/lit/ - Literature

he's a fat fuck, he's an atheist, he likes to haunt dreams, and he destroyed Western civilization for sport. what is there to like?

Because he btfo'd God and hylomorphism

>>12847853
Rosseau? I like him.

>>12847865
>>12847866
By doing what?

>>12847865
>destroyed Western civilization for sport
tell me more

>>12847853
He's just a troll. You basically have to prove the reason for existence to satisfy his faggotry when he provides nothing himself..

>>12847881
Is his stuff worth reading for a laugh?

>>12847872
By saying that all of ideas can only be rooted back to impressions, and that there is no necessary reason for believing that our impressions are perceptions of REAL objects. Just because you sense something that FEELS solid or LOOKs blue to you, it doesn't directly mean that the object is actually blue, or that it's anything other than a bunch of sensations grouped together by your mind. By consequence, it would be impossible to claim that nature operates on a strictly defined cause-effect basis. Stuff might just happen randomly, and patterns might be nothing more than an illusion.

>>12847885
Sure. But go to Kant directly after. Higher quality life changing philosophy. 'Categorical Imperative' is something that is actually useful.

>>12847853
I just started reading Hume and I love it.

>>12847919
>Kant

Not that anon, but I tried jumping into critique of judgment, but was lost. How do I into Kant?

>>12847885
Btw Hume's backstory is actually more interesting than anything else. How he lost his father at a young age which motivated him similar to other greats-Stalin,Hitler,Gandhi. Had some kind of thyroid condition. Went to war against the French. Hilarious story where the French surrender monkeys had a full army and were actually going to surrender against 1 man in the rain. This is coming from recollection.. He's basically a troll though.

Hume, David. Dislike him. A large sensualist, topsy-curvy and obese. A laggard, a claptrap empiricist and a slapdash ascidian. Some of his books are extraordinarily dense. Nobody takes his constitutional journalism seriously.
A Treatise of Human Nature. His best work, though an brainlet and shameless interpretation of Plato's "Collected Writings".
The History of England . Dislike it intensely.
Four Dissertations. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly gastronomic (should have been called Four Digestions).

>>12847954
Based

>>12847930
What have you read so far? Plato? Aristotle? Descartes? Spinoza? Locke? Leibniz?
The shortest possible route from Plato to Kant would be the following:
Plato: Meno, Theaetetus
Aristotle: Categories, On Interpretation, Metaphysics
Descartes: Meditations on First Principle
Leibniz: Monadology
Hume: Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Kant: either Prolegomena or Critique of Pure Reason, then Groudwork for the Metaphysic of Morals, Critique of Practical Reason, and finally Critique of Judgement

>>12847853
More Randians on /lit/ like myself. Is/ought is a false problem.

Don't listen to any of these fools OP. Hume single-handedly solved philosophy until Kant came along and tricked everyone into believing he was saying something profound. If Hume was alive to read Kant he could easily have destroyed the argument, but everyone is too dazzled by Kant's vocab to think straight. Read Hume, read him and weep for the fate of western philosophy.

>>12847993
Kant mostly affirmed Hume's lack of convictions regarding the lack of certainty on the issue of God (or the material universe)'s existence.

>>12847993
No. He just put an unanswerable question in a statement to fuk with everyone..an annoyance..

>>12848011
Sure, Kant recognized Hume's genius in plenty of other ways too. But his solution, to think we can somehow get behind experience and access what makes experience possible, is not tenable. It created the futile drive for a certain metaphysics.

>>12848018
So sorry that the project of philosophy is an annoyance to you

>>12847913
Sounds right tho

>>12847853
Hume and because his face looks so smug and punchable in that painting that you just wish you could, but you cannot, since that would break your monitor and hurt your hand

>>12847853
I don't hate him. As far as philosophers go he was one of the most talented writers, not to mention the most rigorous. People find him frustrating because they cannot overcome the is-ought problem he posed.

ITT: Brainlets

CAN'T CONSUME THE HUME

>>12847853
what does george washington have to do with /lit/? off topic thread OP

>>12848190
Was GW a scandi? He always striked me as a swede. The guy in OPs pic looks like a Jew though.

>>12848200
george washington is the black guy who invented peanuts

>>12848186
Yet Hume looks like he consumes quite a bit, and quite frequently too.

>>12848317
hehe (:

>>12848135
Not really. There’s something to be said for Darwinian truth. That which is selected for is real. At least as real as we can fathom and real enough to operate around

>>12847853
Hey, that's me
Rate me bitches

>>12848186
There's simply too much to consume, my friend. Success in such an endeavour, though possible in theory, would require ample logistical planning beforehand.

>>12848334
You look like King George the II.

>>12848334
You look like King George the III.

>>12848360
What the fuck did you just said to me?

>>12848371
*notices bulge* OwO wats dis?!?1

>>12847853
No really though these two could be twins.

>>12848100
>Sure, Kant recognized Hume's genius in plenty of other ways too. But his solution, to think we can somehow get behind experience and access what makes experience possible, is not tenable

Except he doesn't? Kant makes a distinct between the kind of knowledge Hume claims we can't have, and the "knowledge" we can have. Hume wants noumena. Kant clearly says we can't get noumena, but he does say we can get phenomenal. Hume wouldn't give a fuck about phoenomenal knowledge.

>>12847853
Can you read him without prior knowledge of philosophy?

>>12847870
It's Berkeley.

>>12848602
for the most part, yeah. his prose is pretty clear and easy to read, minus a few archaic spellings of things. Hume is what made philosophy "click" for me, even though I wholly disagree with him on a lot of things.

Hume is right about everything and Kant is a useless hack.

Not even Hegel has been able to solve any of Hume's problems.

>>12847853
That's Immanuel Kant, he's one of the most important philosophers of all time, you may know his quote "I think therefore I am"

>>12847853
autists get mad because they can't make a case against skepticism

>>12847853
we're all idealists here, empiricism is base

>>12849614
*turns your "problems" into an embrace of faith*

>>12849977
Based.