I hear armchair philosophers constantly gleefully dismissing his assertions about logic and realism and yet I've never heard anything remotely resembling a reasoned rebuttal. So tell me. How was Hume wrong?
Hume is wrong about induction because he didn't know about heuristics.
>>7927538
Hume wasn't wrong. Who told you he was wrong?
>>7927544
Heuristic reasoning especially when used in applied ethics can be unnecessarily harmful and holds people to a much lower intellectual standard than they should be imo.
>>7927538
He wasn't.
>>7927544
Are you really this stupid?
>>7927538
He wasn't wrong, but we still don't know to what extent he was right. Today we have modern, scientific psychology; the field of heuristics and people like Sam Harris are seeking to put Hume to rest. However, science and anthropology still lack a scientific basis for the foundation of society and culture. The values of reasoning and the means by which they are inducted fluxuate depending on the social circumstances in which they arise. What is just and right in one cultural situation may not be just and right in another situation. Until we have more solid ideas behind the science of sociology and how it relates to wishy washy things like society, culture, religion, government, economics, and law, we still won't know whether or not our reasoning can be considered right or wrong, or just or injust.
The latest season of The Walking Dead explores this through considering the foundations on which the reasoning of killing people is inducted in different societal positions and conditions; the fluxuation of emotional and moral ramifications change depending on how just or injust different characters interpret their actions. Actually pretty interesting.
>>7927546
I told OP he was wrong want to make something of it you faggot?
>>7927638
Did you create that post with a random sentence generator?
>>7927652
You're inexperienced if it's too difficult for you to read.
>>7927675
It's a load of nonsense, is what it is. But nice b8.
>>7927679
That's exactly what all modern philosophy is, try to keep up.
>>7927682
> look mommy, I'm trolling!
>>7927679
If you could generate a response with more substance than a shitpost that'd be great anon
>>7927638
gud post
>>7927712
You're standing on a mountain of shit, the first of which was squeezed out from Descartes' anus.
>>7927679
Just be a fucking man and tell us that you can't understand it. Anybody with enough reading comprehensibility to rightfully comment in a thread about Hume should be able to understand that post.
>>7927538
Hume's fork can be turned against itself. He comes by it a priori.
We can demonstrate this by substituting the words "divinity and metaphysics" with "Fork" in the following quote:
>If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, the fork, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.[8] - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
>>7927744
what particular assertions are you seeking rebuttals for?
all threads like this when people say "X was wrong" or "X was right! prove me wrong" are retarded because you aren't saying anything.
>>7927538
Humean ethics Are God tier
>>7927744
humes fork is a priori because it has to be. its a necessary paradox of much philosophy, especially epistemological, that arguments can sometimes only be made within the boundaries of the idea they are in opposition of. the only way to convert a christian for instance without changing their logic is by using their logic against them.
>>7927800
That you cannot derive an is from an ought, aka Hume's Law.
>>7927800
Primarily humes fork and humes law, but really whatever the fuck you want dude
I've seen the suggestion that Humean causality is not the same thing as Aristotelian/Thomistic causality, that Hume misunderstood Aristotle (and Aquinas).
>>7927744
This is true. However, it doesn't serve society any value to acknowledge that we lack reason for ethics. Typically, we do philosophy for utilitarian purposes. You can rightfully argue that this should not be the case, but again, it just isn't productive to do so. We see this same trend in other areas.
In mathematics for example, ideas about the origins and justice of number systems are still up for debate. We're still smashing atoms looking for smaller parts or signs of infinity, but we really don't know. We ignore this because the accepted foundation serves us by giving us enough quantifiability to build things like bridges, rockets, and computers.
If there isn't a practical purpose for a given logical axiom, most people will ignore it.
>>7927816
Why should it be treated a priori over the assumptions of Christians regarding Gods a priori existence
>>7927834
>that Hume misunderstood Aristotle (and Aquinas)
This is just a meme pushed by Christposters
>>7927638
I don't see how psychology and heuristics help; even if we understand the psychological mechanisms explaining why we trust inductive reasoning, we're no closer to establishing its logical validity.
