/lit/ - Literature

>>6157607
>not reading the guy who ended christianity as "serious" philosophy

>mfw

I think most people have read Hume in high school

>>6157623
>kierkegaard
>even on the same page as hume

LAMO. like 95% of philosophy since Hume is seriously atheist, or not very concerned with Christianity except in very weird and convoluted ways, exactly like kierkegaard

>>6157625
you would be wrong but you would also be successful in impressing me at how exceptionally advanced you view the world, probably because you, yourself, are so interesting and at such a young age

>>6157625
euromad detected

>>6157640
how is Kierkegaard's view of Christianity convoluted?

>>6157646
no, I mean in our country at least we read Hume as part of the curriculum. I just assumed it to be true for most all over the board

>>6157649
>you can't kno nuffin
>therefore christianity is justifiable

great argument mate real sound reasoning to justify your beliefs

>>6157658
not in america, mate, the only philosophy we needed was the declaration of independence, the bible and the bill of rights, not that you would understand

>>6157658
Where do you live and in what grade do you have to read the Treatise?

>>6157658
>no, I mean in our country at least we read Hume as part of the curriculum.
I'm genuinely impressed, point withdrawn. The claim most people have read Hume in high school over in the Americas would come off as incredibly pretentious (not to give any weight to the sophistication of his work, but how it would be received by some select prole). I gotta stop thinking everyone is American. I'm not even American.

Hume's skepticism is unconvincing, and certainly fails against faith.

>>6157671
Where did you go? Catholic school? I went through the American public school system and we neither read any philosopher nor did we read the Bible or any works of the founding fathers of America.

>>6157664
>justify your beliefs

full retard.

>>6157607
>not being a transcendental empiricist

>>6157675
north europe, the last two of high school we do some surface plato, then descartes, hume and kant pretty much.

>everything comes from outside impressions
>except this missing shade of blue whoops oh well no big deal lol

>not reading kant
>not reading religion within the limits of reason alone

Hume's skepticism violates what John Henry Newman would call implicit reason- personal knowing, our sense beyond sense. We know that, in fact, things work the way they work, and to argue against this offends us because deep down we know better. You might call this 'common sense,' but it goes deeper. It is a metaphysical intuition, and all humans possess it.

tl;dr Hume is a sophist and a peddler of wobbly bullshit.

>>6157734
common sense failed so many times in the past though

>>6157747
So have reason and skepticism.
No one's infallible but the Pope, bby.

>>6157734
>our sense beyond sense. We know that, in fact, things work the way they work
are you seriously trying to bat away serious arguments with mystical tautologies?

>>6157694
I went to the school of hard knocks, son.

>>6157710
lol oopsie i forgot it's an aesthetic argument heheheh

>>6157726
kant doesn't do much to defend christianity, bub

>>6157658
What country? I want my children to be educated there.

>>6157734
I can't believe someone actually just posted this earnestly

Who the fuck are you? I need to raise my children away from the heavy metal content of your water or whatever did this to you

>>6157752
true skepticism CAN'T fail

neither can berkeley or hegelian idealism lmao

>>6157762
>kant doesn't do much to defend christianity, bub
i didn't say anything about christianity
if you can't read 4chan posts i doubt you can or have read kant or hume

>>6157755
>>6157767
Samephag.

>>6157772
Because people read all things with equivalent amount of care and brain power

good argument there m8

>>6157769
And a true scotsman would never pay full price on this melanesian whaling station.

>>6157767

What? No. He's correct.

>>6157777
i didn't make that argument
besides
>Because people read all things with equivalent amount of care and brain power
so are you saying that you read hume and kant with less care than you carelessly read posts here?

>>6157779
>there's this thing that we just know
>yeah but what about these arguments?
>not important. we just know that they're wrong, it doesn't matter why

>>6157778
you've been talking to me for like 2 seconds and already throw out the name of a fallacy you're misunderstanding

good job

>>6157734
>We know that, in fact, things work the way they work,
Can you expand on this ?

>>6157795
BACK THE FUCK OFF

>>6157785
>so are you saying that you read hume and kant with less care than you carelessly read posts here?

is it an epic jokey m8y where you misread posts of people you feel misread you?

Where 2 start with Hume
Keep in mind I haven't read a book in five years

>>6157809
treatise of human nature

>>6157785

But that's true. That's actually how 99.9% of human beings function. Only philosophers spend time analysing propositions that are, on their face, bullshit, or think that the incoherence of a proposition suggests it holds truths too big to handle. No, it's just bullshit. The majority of people keep going to work and eating and sleeping and going to the store, and nothing changes in their lives for not entertaining your crap. How do they evaluate a proposition? Gut instinct. Only philosophers and autists pretend every decision is the outcome of a process of ratiocination - any scientist of cognition or psychology will tell you no, people just know in their knower.

>>6157640
Yeah I am sure you know nothing about the only philosophy that matters in the 19th century, German philosophy.

