/lit/ - Literature

>>22471650
I like how on the one hand Britain and everyone today assumes Hume was some atheist skeptic monster despite Hume himself not necessarily identifying himself as an atheist in his dialogues, and only as a "mitigated skeptic" in the Enquiry, and then Jacob (counter-Enlightenment fideist Christian par excellence over in Germany) interpreted Hume's "natural belief" as fideism. Which is fair. The Latin (and German) terms for belief and faith are the same terms, and in Hume the talk of natural belief very much refers to intensely felt and relatively irresistible judgment. And Hume's point is that these aren't produced rationally or anything (that's the "skepticism" side), but he also accepts that they're necessary to even get by in the world of experience, and can't really be escaped. And those German Christians like Jacobi actually loved Hume for this reason (Jacobi nevertheless kind of hated Kant and Fichte and saw them as overly-rationalist villains). It's crazy to think but Hume was a Christian hero at least to those Germans in the late 18th century. ANYWAY Hume was wrong about the non-self and if you actually read his endnotes appendix to the Treatise he eventually says so himself. He starts questioning whether he was right to say there is no self. He's right that we don't empirically sense our own self, but I do think even Hume agrees that this isn't enough anymore to "prove" there is no self. Kant's transcendental apperception is closer to the right view in my opinion, and Hume was humble enough later on to actually admit he himself was drawing closer to that (ultimately Kantian) wavelength.

I started to think that Kant read Hume, but not much enough to grasp all of scottish philosophy.

Like, I'm pretty sure Kant read just an Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
I think Kant didn't read Treatise of Human Nature.
He just skipped Hume's naturalism, and he really ignored big subjects like Thomas Reid.

>>18768438
Hume wasn't a materialist. Hume was not a total skeptic, he explains this in both the Enquiry and the Treatise, the point of his skepticism is to show that we have to accept justification by natural belief and not reason. There's a reason the Germans (Jacobi and Hamann) saw Hume as a fideist: he wasn't actually a skeptic. Hume by the appendix of the Treatise notes that, given more thought, he's really more agnostic about the existence of the self, rather than denying it anymore like he did in the body of the text. I just don't understand why nobody on /lit/ who memes Hume actually reads Hume. He's fantastic but everybody who claims to like him here clearly hasn't read him.

>>17475049
Hume was far more Kantian than Kant himself realized, and CERTAINLY more than /lit/ realizes. His brand of skepticism is deeply misunderstood by idiots who don't read the Enquiry closely and never even read the Treatise.
>>17475069
>>17475398
This is false. Even logical positivism, stereotyped as Humean, was actually extremely Kantian in its Carnapian form. People like Strawson and Putnam and Sellars are explicitly more Kantian than Humean. Others like Quine, Davidson, and Rorty are the same. And then the metaphysical realists who follow (people like Kripke and Lewis and so forth) are certainly not either Humean OR Kantian, but a return to a sort of realism which is both anti-phenomenalist AND anti-transcendental idealist. So no, analytics are not very Humean at all, this is just another example of /lit/ idiots not reading the people they talk about (in this case, analytic philosophy).
>>17475424
Deleuze doesn't really read Hume correctly at all, but one thing Deleuze is right to do is to implicitly recognize Hume as a continental forefather. Hume was the first critical philosopher, not Kant. That's because he was seeking after the conditions for the possibility of certain beliefs we hold, such as our belief in external objects, in mental subjects, and so forth. He was employing transcendental reasoning and giving critiques of more uncritical and dogmatic forms of thinking.

