/lit/ - Literature

>>13864254
I agree. I read Hume several years ago and since then no other philosopher I've encountered has made any compelling arguments against Hume's empiricism.

>>13864254
The only way to disprove empiricism is to turn your brain off and become an NPC. You just gotta BELIEVE bro!

>BUT THAT MEANS MY JEWISH FAIRY TALE IS NOT REAL
>NOOOOOO

>>13864254
what are his best books?

>>13864254
Learn German and go to Kant, then read Wittgenstein as a course finisher.

>>13864254
What about the knowledge of how to breathe? That comes from within biological imperatives, intrinsic to humanity, requiring no experience.
t. Never studied empiricism.

>>13864550
Breathing is knowledge? What's next, a tree spreading its roots has innate knowledge of how to spread its roots? How retarded are you exactly?

>>13864550
Yes, Hume's blank slate stuff was wrong and humans are born with some innate knowledge, but such knowledge is mostly unconscious and his arguments for empiricism still hold. Like I said, go to Kant for true completion.

>>13864554
How does it do so if it does not have knowledge of how to do it, even subconsciously?

>>13864254
>I think Hume has convinced me on empiricism.
I, too, remember being 16.

>>13864562
You're equating biological reactions with knowledge. Do you think that sodium has knowledge of how to react with chlorine? If it forgets how to react will salt no longer be formed when chlorine gas meets sodium metal?

>>13864565
Okay, what's your counterargument then?

>>13864576
Accept Jesus Christ into your life kid.

>>13864569
Knowledge does not to be able to be forgotten to qualify as knowledge. Sodium has no consciousness, and thus needs an external force acting on it to perform its actions.

>>13864581
JUST BELIEVE!!!!! OMFG YOU DON'T??? WELL UR PRETTY STOOPID, HAHA CHEKMAET ATHEISTS

>>13864587
Prove consciousness exists.

>>13864581
Not an argument.

>>13864587
>Sodium has no consciousness
yes
>and thus needs an external force acting on it to perform its actions
Fuck no, sodium reacts with other things due to the properties of its composition, for fuck's sake man. Someone should drag Aristotelianism's rotting half-dead body into an alley and put it out of its misery already.

>>13864597
I recommend reading Incomplete Nature by Terrence Deacon for a good insight into how consciousness can emerge from inanimate matter.

>>13864576
No solution. You'll grow out of empiricism in a few months, maybe a few weeks. Empiricism is a tool and nothing more.

>>13864599
>sodium reacts all by itself
Brianlet

>>13864613
Empiricism is a tool with some pretty strong implications for everything else, since it seems to be the only one that actually works.

>>13864616
no u.

>>13864550
Knowledge of how to breathe was learned by ancient ancestors and passed down genetically to us. It didn't come from anything external.

>>13864254
The claim that all knowledge comes from sense experience can not be justified in terms of sense experience.

>>13864658
We have no organs for parsing any other terms.

>>13864518
Who are you quoting, faggot?

>>13864658
Human senses, language and knowledge are all inherently limited and parochial, if you're looking for some all-encompassing theory of knowledge, you won't find any.

>>13864254
Read Kant and you will see that empiricism is a very flawed theory of knowledge.

>>13864635
>since it seems to be the only one that actually works.
Rationalism is the basis of mathematics, physics, etc. Without those, all of your gay little empirical experiments would be fruitless. Empiricism as a tool is probably most fruitful in medicine, but without math you can't properly do medicine. If you think somehow empiricism is a complete tool, which can accomplish its own goals alone, then you're a fool. One could say that empiricism is the only source of knowledge that has practical goals as its end, which makes it the gayest of all forms of knowledge acquisition.

>>13864719
>>13864559
>>13864543
What did Kant have to say?

>>13864662
>>13864670
The human self isn't the unifying principle.

>>13864719
Guess who riffed on Kant?

>>13864736
>Rationalism is the basis of mathematics, physics, etc.
You mean, rationalism as in deriving things from first principles, or something else? In the first case, it's clearly bad - the only sin there is against science is to put theory above reality.
Also, math is a human construct - humans set its axioms, from which we then discover the ramifications of. It's also a tool, not some Platonic eternal and perfect thing.

>>13864743
The human self is the only referent we have, sorry.

>>13864752
neetchee?

>>13864764
>Also, math is a human construct
With those words I know you're a fucking idiot. lmao

>>13864775
Yeah it is. What do you think it is, a Platonic eternal and ideal thing?

>>13864774
Yeah

>>13864518
Yeah, there is a reason they call it the Holohoax.

>>13864254
Two Dogmas of Empiricism, W. V. O. Quine

>>13864738
That rationalism and empiricism are both transcendental methods for attaining knowledge of the phenomenal world.