Moorean arguments aren't very convincing because by merely mirroring the skeptic's argument they don't have enough force to swing us the other way.

>>6157797
I suppose you could call it faith. It's not merely a Christian virtue- all people possess it, and it forms the bedrock of all we know. Hume's skepticism is so reductive that it would undermine everything if we let it. But we don't- we say "well, we know this." But that violates Hume, doesn't it?

Basically, Hume's skepticism is unworkable. We must assert our absolute knowledge of things in order for reality to operate.

>>6157811
Isn't that included in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding?

>>6157814
>implying i don't love me some nietzsche, hegel, schopenhauer
>implying kierkegaard was german

>>6157813
>But that's true. That's actually how 99.9% of human beings function. Only philosophers spend time analysing propositions that are, on their face, bullshit, or think that the incoherence of a proposition suggests it holds truths too big to handle. No, it's just bullshit.
totally irrelevant

>>6157819
> in order for reality to operate
this is absolutely lazy, cowardly, fingers-in-ears non-philosophy

absolutely pathetic

>>6157819
>Hume's skepticism is so reductive that it would undermine everything if we let it
it's fucking not though. you're a retard if you think hume really doubted the sun would rise

>>6157860
Oh, fuck you. That is PRECISELY what Hume leads to if you follow him to his logical conclusions. And that's why Hume doesn't work.

>>6157865
No, that's fucking not. It's a scholarly pasttime to ignore how reasonable hume is and make him seem fucking retarded

No, Hume did not doubt the sun would rise. He said you can't KNOW it will rise.

hume's skepticism is blown out of all proportions by people who want to propose a strawman argument against his reasoning. hume's entire ontology is actually very plausible

>>6157873
>No, Hume did not doubt the sun would rise. He said you can't KNOW it will rise.

You have said the same thing twice and you're still trying to deny it.

>>6157865
i seriously suggest you watch this series on hume: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRNs1uVGMDc

you will realize that your wikipedia-tier understanding of hume isn't adequate, hopefully

>>6157607

As Anscombe said: he was an incredibly clever sophist. But when you read his work sentence by sentence and really think about all the claims he makes there are allot of false inferences and bad presuppositions worked into his thought. Some of it is really clever though, no doubt about that.

>>6157877
Deny what? I do not have to have "Absolute knowledge" to reason at all. Do you even know what a matter of fact is?

Hume would never deny that if you said, "the grass looks green", that it's not true that you sense the grass as being green.

>>6157886
Of course it has problems, but no, Hume isn't a "sophist", anymore than all philosophy is sophistry.

>>6157888
So then there are limits to his skepticism? Which in turn undermines it, yes?

>>6157903
>So then there are limits to his skepticism? Which in turn undermines it, yes?

Of course there are limits to his skepticism, because he didn't set out to be the sort of strawman you're making him out to be.

>>6157911
Yes, well, Luther didn't set out to split Christendom, but we all know what happened. Hume's ideas have implications beyond his own appreciation, surely you must understand that.

>>6157915
Yes, because a large amount of people who read Hume misunderstood him. That doesn't mean his philosophy isn't incredibly important, interesting and profound. I don't agree with him verbatim, but let's speak honestly about what is.

>>6157844

No, it's not. It's crucially relevant.


>>6157923

What it is is what it means in the world. Nothing more or less. What it has meant in the world is filth.

Come on! Come continue. Why don't you come and lick the dried, flaked shit from my fucking hole?

>>6157966
can you actually try

>>6158007

What are you talking about? Read my posts again if you don't understand them.

>>6158015
You haven't actually said anything yet

>>6158019

Yes I have.

Come on, stick your face between my caked cheeks and paint yourself with my fucking spice!

>>6158030
"no" isn't saying something.

>>6158100

Yes it is, but that isn't all I said. Go to some effort in your life. Don't waste it.

Why is British philosophy always so sceptical and empirical?

>>6157658
Jsi cesky?

>>6158104
yeah, that's exactly what you should do. argue instead of continuing this charade

>>6158114
hume's thought is much deeper than the memes you're spouting

>>6158114

Because they don't really like ideas. This is because their universities were, until recently, just finishing schools for the sons of the wealthy; anything too complex to work as dinner party conversation is categorically declared bullshit.

>>6158119
>u can't kno anything nutn at all
I don't see the difference in depth between this and a meme.

>>6158119

What are you talking about? You've yet to counter anything I wrote. Do that, then we'll see about argument.

>>6158122
They use ideas all the time, just limited to empirically observable and testable ideas.

>>6158131

No, the word for that is 'data'. They like data. They like pelf, they like merchandise, the British. They tend not to like ideas.

>>6158126
you're retarded and don't understand hume's thought.

>>6158127
what have you actually said, besides "LOL THERE ARE INNATE IDEAS, DUH"?

>>6158137
What about mathematics?

