/lit/ - Literature

QRD on this based chad btfo the social contract?
I have a 500 word essay due in a week on his theories and need help /lit/. Thank you.

>>20579501
This fucker.

Has anyone successfully refuted him? Kant clearly didn't.

How does one read Hume? Can I start with a book of his a or do I have to read some books before?

>>18323050
>and my fork

Books that refute the idea of personal identity? Something like an excerpt of Hume's Treatise called Of Human Nature

What's /lit/'s verdict on Hume?
Do you liken him to the postmodernist for his challenge to rules in general?
Do you think Kant solved the problems he posed?

ITT: Post writers who you just know had hemorrhoids.

What are the best works in British philosophy? It seems so different from continental Europe philosophy.

>his face was broad and fat, his mouth wide, and without any other expression than that of imbecility. his eyes vacant and spiritless, and the corpulence of his whole person was far better fitted to communicate the idea of a turtle eating alderman than that of a refined philosopher. his speech in English was rendered ridiculous by the broadest Scottish accent, and his French was, if possible, still more laughable.

Surprised nobody has posted this fatass, empiricism is a plague and reducing conciousness to mere impressions screams soullessness.
>>17044532
>I would never die for my beliefs
Isn't that a belief in itself? That's just replacing a belief you aren't sure about for another you're also unsure about. Always thought that quote was fucking dumb.

Where were you when Hume (pbuh) destroyed the Scholatic sophists?

Gentlemen, my disappointment knows no bounds.

*blowns the fuck out all morality laws*

How do you deal with people that, when arguing for what would be better in society, just continually employ the is/ought dichotomy? What about when they give examples of other cultures or peoples who used different moral standards than our own?

>causes

>>16070130
Probability like causality is not an a priori category, Hume (pbuh) refuted the Monty Hall paradox

>>15765713
Anything can be morally justified, given that morality is inherently arbitrary.

>>15632711

How do ethical philosophers explain their ought statements?

>>15624922
Because Cucksley, like the majority of westerners are made to pursue "meaning" and other non-scientific, spooky nonsense due to implicit Christfag moralfaggotry. Free drugs that make you coom all the time is the peak of human existence.

>>15568126
>Ted doesn't touch on this topic at all. Is he actually just a midwit reactionary that shouldn't be taken too seriously?
Absolutely. His writings are entirely fallacious, moralizing nonsense that seems to stem entirely from his individual neuroses and emotional fragility. He should try reading Hume some time.

>implying implications

>>15415577
Science doesn't explain anything, while philosophy does.