>>13864254
John Vervaeke

>>13864533
Enquiry

>>13864736
You're wrong. Empiricism is the basis of all knowledge, including math. You can't reason in the abstract without first having observed concrete relations to abstract upon.

>>13864736
You learn maths through experience just like everything else although some biological instinct must be involved in acepting general statements

>>13864653
Based and evolutionpilled

>>13864254
The blinking man refutes Hume on causation.

>According to Hume, our behaviour presupposing causation is due to the repetition of associated presentational experiences. ...

>Let us apply this explanation to reflect action: in the dark, the electric light is suddenly turned on and the man's eyes blink. There is a simple physiological explanation of this trifling incident....

>The sequence of percepts, in the mode of presentational immediacy, are flash of light, feeling of eye-closure, instant of darkness. The three are practically simultaneous; though the flash maintains its priority over the other two, and these two latter percepts are indistinguishable as to priority. According to the philosophy of organism, the man also experiences another percept in the mode of causal efficacy. He feels that the experiences of the eye in the matter of the flash are causal of the blink. The man himself will have no doubt of it. In fact, it is the feeling of causality which enables the man to distinguish the priority of the flash; and the inversion of the argument, whereby the temporal sequence 'flash to blink' is made the premise for the 'causality' belief, has its origin in pure theory.

>The man will explain his experience by saying, 'The flash made me blink'; and if his statement be doubted, he will reply, 'I know it, because I felt it.'

>The philosophy of organism accepts the man's statement, that the flash made him blink. But Hume intervenes with another explanation. He first points out that in the mode of presentational immediacy there is no percept of the flash making the man blink. In this mode there are merely the two percepts -- the flash and the blink -- combining the two latter of the three percepts under the one term 'blink.'

>Hume refuses to admit the man's protestation, that the compulsion to blink is just what he did feel. The refusal is based on the dogma, that all percepts are in the mode of presentational immediacy -- a dogma not to be upset by a mere appeal to direct experience.

>Besides Hume has another interpretation of the man's experience: what the man really felt was his habit of blinking after flashes. The word 'association' explains it all, according to Hume.

>But how can a 'habit' be felt, when a 'cause' cannot be felt? Is there any presentational immediacy in the feeling of a 'habit'?

>Hume by a sleight of hand confuses a 'habit of feeling blinks after flashes' with a 'feeling of the habit of feeling blinks after flashes.'

>We have here a perfect example of the practice of applying the test of presentational immediacy to procure the critical rejection of some doctrines, and of allowing other doctrines to slip out by a back door, so as to evade the test. The notion of causation arose because mankind lives amid experiences in the mode of causal efficacy.

-Alfred North Whitehead, "Cause Is More Than Regular Association"
http://radicalacademy.org/adiphiloessay280.html

>>13864254
>What should I read to disprove hume
Kant.

>>13864518
If anything scepticism is a argument for faith

It actually is, can you prove otherwise? so is space and time faggot. If you are an empiricist most of your knowledge is sifted through Kant anyways.

>>13867365
This.

Also the Scottish enlightenment thinkers go off Hume's basic concepts but interpret them in a different more optimistic way.

>>13867379
Maybe, but it also means you don't have the right to force it on anyone else so wyd.

>>13864543
>took 5 replies to get the right answer
>had to include obligatory /lit/ autism like "learn German"
yikes

>>13864796
How do people worship philosophers for writing this tautological shit

>>13864254
my n word Ralphie

>>13867592
how are you even GOING to appreciate the Kantian transcendental autism in its purest and most sublime form if you don't learn german?

>>13867607
I assume (from my understanding of Wittgenstein) that denotation itself is too subjective for it to matter.

hume? more like HOOOOOOOOOM

>>13864254
stop making up words to seem smart you fucktard. just so you know im a girl btw

>Idiots don't know anything about synthetic a priori knowledge
We live in a society...

>>13864554
How does this deny God exactly? I can just as easily say that God transcends knowledge.
>but you have to read the bible and that's knowledge
I can see a tree spreading its roots and then write a book about it. The tree did still spread its roots without my involvement. In the end the processes lie outside the material realm.

https://www.strawpoll.me/18683303

>>13868981
Synthetic a priori is such an obvious cope. Kant realizes that no knowledge can be a priori since experience is always required. Instead of admitting that the distinction is untenable, he attempts to salvage it (to support his idealism) by tacking on the 'synthetic' conditional.

It is enough note that certain truths are apodictic. All knowledge is obtained via the conduit of empiricism; there is no need to ham-fistedly assert a special class of knowledge unless you're trying to force an idealism or mysticism which there is no logical indication for.

Bump

bump part 2