>>6158139
i know more about hume and philosophy than you nerd

why is hume "deeper" than a meme

>>6158140
Hume, at least, was a platonist about mathematics.

>>6158139

Read my posts again if you didn't understand them. When you grow up, reply.

>>6158140

Math is data, not ideas.

>>6158142
Hume wasn't skeptical about necessary connection, which means he actually does have a theory of connections and knowledge. I know your worthless professor probably didn't tell you, but that's the truth.

>>6158144
I have no idea which your "arguments" (LOL) were anymore. Link them.

>>6158155

I didn't make any arguments, I stated facts. You know full well which they were.

>>6158159
No, I don't. Link them.

>>6157607
>not reading the guy who ended christianity as "serious" philosophy
so why aren't you?

>>6158164
Hume did way more on that path than Marx did

>>6158161

Yes you do, you were only just caricaturing them. I am not going to make it easier for you to bandy words with your master. Why would I aid evil?

>>6158174
Get the fuck out, then, you worthless, sophist sack of shit.

>>6158175

Of course not. How little your attempts at philosophy have aided you here.

Is Hume pragmatic?

>>6158168
The only reason people ever wrote about god and jesus is because they didn't want to get staked like a vampire and they are also chill enough to pay lip-service, havn't you even read Leo Strauss.

>>6158193

HAHAHAHAHAHA BOLLOCKS

>>6158193
Nope

>>6158189
Pragmatic in what sense? People read Hume and actually think he was worried about the sun coming up or his bread turning into poison. Hume's goal was mainly to rid the world of metaphysical a priori lawmaking in philosophy, and instill a protoscientific, empirical method of understanding causation and connection. That seems very pragmatic to me, if you consider scientific development pragmatic and religion tomfoolery

>>6158198

Give tongue to my hole, though.

>>6158198

It's ludicrous to think philosophy has anywhere to go without theology. Philosophy isn't a science, it's an art.

>>6158198
I wasn't sure because I always suspect bullshit when the word "profound" is used.

Anything that is not pragmatic is bad in literally every conceivable context.

>>6158196
Christianity as a social technology isn't Christianity as a philosophy, only the execution of it.

>>6158209

Er, what? The answer given was the answer given.

>>6158204
>argument from aesthetics

And a shitty one at that, too. You're no Nietzsche

>>6158208
what?

>Hume, like Russell in our own time, is too amiable and optimistic a man really to understand religion.

>>6158208
>Anything that is not pragmatic is bad in literally every conceivable context.
define "bad"
what are the criteria for determine that something is pragmatic?

>>6157886
if Anscombe is the same bitch who wanted to resurrect virtue ethics and postulates hume is a sophist she needs to have sudoku'd already

>>6157607
He's one of the few philosophers you should read.

>isn't Christian
>into the trash.jpg

Easy way to tell if someone can't think

>>6158972
haha wow man that was the best troll i read all day, good one xD

>>6158888
>virtue ethics
>bad

Modernity is trash.

>>6158198
But if religion isn't tomfoolery, Hume is wrong and so is everyone that came after him.

>>6158193
>haven't you read a neocon nazi jew
I am happy that I haven't.

>>6157607
Hume was a sophist. Plato rekd him about two thousand years prior to the fact.

>>6157640
this post is really bad.
Rousseau, Voltaire, Wolf, Kant + a shit load of others in 18th century
Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Hölderlin, Kierkegaard + a shit load of others in 19th century.
Husserl, Heidegger, Levinas, Marion, Taylor, Derrida + a shit load of others in 20th century

They might not be christian, but they all believe in something (even Heidegger/Derrida and their weird divinities).
Hume was important because of Kant... that's mostly it...

>>6157734
Reads like a grade school level interpretation of Kant.

>>6157734

why the fuck are analytic philosophers so fucking obsessed with common sense and "intuition"?

there's no way to prove that intuition isn't learned and the easiest, simplest way isn't ALWAYS how things actually are.

appealing to common sense isn't enough.

>>6157755

welcome to analytic philosophy

>>6157819
Have you actually read Hume, you fucking imbecile? His major point is that our core understanding of reality is not based on reason, but on a kind of instinctual faith than even reason ultimately rests upon.

>>6157819
>>6157734

>>6159659
I'm sure I'd remember that

>>6160474
Don't you remember it in the Gorgias
>Yo Glaucon, dat Gorgias guy is almost as spooked a sophist as ol' Hume
>Who's that, Plato ? And what is "spooked" ?
>Nevermind. Don't forget to give me back my pepe when you're done using it.

>>6160489
Fuck I meant Socrates. Plato was the janitor in that thread.

>>6157734
>Kant's magical "faculty"

lel, what is this the 17th century?

Read Two Dogmas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsJlsrXQfzI

>>6160495
>Socrates
even worse
Gorgias was awesome - 108 years of life, speaks about any subject, was rich, had a gold statue of himself

on the other hand, Socrates dies to prove a point

and they accuse sophists for being discussion killers