is there any philosopher more based than hume?
Wittgenstein. The man was a literal genius. Interesting life too.
I certainly can't think of one fa.m
>metaphysics: BTFO
>morality: BTFO
>religion: BTFO
>Rationalists: BTFO
>the Self: BTFO
>causation: BTFO
>induction: BTFO
>all scientific paradigms before and since: BTFO
>philosophy: BTFO
Where were you when the entirety of human intellectual history was kill?
>>321790
lil b
duh desu op baka
>Hobbbes rip-off
well at least he's not Locke
Muh black swan
>>321790
Machiavelli: how to win at life
Plotinus is the endgame of Philosophy
>>321790
My father really likes Hume. He used to be a Kantboo but now he likes Hume and Popper. Before he dies I'd like to know more about him and Popper, so can anyone give me directions?
>>322901
Read their Stanford articles.
Hume: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/
Popper: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Should I start with (and is it worth reading) A Treatise of Human Nature? How difficult is it to understand?
>>323024
Have you read any other philosophy?
>hurr durr metaphysics don't exist hurr durr look at me I'm so enlightened
100% of metaphysics is bullshit but it's still the only way we can pretend to answer relevant questions in life. Also Kant is more based.
>>322349
Machiavelli irl was a poor fella that tried to have a politcal career and got BTFO. The Prince is overly badass though.
m e t b h
>>323064
>liking Kant
He was a prudish A-hole who literally thought lying is never justifiable no exceptions. Hume is the only philosopher that seriously defended the notion that we can't know anything, which we can't because reality is just a social constrution
>>323111
>who literally thought lying is never justifiable no exceptions.
Well that is the logical conclusions of his ethics though.
>>321790
Spinoza and Heraclitus
>>323111
>because reality is just a social constrution
I don't remember Hume having written this
>>323142
He never did, it's just some po-mo interpretation.
>>322984
>Hume uses perception to designate any mental content whatsoever, and divides perceptions into two categories, impressions and ideas. Impressions include sensations as well as desires, passions, and emotions. Ideas are “the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning” (T 1.1.1.1/1). He thinks everyone will recognize his distinction, since everyone is aware of the difference between feeling and thinking
>
>>323142
it's implied in all of his work. reason is the slave of the passions, the problem of induction, is =/= ought, etc. dude didn't really believe in anything, he just thought reality was ultimately socially constructed and based on feelings
why do you paradrop society in hume's writings ?
>>323165
No that was Nietzsche
Plato. He was THE philosopher and got everything right too.
Not really. If you have anything to do with philosophy (mostly epistemology and ethics), you simply cannot avoid Hume.
Those who tried and tried to 'debunk' him failed miserably. In fact, the only one who got close to solving one of Hume's problems, Popper, basically ended up admitting that he was mostly right
And don't get me started on all the flavors of religious faggotry, their failures were so miserable that Hume's philosophy basically reduces them to a bunch of stuttering namedroppers and buzzwordwizards
>Hume: You can't know nuffin lmao
>Philosophers: Oh shit! How do we prove him wrong??
>>323142
>>I don't remember Hume having written this
only because he was scared to be called a solipsist, since this kind of name-calling is what the non-empiricist does given that he cannot disprove solipsism by non-empirical method.
>>323349
>>323376
Kek I remember that post
Good times on /lit/
>>323376
>materialists use humour to try and btfo the theory of forms
>>323376
hahahaha owwww so witty just like my post modern writer hah
What to say of a degenerate who doesn't understand form?
>>323425
>>323428
>>323430
case in point
>>323349
>>323376
>>323425
>>323428
>>323430
>>323438
>>323467
The fact that so many books still name the Plato as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" philosopher ever only tells you how far philosophy still is from becoming a serious art. Scientists have long recognized that the greatest scientists of all times are Issac Newton and Albert Einstein, who were not the most resentful or charlatanistic or idealist of their times, let alone of all times. Historians rank the highly controversial Thucydides over historians who were highly popular with Greeks at Olympia. Philosophers are still blinded by religious success. Plato sedates more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore he must have been the greatest. Scientists grow up studying to a lot of science of this world, historians grow up studying to a lot of history of this world. Philosophers are often totally ignorant of the philosophy of this world, they barely know the will to power. No wonder they will think that Plato did anything worthy of eternal recurrence.
>>323494
Sorry what, I couldn't hear you over the sound of you gobbling cum
>>323494
>All this pretense in one post
Good job.
>>323494
I didn't actually expect this to become a copypasta. It's good pasta, signor.
>>321790
Adorno is based imo
>that hegelian Nietzschean synthesis
>>323545
How can the "cultural marxist" interpretation of Adorno be correct at all if he was Nietzschean?
>>323579
Lots of fags like Nietzsche
>>323593
only whitewashers
>>323494
Plato asked literally every question that is discussed in philosophy to THIS day. The fact that he didnt do this by some autistic MUH systembuilding method doesnt matter.
Hume - Kant is probably the greatest philosophical rivalry ever
