/lit/ - Literature

>>18053210
he looks like my grandmother

He's not denying "probable" knowledge (this meant something different and specifically epistemological, also this was prior to modern statistics), he's saying we can only ever have probable knowledge from experience and never necessary knowledge. But even the core concepts of consequence we use to judge via experiences (i.e. by connecting causes with effects) are acquired through experience.

He is very brilliant but he is really not a systematic philosopher.

>>18053210
>don't believe that when A does something that in all recorded history influenced B, it will influence B again the next time you see it
He truly lived his philosophy, because despite his enormous girth he kept eating.

You sound very mad. Why are christcucks so easily triggered? Have they finally surpassed the blue haired feminists when it comes to being hyper entitled to never hear anything that doesn’t agree with their point of view?

>>18053258
don't reply to this shitty bait, focus on ridiculing the fat fuck instead

>>18053222
>he's saying we can only ever have probable knowledge from experience and never necessary knowledge.
Which is wrong.
>But even the core concepts of consequence we use to judge via experiences (i.e. by connecting causes with effects) are acquired through experience.
Which is even more wrong.

>>18053277
Why is it wrong? I agree that it's wrong but it was still an important epistemological critique to make. It showed that it was not at all self-evident where the necessity of rational judgments derives from, while also showing that empiricism could not survive without a non-empirical basis. Hume wasn't trying to set up a system, as I said.

>>18053277
Then give us accurate predictions of complex systems, like for instance what the climate will do in the next 100 or so years. I can guarantee you that people will laugh long and hard at your ‘necessary knowledge’

>>18053292
I never stated I could. I stated that it's absurd to claim we cannot gain necessary knowledge of empirical reality in any form. For example, due to the nature of cause and effect (which is fundamental and not learned from experience) when a brick collides with a window that window will smash, or if the glass is hard enough the brick will rebound. In either case, even though I cannot tell you exactly what will happen in advance, I can assert that there is a causal interaction that must occur, and thus that cause-and-effect are inherent to the world.

>>18053317
That’s an extraordinary basic assessment that will tell you almost nothing about the world and is completely useless when it comes to the complex systems I just mentioned

>>18053336
We're discussing metaphysics, not physics. As long as you admit that, then Hume is refuted, which is all I want you to admit.

>>18053210
Read the Enquiry more closely and definitely read the Treatise before saying something so embarrassing. Hume is CONSISTENLY someone nobody on /lit/ gets right, they're always interpreting him the opposite way than he himself wanted to be understood.
>>18053222
How the hell isn't Hume systematic? Read the Treatise.

>>18053317
Are you repeating Feser’s arguments anon?

What does it mean for causality to be “fundamental”? In a Kantian sense, as one of the categories?

In the case of a brick and window you have identified the brick being thrown followed by a window breaking. A particular series of occurrences- what you have not identified, and cannot identify, is a NECESSARY causal power, a third element, between the two.

>>18053317
>(which is fundamental and not learned from experience)
How is it not learned from experience?

>>18053317
kek youre getting owned bitch

>>18054356
>What does it mean for causality to be “fundamental”?
It is a building block of everything of everything we know and can know, whether rationally or empirically.
I'm not repeating anyone's argument, I am simply stating facts which only fools deny. Hume was a mistake and a hack. I give Kant credit because at least he was not anywhere near as deranged and intellectually incompetent.
>>18054366
Because we cannot deduce necessity from a medium which contains no necessity in it. Ergo the belief of necessity in nature cannot be learnt from nature if it contains no necessity in itself.

>>18054389
Nope. My argument still stands. Please present a valid critique if you have one.

>>18054393
>Because we cannot deduce necessity from a medium which contains no necessity in it. Ergo the belief of necessity in nature cannot be learnt from nature if it contains no necessity in itself.
That doesn't answer how it is not learned from experience. You're just saying "if it weren't that way in nature, we wouldn't be able to learn it" but that's a non sequitur. Our senses could be faulty, or nature could be stochastic and not actually deterministic and trick us into thinking it's actually causal.

>>18054413
>That doesn't answer how it is not learned from experience
Yes it does.
>Our senses could be faulty
They're not at a scientific level.
>or nature could be stochastic
We know for a fact that it isn't because our mathematical and physical models work.

