/lit/ - Literature

>>11854402

>do you not know the difference between subject and predicate?

I do.

> Hume absolutely thought sense experience is perfectly knowns because impressions (not ideas) are the basis of all knowledge.

There can be knowledge of impressions, yes - I never contested this - but there can also be fallacious inferences from impressions, as I think we'd agree. Impressions of sense and relations of ideas are separate, but complementary (when all works right), bases of knowledge.

> if sense perception wasn't perfect we would have no idea how to corrolate ideas to the real world

I think this is an ambiguous way to phrase it, because Hume agrees with the classical skeptics that sense impressions alone can present illusions, like those perspective and refraction, when not corrected by reason.

You seem to keep bringing up what you think are objections to what I've written.