Any philosophy people on /lit/ right now?
When Hume says all of our ideas are formed by impressions did he really mean that?
In other words without impression of x, there can be no idea of x.
He means that sensory input alone is sufficient to account for the formation of ideas, yeah. Or at least that's what he's usually taken to mean. It's an extreme version of the epistemological stance that there are no innate concepts.
Here:
http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Hume/ImpressionsIdeas.pdf
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/section4.rhtml
It might also help you to understand Plato's and Aristotle's epistemology / theory of mind, particularly where each of them felt the "forms" (aka "ideas") of things were actually held, and how the mind dealt with them. Hume is reacting against long lines of thought going back to their positions. Easier to understand if you know about them, and he definitely definitely assumes the reader does.
>>7812948
Yes. Keep in mind impression has a different definition than the way it is used.
>>7812966
Where should I start if I'm learning on my own?
>>7812993
I really liked this but you gotta slog through the Plato and Aristotle parts before it gets easier (because less time devoted to individual philosophers, more condensed)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjpbX0XZ76T2suXhHqGkINqzAhE4dknQB
Also try fleshing it out with this as you do each philosopher
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV5_xavg5I2S6Z1eDl54cpmTKvEKGvFFQ
They're not in order, so google the book's chapter order and use that.
For Plato, read his dialogues in chronological order. Which isn't a huge deal. Tips:
- Use secondary materials like Sparknotes, Wikipedia, and Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and anything else you enjoy. Fucking lots of them.
- The biggest tip with Plato: It is tedious to start, and then it gets way easier during/after the Republic, because each dialogue after that point is a huge famous one and the ideas are so major that you won't get bored. Until then it's a slog with a few real highlights.
- Do background reading on Athens and the Sophists. You need to soak your mind (just a bit) in the intellectual background so that you can weaken some preconceptions that might distract you later on. Too often people ask questions that imply they think the Sophists were a systematic school, or they are trying too hard to force Socrates to be this clear, rigid dividing line in philosophy. You need to see the whole situation as a supple intellectual melee with lots of ideas floating around.
There are pretty good Aristotle readers out there, just google around for one. The most important things you want to read of Aristotle are:
>Physics, Organon, Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, Metaphysics, On the Soul, Rhetoric, Poetics
Some tips for reading Aristotle:
- They are basically shoddy lecture notes compiled by his students, not publications by him, so they are incomplete, fragmentary, obtuse, tedious, and difficult - this is a universal sentiment, don't feel bad for thinking it. Some of them are REALLY fragmentary, incomplete, corrupted (Poetics).
- You will do more secondary reading than primary reading for each one. No one gets the Aristotle's shit until it's explained to them. Fuck, no one gets Aristotle in general. No one can figure his ass out. Just do your best.
- Seriously, you'll get more of your understanding of Aristotle from people summarising him than from reading him. It's rough.
- Poetics is important for lit crit, organon for logic. Rhetoric is probably least important.
- Look up an online glossary if you keep forgetting technical terms.
- Don't feel bad. Aristotle fucking sucks to read.
Then do secondary materials (Wheaton+Wikipedia+maybe Stanford is good) on stuff that interests you up to Early Modern. I like Plotinus but I'm not gonna force Plotinus on you, e.g. You can revisit later.
Then use this:
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/
Either use it outright (it's actually great - don't feel bad), or just use it as a reading list if you want to try the (harder) original texts.
>>7813039
>Which isn't a huge deal.
Which TRANSLATOR isn't a huge deal*, my bad.
>>7812983
What do you mean?
You might be mistaking the meaning of "impression." That stance is actually more typical of the diametric opposite of Hume's epistemology.
>>7813039
Wow.
I appreciate your help, thank you.
>>7812983
by "impression" he literally means the feelings/images you are subject to and experience
think of "impression" like a memory
>>7813050
Well if there are no innate concepts, for us to have an idea of God, wouldn't God have had to make an impression upon us?