>>18053210
God i hate this smug fat bastard

>>18054430
>Yes it does.
No it doesn't.
>They're not at a scientific level.
You need your senses to tell you this, which could be faulty
>We know for a fact that it isn't because our mathematical and physical models work.
Except our experiments are not deterministic, we do not have deterministic results for many things, and even our best models like GR do not make perfect predictions, they are all off by decimals.

>>18054440
So you deny the validity of science? I have nothing more to say. If you need to deny the validity of science or reality as we know it to justify your rejection of realism, then by all means, but I'm not sure how anyone was ever tricked into taking your type seriously.

>>18054451
I am a graduate student.
I understand the actual limitations of science and the actual philosophy that surrounds this.
You don't seem like you do.

>>18054451
My guy, the person you're talking to is telling you what any professional scientist worth his salt would tell you. There is no way to accurately determine causal relationships in any field of knowledge. Natural science is the best at determining these things, but it is not certain, and no one who does well in that field would say otherwise.

>>18053254
This is hilarious.

>>18054468
Sure you are.
>I understand the actual limitations of science and the actual philosophy that surrounds this.
So do I. And you'd know that, if you'd read Kant (or had any valid knowledge on this topic), the rejection of sense data as conforming to objective rules (whether you consider the sense receptivity as "real" like Aristotle or appearance like Kant) is untenable without major flaws appearing in all a posteriori epistemological pursuits.

And you still have yet to show how apodictic necessity can be derived from something which does not contain any hint of necessity (Hume's conception of nature). You've simply claimed that you can, without providing any reasoning whatsoever. If you really are a grad student, you are either very dishonest, or very stupid.
Lastly, you're going to have to resort to some sort of Kantian thought to break out of Hume's problems. But that creates its own metaphysical problems for you, as I'm sure you're aware of (as a supposed grad student).

>>18054489
>There is no way to accurately determine causal relationships in any field of knowledge
That's not what my argument is. The idea of causality, even if any given relationship cannot be established between two variables, is absolutely necessary for science to have any validity whatsoever. Without the presumption of cause-and-effect, even if it cannot be indisputably proven in any given relationship, is essential to the way the world works and how we can make predictions about it. This is metaphysics, not physics or science. Science is actually dependent upon this underpinning reality of causation for its own validity, not the other way around.

>>18054400
I dont really need to, the other anons already smashed you

>>18053210
to truly understand hume one must read hamann and kierkegaard

>>18054569
Why does he look so smug?

>>18054564
Nope.

>>18054578
Because he thinks he's intelligent but is mentally ill.

>>18053210
>Pseud reads above himself
>GUYS THIS IS RIDICULOUS
Any book's just a mirror

>>18053210
low quality post desu

>>18054489
Let me add, saying "there is a 99% probability x (empirical event/object) causes y (empirical result)", which is basically how science operates in practice with varying probabilities depending on the level of certainty, still relies on the reality of causation, even though we can never be 100% sure that the relationship between these two particular variables is always causative in the manner in which we have perceived it to be. This does not deny the reality of causation in nature, it only admits of the weakness of perception in not being able to perceive absolutely everything that could possibly be occurring, thereby ruling out the apodictic certainty of causes between particular things in nature. But in the same way, this also requires us to admit that we cannot learn the idea of a cause from nature (Hume's assertion), because we cannot perceive causes in themselves in nature. Kant asserted cause-and-effect were pure a priori categories. I happen to agree, but that does not make Kant's idealism is generally valid. Aristotle also made causes parts of his categories, but without the absurd idealism.

>>18054569
Based

>>18054724
Assumption of causality*

>>18054763
Reality*

>>18054767
Assumption

>>18054774
>if I keep saying it it's true

>>18054763
If you have to assume the existence of a power source for your phone to be operating, that still means it's real doesn't it? How is causality not real if we have to assume its existence in order to explain reality?

>>18054778
You're the one simply asserting causality is true and trying to make a transcendental argument to prove it is the case (which isn't working btw).
I.e. you're projecting.

>>18053258
Surpassed? They were always at the top of that game

>>18054850

>>18054832
Causality is true and real by necessity. We wouldn't be having this conversation without it. Denying the reality of causality is effectively as dull as denying you exist.

