>How can one man be so right about literally everything?
>>18476
maybe because he wasn't at all?
he was a deluded materialist just like you are.
>implying anyone knows who this fat cunt is
by literally parroting john lock word for word
>>18509
>not recognizing david hume
you on the right board m80?
>>18476
His empiricism is utter bullshit though.
No everything. His criticism of Christianity is begging the question concerning miracles.
>>18500
Hume's greatest influence was Bishop Berkeley.
btw, have you read Hume?
>>18525
John Locke was wrong about everything tho desu senpai.
>>18525
Kek, what on earth are you talking about? Hume was extremely critical of Locke.
>>18594
His paper on "How that one anonymous poster who posts desu is a massive faggot" was spot on though.
>>18582
>>Hume's greatest influence was Bishop Berkeley.
Hume is Berkeley without god
based
>>18678
Which of course isn't sensible, since God is the linchpin that is the inescapable conclusion of Berkeley's theory. Hume never actually addresses that elephant in the room except "no reason to assume causation exists" and begging the question concerning miracles.
>>18678
>Steal material from a bishop
>take out the God bits to appear to be a great thinker
>based
>>18594
>desu senpai
You're one guy using all that bullshit from one thread to the next, correct? Fucking stop.
Hume was based, btw
>>21062
>he doesn't know about the filter
baka desu senpai
>We finally have /philo/
This pleases me and scares me at the same time.
>>21174
we are now at the precipice, we're either going to degrade like /pol/ or soar to uncharted heights.
>>21174
This board doesn't have philosophical debates. /lit/ did, or does, but the debates here are not philosophical because hardly anyone here reads philosophy in ratio to the number posting in these threads, whereas in /lit/ most posts in philosophy threads were by people who actually read philosophy.
>>18476
Too bad Kant blew him the fuck out
"NONSENSE ON STILTS"
BASED
>>21575
Rofl what? No he did not m8
>>21174
Maybe you're just meek?
>>21947
That was Bentham
>>18500
Hume wasn't a materialist. I mean, first of all you should know he shuns metaphysics if you're even going to talk about him. It's difficult to say if Hume was or wasn't an idealist, he was certainly doing phenomenology however.
>>18525
He didn't. Hume is much more radical.
>>21575
Kant did his best, as far as a response to Hume Kant was attempting to give us some sort of footing to apply the categories to place our knowledge on foundations.
>>18580
Hume literally made no mistakes. His entire enterprise is scientific.
I bet you're one of those people who thinks the missing shade of blue was acknowledged and assented to for no good reason.
>>18476
>Atheism
>Solipsism
>Scottish
Literally wrong in every way
>>21062
new as fuck desu
>>25573
>>Solipsism
No.
>>25957
>A posteriori knowledge leads a priori to function
What is this supposed to mean?
That a posteriori knowledge presupposes something a priori? That 'function' is the principle upon which a posteriori knowledge rests?
How is any of this a critique of what was stated?
>>18476
The only thing I remember about AS level philosophy is really liking him.
What did he believe in again?
>>27490
How about you read his writings.
>This is his Wikipedia picture
allahu ackbar
