to describe the Root nature, absolute nature, of things.. That nature which explains, accounts for, and fits in Fits in all other things.. A nature in which everything else **NECESSARILY** falls under.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 8:42:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 6:05:22 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 2:19:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The end of Enquiry was pretty disappointing. He spent the entire book criticizing causality and the grounding of our knowledge and that at the end he was just like "well forget all of that because we just act based on custom anyways trololololol."

I thought it was awesome :)

But I agree that he didn't do any kind of thorough job as to explaining Why we should go with our Habits in this regard... Which he pretty clearly thought we should.

I don't know why he didn't go on to do so.. but I think it can be easily and convincingly done.

It was just disappointing I guess. The entire book was philosophically mind blowing. I'm actually thinking of going back and re-reading it. But the book highlights the conflict between how we think in an intellectual sense and how we act in a practical sense. But I guess that's just a problem that philosophy as a whole deals with. At least Hume was honest about it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 8:50:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 8:42:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/1/2012 6:05:22 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/30/2012 2:19:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The end of Enquiry was pretty disappointing. He spent the entire book criticizing causality and the grounding of our knowledge and that at the end he was just like "well forget all of that because we just act based on custom anyways trololololol."

I thought it was awesome :)

But I agree that he didn't do any kind of thorough job as to explaining Why we should go with our Habits in this regard... Which he pretty clearly thought we should.

I don't know why he didn't go on to do so.. but I think it can be easily and convincingly done.

It was just disappointing I guess. The entire book was philosophically mind blowing. I'm actually thinking of going back and re-reading it. But the book highlights the conflict between how we think in an intellectual sense and how we act in a practical sense. But I guess that's just a problem that philosophy as a whole deals with. At least Hume was honest about it.

I don't think there's really got to be a conflict or a gap between the two...

I accept the limits of my understanding, but it makes sense to go with it so long as it seems to work.. For it seems to get me what I want :)

So long as it seems to work, it Only makes sense to use it.

Hume says there's no reason it should Necessarily, Always, have to work.. but this doesn't change the fact that it makes sense to act based upon those patterns I habitually make/see...
It still makes sense to use them so long as doing so apparently better gets me what I want.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 9:28:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 8:50:46 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Hume says there's no reason it should Necessarily, Always, have to work.. but this doesn't change the fact that it makes sense to act based upon those patterns I habitually make/see...
It still makes sense to use them so long as doing so apparently better gets me what I want.

I get that and obviously do the same. It just sort of feels like that turns philosophy into mental masturbation if you don't get anything more out of it. That's why Buddhism is a philosophy I actually get since the practical and intellectual side are more or less intertwined.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 8:58:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think Good Buddhism essentially says what I said.. Accept things as they present themselves. Everything from understandings that present themselves to volitions and such.. Acting upon them as they come, so much so that it's effortless, so much so that it's really non-action. Not holding to any Particular aspect you pick out among them (be they notions or Cares) for longer than it presents itself... As things won't necessarily stay the same.

Buddhism recognizes that we understand through cause and effect, but, as with Hume, says that that our understanding doesn't Reach to describe the universe.
Both Hume and buddhists suggest you go with that apparent reality, but not cling to it beyond it's time, or apply it beyond it's scope.

Though Bad Buddhism says all-too-much more.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."