>>18054870
No one in this thread has denied the reality of causality. We are simply skeptical of our ability to determine causality. That's it. It might exist, but we cannot know it or its nature for certain. See the other guy here >>18054724

>>18054898
I am that person you quoted.
If you admit the reality of causality as inherent to nature (whether appearance or real as I said earlier), then Hume is wrong, and the argument is over. If that is really the case, then we have been arguing over nothing the whole time because we both agree that Hume is wrong. You have been arguing about the epistemological basis of science, whereas I have been arguing about the metaphysical basis of nature.

>>18054850
>>18053258
Rent free.

>>18054917
>If you admit the reality of causality as inherent to nature (whether appearance or real as I said earlier)
But you haven't proven that. You have literally been proving Hume's point this entire thread while claiming to have refuted him.

>>18054962
>But you haven't proven that.
You keep saying this, but I have multiple times already. You've literally just gone back on the assertion you made one post ago. What is with you?
Again, how are we having this conversation if causality is not a feature of nature? By simple deductive reasoning, we can assert that causality is both real and necessarily real.
>You have literally been proving Hume's point this entire thread
Nope. I don't believe proving that causality is inherent to nature was Hume's point.

>>18054962
>No one in this thread has denied the reality of causality.
You said this one post ago, now you say:
>But you haven't proven that
Care to explain?

>>18054971
>You keep saying this, but I have multiple times already
No you haven't.

>>18055005
How did you just type this message? How did the message reach my screen? How is science (and even basic common sense when you go outside) able to successfully function? The answer is cause and effect. It is necessarily real, because without it reality would and could not exist as we know it, and you denying it only demonstrates your own lunacy. Again, I refer you back to the Dennett image. Absolute stupidity.

>>18055025
No one here has denied causality, my dude. We deny perfect knowledge of causality. That's it. The moment you admit that our knowledge of causality is imperfect is the moment that you have admitted Hume's point.

>>18055025
Jesus you're retarded.

>>18054585
yep.

>>18053210
where did he say causality doesn't exist? his point is that you can only observe and so infer causality, which is obvious and not at all controversial. "causation" is a very strong statement to make and requires that the same exact event causes the same outcome in every scenario, which you cannot possibly observe. we can only observe a causal conjuction between two events but we cannot make any universal statement by observing a single event

in the perfect world of mathematics you can get around this by doing "proof by induction"

>>18053210
next you'll tell me the only thing you can know for real is that you exist

>>18054451
reddit moment

>>18054870
>Causality is true and real by necessity. We wouldn't be having this conversation without it.
Still hasn't been shown. Unless you take causality to be axiomatic. In which case I think we would all appreciate you giving a clear and comprehensive definition of causality.

>>18055025
>How did you just type this message? How did the message reach my screen? How is science (and even basic common sense when you go outside) able to successfully function?
Nobody knows. It just does. We take it on faith that these observed probabilities will continue to act this way but there's no way to prove that they will. We just act as if they do and have faith and so far it has worked out. You are taking cause and effect as your god, your first principles. You are making assumptions is all. Which is fine, that's your opinion, and you will live a perfectly happy life this way. You'll just be wrong. Happy, but wrong. That's okay.

>>18056975
Literally laughed out loud

>>18053210
https://youtu.be/QT13kk8HDDo

>>18053210
Ahem... cope

>>18053210
OP you must be a retard drooling into a bucket to say something so stupid
Imagine not even being able to understand David Hume

>>18055595
Nope. Try again or kys dickless.

>>18053254
Based and normpilled

>>18054870
>>18055025

based on your posts, it's highly probable that you're an enormous faggot that has sucked many cocks, but I can't know this for certain, no matter how fucking faggoty and dumb your posts appear, and no matter how much you misunderstand dennett

This thread is definitive proof that reading Feser's blog causes brain cancer

>>18063826
I've never read Feser. Is he as stupid as OP? I don't mind hating Hume or thinking his points are limited but OP doesn't even understand them.

>>18063841
Feser is OK, but his fanboys tend to be chronically retarded

>>18054861
most asians and hispanics think niggers need to elevate their culture, fix your culture and racism disappears