>>7813068
That is actually one of the major critiques of Hume's epistemology - how then do we get complex concepts about things that don't really exist obviously in the world? So you're on the right track for thinking about this stuff, smart question.
It is addressed on the first or second page of that pdf I linked, if you check that out.
>>7813056
No worries. It's a long and winding road with no set path. That kind of stuff is just what worked for me, so YMMV.
>>7813062
Yes he goes on to say the impressions help our ideas form into simple and complex.
But where did the idea of God come from?
Did it come from an impression?
>>7813068
Hume is an empiricist. He says things like a soul or God exist only under faith. So can they exist? Sure. Can we know right now? No.
And so that leaves a bad taste in Hume's mouth regarding religions or "superstitions". But he never says religions are worthless entirely, just uhh... subject to a lot of criticisms.
>>7813101
No, he's not an atheist. Just a mitigated skeptic.
>>7813079
So if I'm understanding this correctly, Hume says we get the idea of God from our impressions of finitude, imperfection, evil etc. but when we observe these things and see that they are real, should we necessarily assume that there are "things" which exist opposite of them?
Like perfection. We have never observed perfection have we? We cannot observe infinity can we?
>>7812948
>When Hume says all of our ideas are formed by impressions did he really mean that?
typical phil 101 essay assignment question.
can't fool me, OP. :^)
I still remember one of mine from Plato's Meno:
"Would Socrates maintain that ignorance is bliss?"
>>7813152
Another question. Does evil even have a reason to exist? Unlike good which has purpose and can accomplish goals, all evil does is destroy.
Can evil and good even exist without man?
I think good can. Even without us here to observe it. I can't really come up with a good example, perhaps a lioness taking care of her cubs or something of that sort. Forgive me for not having a better example.
But it seems without man, evil cannot exist. And that evil only exists because man exists.
>>7813083
>where did the idea of God come from?
What do you mean by God?
If you mean a first cause then that arises from the relation of ideas inherent in the idea of causality itself (if nothing happens without a cause then where did the chain begin?)
If you mean the Abrahamic God then the idea of that is born out of its very definition (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) and is cognized by "perfecting" these attributes (power, knowledge, goodness) from your perspective.
If you want to attempt actual metaphysics/theology with a Humean system (that is, attempt an attainment of first principles via empirical data) you'll just end up at the same brick wall as the man himself, namely, that if all of our knowledge is finite by virtue of all of our experiences/our lifespans/our minds being finite, then we can never have access to knowledge beyond the contingent.
This is why, at the end of the day, Hume would go down to the pub and drink wine and play backgammon. Because, in a true Humean system, skepticism and all, empirical hedonism is the only logical answer.Luckily Kant btfo Hume so thoroughly this isn't a problem
>>7813171
So you believe God exists? Books by Kant I should read?
>>7813171
This
Hume also found the scientific method to be unreliable (though he might concede in its practicality), because ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN BETWEEN TWO POINTS !!!!!
>>7813199
Saying God doesn't exist is irrational t b h
Assuming you're familiar with the Rationalists and The Empiricists (especially Leibniz and Hume) you can dive right into The Critique of Pure Reason (for a synthetic analysis of epistemology and the possibility of metaphysics) or the Prolegomena (its analytic counter part)
>>7812948
>>7813079
>>7813068
>In other words without impression of x, there can be no idea of x.
This is a gross oversimplification of it.
Hume explains this in the very first book of his treatise on human nature.
First, you need to make a distinction between impressions and ideas. "The difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind, and make their way into our thought or consciousness. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence we may name impressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul. By ideas I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning; such as, for instance, are all the perceptions excited by the present discource, excepting only, those which arise from the sight and touch, and excepting the immediate pleasure or uneasiness it may occasion."
Second, the question you should be asking is not whether God is real, but whether our impressions can be distinguished from ideas, in that they are all subject to finite perspective regardless of their "degrees of force and liveliness."
>>7812966
This anon is correct. Listen to him.
