Hume
Moderator: Only_Humean
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Hume
by Skeptic » Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:05 am
I have been reading a lot of David Hume lately and can't seem to find anything that I disagree with him on. Anybody have any disagreements with his philosophy's? or have you found any contradictions or problems? I'd love to hear some other opinions.
Last night as I lay in bed looking up at the stars in the sky, I thought to myself,
"Where the heck is the ceiling?!"
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
"Where the heck is the ceiling?!"
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-
Skeptic - (Jason Hill)
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 7:02 am
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
by silver » Fri Apr 04, 2003 4:39 am
Skeptic,
I did a bit of research on Hume a while back and although i don’t have any particular disagreements with his philosophy ( I find it to be rather astounding), i don't quite get his "Humean Method", the test he put to any claim. Maybe you can clear it up a bit, or tell me where i go wrong.
As I understand it, the first step in this process is to ask whether the claim is analytic. (Negation leads to a self contradiction)
For example, the claim that a triangle has three sides. Is that analytic? Yes b/c saying that a triangle does not have three sides would be a self contradiction. Therefore that claim could be accepted as fact.
However, what if you take the claim “God exists� This is not analytic b/c its negation does not necessarily lead to a self contradiction.
So the next question you would ask is, Is it synthetic? In other words, can it be traced back to sense data ( “impressions†as Hume puts it)?
If the answer is: ‘yes, it is conceived though the 5 senses’, then it passes the empirical criterion of meaning and can be accepted as fact. If the answer is ‘no’, then according to Hume we must be dealing with a vacuous idea, we must be dealing with “nonsenseâ€.
Going back to the claim “God existsâ€. We know that it is not analytic, but is it synthetic?... Hume says No because he feels it is impossible to trace the idea of God back to sense data. He said, “ our ideas reach no further than our experience. We have no experience of divine attributes and operations….†Therefore, God, for Hume, becomes nonsense even though he doesn't out-right say it. At least not in anything i've read.
I donno, did i get that right?
I did a bit of research on Hume a while back and although i don’t have any particular disagreements with his philosophy ( I find it to be rather astounding), i don't quite get his "Humean Method", the test he put to any claim. Maybe you can clear it up a bit, or tell me where i go wrong.
As I understand it, the first step in this process is to ask whether the claim is analytic. (Negation leads to a self contradiction)
For example, the claim that a triangle has three sides. Is that analytic? Yes b/c saying that a triangle does not have three sides would be a self contradiction. Therefore that claim could be accepted as fact.
However, what if you take the claim “God exists� This is not analytic b/c its negation does not necessarily lead to a self contradiction.
So the next question you would ask is, Is it synthetic? In other words, can it be traced back to sense data ( “impressions†as Hume puts it)?
If the answer is: ‘yes, it is conceived though the 5 senses’, then it passes the empirical criterion of meaning and can be accepted as fact. If the answer is ‘no’, then according to Hume we must be dealing with a vacuous idea, we must be dealing with “nonsenseâ€.
Going back to the claim “God existsâ€. We know that it is not analytic, but is it synthetic?... Hume says No because he feels it is impossible to trace the idea of God back to sense data. He said, “ our ideas reach no further than our experience. We have no experience of divine attributes and operations….†Therefore, God, for Hume, becomes nonsense even though he doesn't out-right say it. At least not in anything i've read.
I donno, did i get that right?
- silver
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 11:19 pm
by Syan880 » Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:05 pm
the hume point of view i don't agree with Skeptic is the "hume fork" way of thinking, every justifiable true statement is either a "truth of reason" or a "matter of fact". to me that's too simple, perhaps too mathmatical or scientific for me to be able to think like that. i am more abstract a locke thinker.
tell me more about what you think.
tell me more about what you think.
-
Syan880 - Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 11:00 pm
- Location: Canada
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users