>>16619288
>Hume smirks
>There's no necessary connection between the cause of you twisting my arm and the effect of its breaking
>His arm suddenly ceases all resistance and and spins effortlessly in its socket like a noodle, knocking you off balance
>Hume grabs you and looks at you with rapacious hunger
>Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions
>*chomp* *chomp* *chomp* *burrrrp*
>The life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster, Hume muses as he continues his stroll down the streets of Edinburgh

>>16615068
>ugh, metaphysics? burn that shit
>"’Tis an establish’d maxim in metaphysics, that whatever the mind clearly conceives includes the idea of possible existence, or in other words, that nothing we imagine is absolutely impossible."
LMAO what a retard

>>16116188
Haven't people read Hume? His distinction of impressions and ideas makes perfect sense to me. When I close my eyes and try to visualize, I see whatever I want to see, shape, size, and color. But it's like, qualitatively different. In fact it's not actually color, but the faint copy of color. It's not faintness in the sense of turning down the brightness slider. It's something else. It's what Hume would call an idea vs. the impression you see with your senses. Some people are lucky and can really recreate Humean impressions so to speak, and some are unlucky and can't even visualize Humean ideas. I assumed the middle ground was the norm because of Hume confirming to me that my experience was his own.

>Catholics think they're going to crusade and retake Constantinople and Jerusalem when their church is really just a glorified NGO now

>>15659867
HUME DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY YOU SHOULDN'T RELY ON PROBABILITY YOU FUCKING PSEUD READ THE DAMN ENQUIRY AND TREATISE COVER TO COVER HE SAYS PYRRHONIAN SKEPTICISM IS UNTENABLE AND SAYS WE DO, CAN, AND SHOULD PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF 'NATURAL BELIEFS' AND CALLS THIS MITIGATED SKEPTICISM for fucks sake why are the /lit/ Hume threads always run by pseuds, the Kant and Hegel and Schopenhauer threads actually have people who read them, you fuckers should really read Hume and stop embarrassing yourselves.

>>14154703
But did you understand him? People misunderstand him. Hume himself refutes the "Hume" of those who misunderstand him.

Have you actually read it /lit/? Some of you read the Critique of Pure Reason, but I never get a feeling any of you have read Hume's Treatise. At best I get the feeling you guys read the Enquiry, at worst nothing at all from the guy. Hume isn't just some funny radical skeptic. Actually he's much less of a radical skeptic than you'd think and more in common with Kant than you'd think too. He talks about a lot more things in the Treatise than he does in the Enquiry as well, all very interesting.

>is-ought

Big brain take: Sensuous matter is not subjective affections of the mind but objective things in themselves accessed by the mind as they are in themselves. The Kantian 'object of consciousness' constructed from supposed intuitions referring to supposed external objects and applied concepts, including categories, is a Humean fiction: we can't help but think these things, and believe they are objective, but they are actually subjective.

isn't is-ought gap of hume... saying a proposition of ought by constructing is-sentence?
You know just like Vienna Circle when it comes to metaphysics. "metaphysics is useless" is metaphysical proposition.

Any books covering this quite-naive opposition?

>"Mistah Kurtz - he dead"

>>11600379

but can u dee caudalidy? guess not haha

>>11491756
This is a strong contender. He wasn't 100% bullshit, but he is responsible for the awful direction that continental philosophy took recently, and he ruined phenomenology. Also, his unrepentant Tankie ideology makes me hate him doubly.

>>11493084
Overrated ethics, underrated aesthetics, overall not taken as seriously as he should be today. Most people (probably correctly) dismiss his ethics out of hand without giving consideration to anything else he worked on.

>>11493438
I don't blame Foucault, I blame everyone who likes him.

My vote goes for Hume. I hate Hume.

>>11302379
>he believes in causation
You need to read some of this big boi.

>>11238835
>t. never read pic related

>>11179735
>>11179746
Read this big boy and see why your beliefs are misguided.

Why do people keep pretending that morality has any rational basis?

>implying libertarianism and hard determinism aren't both wrong
>implying determinism isn't necessary for free will

What's the best critique of empiricism you know that isn't Kantian or some variation of "muh maths and logics"? I wanna believe in meme magic not in fucking toadman's fork

>>9379246
Also, I'm a philosophy major. GET IT RIGHT