This guy walks up to you and says "Reason is altogether inadequate as a source of knowledge."
How do you respond?
>much dick muhfuggah BIX NOOD!
>>1008433
s-sorry Hume
Tell him it is merely his own reason that is inadequate.
Shake his hand and thank him for his incalculable services for mankind
"You are correct sir. Much of what we learn to understand is counter-intuitive.
>empiricism
>>1008433
Agreed. Humans are not God and cannot know everything God knows, nor reason it all out.
>>1008433
"What reasons demonstrate your conclusion?"
>>1008545
rekt
>>1008433
I turn my face to no one in particular and say "what did he mean by this"?
>>1008545
>>1008545
Kant, every fucking time.
>>1008545
I kant believe it
>>1008545
He's done it again
>>1008691
How can you assume we are basement dwellers if you've never seen where we live? :^)
>>1008545
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YVrxFmheSc
>>1008731
>>1008695
>that picture
saved
>>1008545
LOL
>>1008433
Well, that's just, like, your opinion man!
>>1008545
He's right theoretically, but there are no knowledge where reason alone brought knowledge.
>>1009745
>>1011355
What differs David Hume from Descartes again, apart from Descartes being super christian? They both seem content on tearing apart their world view in order to better understand why they believe what they believe.
>>1008433
sounds about right innit
>>1008433
Amen.
>>1011705
descartes - knowledge is achieved through pure reason
hume - knowledge is achieved through sense data/experience
>>1008433
If absolute truth doesn't exist, the statement, "absolute truth doesn't exist" is not absolutely true.
>>1008545
>clinging to your fantasy of ''reasons'' and ''demonstration''
the burden of proof is on the rationalists to prove that their speculations are not worthless.
>>1012028
If you accept there's a burden of proof at all, you presuppose that reason is capable of demonstrations that can satisfy that burden.
>>1013116
that was just to use their vocabulary. empiricists do not need to listen to fantasies and the rationalist whines that he fails to grasp the attention of other people and whine even more when other rationalists are trendier than him
>>1011775
That simplification of both Descartes and Hume is fucking retarded.
>>1013480
were on a sudanese frog catching forum not a fucking philosophy class. i dont need to go into details on them
>>1013116
He's done it again! He Kant keep getting away with it!
>>1008433
nice wig fagit
>>1008433
Why does he look like a downie?
>>1008898
>that ruski graffiti
Königsberg was a mistake.
>>1013779
Russians were a mistake
>>1013229
> that was just to use their vocabulary
Do you mean it's only rationalistic vocabulary? It's more - that vocabulary signifies something. It signifies that if you're making arguments, and asking for arguments, then you're accepting that there are rules of inference allowing propositions to entail conclusions, and that these inferences and conclusions can be communicated to another human. Such rules and capabilities are what we call "reason." How can we argue that reason is unreliable without *using* reason to structure our argument?
If we throw away reason, then we're both right and we're both wrong at the same time and in the same way - and seventeen moons always deep-fry Alaska, so you should speak Finnish to pelicans.
> empiricists do not need to listen to fantasies
Switch the words "empiricists" and "rationalist" here, and in the rest of your post, and maybe you'll see that it's not a substantive argument. Also, Kant had very significant elements of empiricism in his system.
> the rationalist whines
Who's whining?
>>1008433
"By what method did you arrive at this conclusion, if not reason?"
>>1008697
EMPIRICISTS ON SUICIDE WATCH