>>7927891
Because the nature of the way that most people operate involves respect to the limitations and virtues of human psychology. This means that whether logical or not, the world functions best when optimizing the potential production of positive emotion. This is why people typically pay top dollar for shit apple products rather than superior computer electronics. And they love it. This is why in the The Matrix, Neo, despite doing the logically inferior thing, is still allocated as the protagonist by most viewers. You're not wrong, you're just not right in a way that's beneficial to most people.
Hume is wrong in the same way that solipsism is wrong.
Solomonoff induction may not be perfect but at least it gives you something to think about, unlike "lol but what if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow". The categorical imperative is not perfect but it's useful and informs further discussion unlike "well what you *ought* to do is really arbitrary, case closed".
>>7927918
A very well reasoned assertion and yet still a priori and very presumptuous. Borderline utilitarian even.
>>7927932
You're right. I find it reasonable, not logical.
>>7927638
Is History supposed to be the ground we stand on or do we have to look at it from the standpoint where it's over and on top of us/is outside of time/is God? I'm completely lost here and if you've read Hegel and can explain him to me that'd be great.
>>7928018
????????????
Read Kant
>>7927538
hume wasn't wrong per se, read kant. kant grants most of hume's main points but takes him to task on his terminology and categorization. hume's system is valid if you base it off of his copy principle (all ideas arise from impressions) and his delineating of all ideas as either "matters of fact" or "relations of ideas." kant takes him to task, however, for completely ignoring the synthetic a priori categori. in doing so, he dismantles hume's system so to speak.
>mfw stemlord positivists shit on hume
>mfw everyone in philosophy of science knows the entire field begins with hume
Kant is shit. Somehow creatures that dont experience yet time nor space contain the "not intuitive nor empirical principles" of time and space?
Space and time are both empirical inasmuch as they happen with simultaneity to their perception, even if the concept seems universal to every different space or timelapse.
Mathematics are derived from geometry, ergo, imagery, that once was created through perception in one's own mind. If you say mathematics have a logical foundation beyond reality i say yes; yet this same foundation leads to theorems that don't even have an application in reality, ergo, they are no different than imaginary confluxtions of a madman,
Hume is god case closed.
>>7927890
Not really, Aristotle's idea of final causes is difficult to grasp.
>>7928202
if you're a child sure
>>7927538
Bruv logic and philosophy have progressed since hume. Saying hume is wrong is like sayung darwin is wrong. Its true but that doesnt mean they werent important in the development of their fields.
>>7927744
>maybe if he put down his fork he wouldn't be so fat lmao
Hume = final boss
then when you kill him its like WHOA! and then suddenly Sam Harris comes up and its like shit he wasn't the final boss of philosophy after all.
There are no simple perceptions.
Your move.
>>7928187
What does space look like?
>>7927538
because beady brits have been incapable of making any meaningful contribution to philosophy.
Nick Land almost said something relevant and then got seduced by britains most popular pastime, imagining the past or present are anything other than arse.
He can be gleefully dismissed because there's been about 3 known philosophers since hume that didn't say things infinitely more worthwhile than him.
>>7929508
kek
>>7927538
The whole missing shade of blue thing was pretty shitty on his part, highlighting a clear flaw in his reasoning and then just dismissing it and carrying on like it was nothing
>>7929968
>he didn't get it
>>7929968
Well i don't think that the shade of blue thing is necessarily something that destroys his system. It could just be seen as a mixture of simple ideas (two shades of blue that combine to form the new shade) being put together to form a complex idea. The idea would just be derived from simple impressions anyways.
>>7929557
Yeah the concept of simple perceptions seems rather arbitrary to me; every particle is infinitely complex and we don't even know wether or not they can be infinitely divisible, so maybe they could carry infinite information for all we know.
I would venture to say however that a neo-humean could posit a concept of relatively-simple impressions and relatively-complex ideas. Each being relative to the other in their complexity. I would say that that'd make sense in explaining the passage from impressions to concepts and so on and so forth.
>>7927538
Hume wrote nothing wrong. Our intellects are fallible, causality is unreliable, ethics are muh feelings, be wary of religion and absolute power.
>>7927638
>Sam Harris
>heuristics
>the walking dead
You can keep that
He was right
