/lit/ - Literature

>>17558620
Read Sextus Empiricus if you want more of these types of BTFOs

>>17558620
Refuted by Kant (pbuh)

>>17558708
KEK.

>>17558620
>This man is a godsend because he made philosophy null and void. There is no point in studying it
Interesting induction you made there.

>>17558719
;)

>>17558708
No he wasn't.
Calling Hume's habits of reason (e.g., causality) categories of reason is just a renaming. Kant, when you strip away all the pretentious, flowery waffle, didn't escape Hume's cage.

>>17558853
It's not a renaming, habits are not transcendental, unlike categories.

>>17559378
transcendental arguments dont work

>>17559497
>transcendental arguments
You can just say directly you haven't read a page of Kant.

>>17559550
he takes consciousness for granted, which doesnt hold up to skepticism

>>17558620
>dumb anglo nigger tries to refute the basis for scientific thought
>gets BTFO when we end up going to the moon because of it

lmao, what a fucking tard

>>17558620
Then he got BTFO'd by Kant once he proved that all Hume's claim presuppose his trascendental philosophy. It truly was a 4d chess move

>>17558620
he litteraly refutes himself.

>>17558853
True. Good thing that Kant did not do that, and actually proved that we can apply thr vategories of causality to phenomena while being sure that we are not doing that merely out of habit.
>>17559497
How is that so?
>>17559573
Hume accepts consciousness. Kant's starting point in the trascendental deduction is literally Hume's bundle theory (he doesn't assume anything more about consciousness).

>>17559598
seethe

>>17559627
cope.

>>17558620
Preemptively refuted by Parmenides, unironically.

>>17559614
>True. Good thing that Kant did not do that, and actually proved that we can apply thr vategories of causality to phenomena while being sure that we are not doing that merely out of habit.
His arguments are notoriously bad and has been debunked to oblivion. Kant never managed to prove that all categories always apply to each given experience, the project was a complete failure.

>>17559847
What debunking argument do you have in mind?

>>17559847
>ant never managed to prove that all categories always apply to each given experience, the project was a complete failure.
lol, give me an example of a phenomena that doesnt adhere to the categories of intellect laid out by Kant

>>17559847

Based and Deboonked pilled

BIGGER BIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIVER NNIGEGRR BIGGER NIGGER. IHER NIGGER NIGEGRR NIGERR NIGERR

>>17559601
most of kant's transcendental arguments dont even really work

>>17559614
>Good thing that Kant did not do that, and actually proved that we can apply thr vategories of causality to phenomena while being sure that we are not doing that merely out of habit.
None of it matters. Habits and categories both reside in the individual. It's essentially just a renaming project of Hume's ideas (Hume being one of the most lucid, approachable philosophers in history) by Kant (an insecure midget who dazzles pseuds with cerebrally overwrought bullshit).

>>17559847
>Kant never managed to prove that all categories always apply to each given experience, the project was a complete failure.
even if true irrelevant, he only needed to prove that every experience still adhered to most categories

>>17558620
Bro, what even is mathematics? Hume never says about it.

>>17559598

E wisnae an Anglo. E wis a true Scot.

>>17560168
How do they fail? For example, how does the trascendental deduction fail?
>>17560202
>Habits and categories both reside in the individual
What do you mean? And how is that just a renaming of Hume's ideas? For example, to me, the trascendental deduction seems to be a positive developement (and in some sense, even a refutation) of Hume's bundle theory and his critique of personal identity. I don't see how they're compatible at all, let alone one being a renaming of the other.

>>17558699
Read Hegel, who BTFO'd all forms of skepticism

>>17559573
>he takes consciousness for granted, which doesnt hold up to skepticism
How can you be skeptical about your own conciousness lmao, if so who is being skeptical

>>17558620
Read him carefully for fucking once, read the Enquiry more closely, and read the Treatise, Hume is literally advocating AGAINST this sort of skepticism in the end, 4chan DOES NOT READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>17560068
Who makes these

Hume's Fork in not knowable per the criteria laid about Hume's Fork

>>17560230
7+5= 12
Boom. A priori synthetic knowledge. Empiricism blown the fuck out forever

>>17559807
Pls explain

>>17561850
Read Frege

>>17561949
Im not the anon you were responding to.
What does Frege say about that?

>>17560515
Why are you bothering to reply? They clearly haven’t read the Prolegomena, let alone the first Critique.

>>17560208
>even if true irrelevant, he only needed to prove that every experience still adhered to most categories
Ding ding, wrong answer. If every experience does not necessarily adhere to eg. the category of causality, his attempt to justify synthetic a priori judgments goes in the ditch and we get back to the humean scepticism about induction that his system was supposed to avoid.

>>17562805
Not that anon but Frege explains why 7+5=12 must be analytic. Ayer also goes over it in a different way. They both note that Kant wrongly uses different criteria (orthogonal to one another) when defining analyticity and syntheticity rather than one criterion for both.

