>argues clearly
>gives no fucks
>blows Christianity the fuck out
>fucks French broads til he gets old
>tells jokes on his deathbed to disappointed believers
How can one man be so based?
Hume appreciation thread
>>463452
I wanna fuck his silly turban
>>463460
We all do, anon. We all do.
muh black swan
muh is ought
>>463452
He is truly amazing.
Merry Christmas, Hume.
>>463537
>muh most popular view on the moral potential of science
Anti Hume retards are the worst
>>463558
>And so the assertions of morality cannot be logically derived from factual assertions about social or historical habit and custom. The force, certainty, and actual moral nature of morality is a residue that reference to society cannot account for. Since that residue is found in our own moral sentiments, this is something left to autonomy. While Hume's distinction between "is" and "ought" is often used as an argument that moral statements are baseless or meaningless, this was not what Hume had in mind. Instead, we must take him as arguing for what now would be called the "axiomatic independence" of ethics, something that would have already been comprehensible to Aristotle, who expected that each area of knowledge possessed its own first principles. It seems like many recent philosophers neither know their Aristotle nor understand their Hume.
>Hume is a skeptic (which in philosophy means believing that knowledge is impossible) but of a certain kind. "Pyrrhonian" skepticism, named after Pyrrho of Elis (365-275 BC), is that because knowledge is impossible, we should practice suspension (epochê) of judgment on all things. Carneades of Cyrene (d. 129 BC), a Scholarch (president) of the Academy, is particularly associated with this movement of "Academic" skepticism. The Academic skeptics ultimately said that although there may be no certain knowledge, there is reasonable belief, and this is necessary for practical judgments in life.
>That is the term that Hume uses, as he says, "There is, indeed, a more mitigated scepticism or academical philosophy, which may be both durable and useful, and which may, in part, be the result of this Pyrrhonism, or excessive scepticism, when its undistinguished doubts are, in some measure, corrected by common sense and reflection" [p. 129].
meme kiddies are the worst
>>463574
>being this fucking retarded
>2015
I said it is the most popular view, you dumbass
>>463847
>But there remains a gap. Obviously we cannot logically derive the "ought" of morality from the "is" of history. This would violate Hume's own foundational insight. Hume faced a similar problem with causality. Although we apply the principle of causality as a matter of "necessary connection," such necessity cannot be logically deduced from the contingency we find in the mere occurrence of "constant conjunction." As he says, "There is a step taken by the mind which is not supported by any argument or process of the understanding" [Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Shelby-Bigge edition, Oxford, 1902, 1972, p.41]. It is essential to an understanding of Hume that we realize he does not deny the validity of that "step." This means that we understand and apply causality as a matter of necessary connections -- which results in the rejection of chance, free will, and miracles as violations of natural causation -- and that we regard and apply morality as a matter of imperative obligation. Modern Hume apologists enthuse over the atheism and the arguments against miracles but then ignore or misconstrue everything else.
just more concentratd BTFO for the humetards
>>463857
You don't even understand what you are talking about.
Hume of course doesn't reject the possibilities of Christianity, that's like step one of his philosophy you dumbass
>>463872
He's pointing out misconceptions people have of Hume's thought you absolute cretin
>>463880
I don't have those misconceptions so he's shitposting, you doofus
>>463904
No, but you do have autism.
>>463452
I have great respect for Hume, but if he truly gave
> no fucks
he would have published his Dialogues while he was alive.
>begs question about miracles
>CHRISTIANITY BTFO
>>463857
>Obviously we cannot logically derive the "ought" of morality from the "is" of history
if it is so obvious, why do people still believe that we can. why does this guy do not show a proof of his statement ?
>>464390
Everything begs the question. That's why skepticism is the only epistemology.
>>464594