>>17561850
7+5 is 12. That is analytic. Just claiming something is synthetic doesn't mean it is synthetic. Kant complained at the start of his critique that "nowhere in the concept 12 could he find 7 or 5", not realizing that he FORGOT TO ANALYSE THE PLUS HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>17561850
Also can't forget the time when Kant proclaimed that "matter cannot be destroyed" is a priori synthetic even though he had absolutely no evidence of such a thing, and for all he know he could have woken up with his bed poofed out of existence. Remember when he claimed geometry was synthetic a priori? It seems that Kant early on in the critique just called everything that seemed true to him but wasn't obvious synthetic a priori. That a triangle has three angles adding up to two right angles is just as priori analytically true as the statement a triangle has three straight sides is.

Well something about inductive reasoning has to be correct, because when I assume that my toaster is going to work tomorrow because it did today, and it doesn't, this doesn't mean my knowledge necessarily wasn't correct, it means the toaster isn't doing what it's supposed to do.

>>17558853
Did Hume ever get any quality pussy?

>>17564985
Hume had mistresses and was a big deal with the French when he visited Paris and was friends with many of the ladies there.

>>17561156
read ted kaczynski who BTFO'd all of civilization

>>17558620
>>This man is a godsend because he made philosophy null and void. There is no point in studying it. And there has been no point ever since Hume came around.
...according to your philosophy.

>>17559614
Did Kant really do that, or did he just claim causality is part of the categories? I find that claim very weak since babies are not born with an understanding of cause and effect, and develop it in a way similar to Hume's description.

holy shit if you are basing your entire philosophy on a guy who did like 400 years ago then might as well kys coz youre a dinosaur

>Hume was 400 years ago

>>17565508
>Hume was 400 years ago

Just because 100 percent of philosophy is wrong doesn't mean it's useless. Plenty of people were led by wrong world views into accomplishing amazing things.

>>17558620
>This man literally BTFOd all of philosophy with the problem of induction.
Socrates has done away with the problem of induction by introducing the concept of forms. Hume was just a stubborn and primitive barbarian, who rejected natural law argumentation but wanted to retain christian morality. Nietzsche would hate him as an Anglo.

>>17560045
Give me specific examples of phenomena that do and how they are systematically categorized.

>>17558620

The problem of induction was stated far earlier in al-Ghazali's "Incoherence of the Philosophers."

>>17565947
Peddle your Islamism elsewhere. It's really getting old.

>>17565947
Sextus Empiricus stated it far earlier.

The Charvaka school of thought also stated it earlier than al-Ghazali.

What's your point?

>>17558620
Philosophy is just the circle jerk of the mathematically disinclined with a sprinkle of schizotypal personality disorder.

>>17566208
You've been posting this for weeks

>>17564064
Is this the "5 means '1+1+1+1+1'" argument?

>>17564281
The plus changes anything? The meaning of 'plus' is the same in "5+7=12" and in "4+9=13". Whatever the result of the sum is, the meaning of the operator remains the same, so analyzing the meaning of "plus" doesn't tell you anything about the sum either.
Notice that he does say in the Introduction that this is even more evident for sums of large numbers. I can read out loud the numbers contained in the sum "3635399+7464749=x", and I can have a clear representation of them and the signs "plus" and "equal", yet all those clear representations still don't immediatly me what the result is: I have to calculate it to discover it. But this would not happen if sums were to be analytic judgements: by virtue of representing those numbers and signs, had that judgement been analytic, I would have immediatly represented the result too.
>>17565150
Babies experience are already organized through the category of causality (if they're conscious).

>>17566208
...according to your philosophy.

Is the Treatise worth the full ride or should I only read selections

>>17567252
>Babies experience are already organized through the category of causality (if they're conscious).
Incorrect. If babies somehow had an a-priori concept of causality it would make learning a lot faster. As it stands they have to learn even billiards-style cause and effect multiple times before they build up enough episodic memory to use transfer learning. It is funny that Kant uses a ship sailing as the example of the necessity of causality as babies don't possess object permanence.

>>17564064

Frege's notion of analyticity is quite explicitly different from Kant's. Frege does not have a containment notion of analyticity. His notion of analyticity is, roughly, "derivable by logic from general logical laws." Also, Frege thought Kant was right about geometry (namely, that it was synthetic a priori).

>>17567866
I haven't said that they have an understanding of how their experience is causally ordered, only that their experience is already ordered in such a way, even if they don't know it. Kant would certainly agree that an understanding of causal laws is anything but immediate (instead, it is something that must be discovered)

>>17559847
>the project was a complete failure.
Revitalised and perfected by Herr Schopenhauer.

>>17559847
That's why Hegel continued it and remedied, in particular, this weak point.

>>17567274
There's a lot of good thinking in it but personally I feel like if you understand most of the major ideas the rest isn't relevant.

No one cares about the stuff about space and time for instance.

>>17563018
> if I name books I haven't read, people will overlook my pseud-tier lack of an argument

>>17559598
>we end up going to the moon
Who is we? Were you on that shuttle?