Tell me how Hume didn't end philosophy forever

[Anonymous No.14954249]

If what Hume said is right, causality cannot be logically proved.

Therefore, science, based on causality, is a worthless and unreliable source of information.

Therefore, logic and rationality is self-defeating. A system that relies on logic can't produce anything meaningful.

Therefore, philosophy is worthless.

Only systems of belief that reject logic for emotion, such as superstition (religion) or hedonism (political-economy) can offer us any valuable insight into the world.

[Anonymous No.14954264]

read him first

[Anonymous No.14954271]

>>14954249
You've clearly never read him.

[Anonymous No.14954284]

You gotta be an ignorant or something. Hume inspired Kant, who then inspired Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer. All of these inspired a tonload of more or less valuable philosophers. More than anything, Hume opened up a new horizon.

[Anonymous No.14954293]

[Anonymous No.14954310]

>>14954293
What is the point of these diagrams?

[Anonymous No.14954516]

>>14954293
why is neoplatonism forgotten, it is absolutely based

[Anonymous No.14954523]

>>14954249
You're correct. The other brainlets in this thread telling you to read him are the ones who haven't.

[Anonymous No.14954563]

Causality is a postulate. It's not a theorem. We have never met a phenomenon that breaks causality so far. The day we do science will adapt, like it's meant to adapt.
It could very well be that there are only one or two types of phenomena that break causality (big bang, some weird edge cases of special relativity), and all other ones follow it. But so far there is no evidence of such.

[Anonymous No.14954786]

Its obvious you only read an article on Hume, since he addresses these very questions in the Enquiry (which is only 100 pages). Secondly, most people feel that Kant responded to the problem of Causality sufficiently well in the Critique.

[Anonymous No.14954799]

>>14954563
He's not saying that something breaks causality, he's saying that nothing can be proven to be caused by anything else.

[Anonymous No.14955840]

>>14954249
He did end philosophy, Shestov clearly explained it. Philosophy was also ended by Pyrrho, the entire thing has always been a fucking meme

[Anonymous No.14955861]

>>14954249
see Kant and Hegel. Hume didn't end philosophy forever because he failed to do so empirically, faggot.

[Anonymous No.14955868]

This is an interesting point. Personally I have a very scant recollection of Hume but I think a more interesting discussion is whether or not our notions of causality are pragmatic. It's reasonably simple to infer that causality is mainly defined by our experience of the world, being that we inhabit a phenomenal on the linear axis of time - and that our idea of causality is limited by this experience. This, outside of linear time, how does causality work? I don't think this refutes positivism or even undermines, just places it in a context. Our notions of causality are useful, yes, but to think that they are invalidated by a greater scope of context seems at odds with our lives experience.

[Anonymous No.14955870]

>>14954516
It's too difficult

[Anonymous No.14955877]

>>14955868
>Phoneposting
>Not proofreading
Soz senpai

[Anonymous No.14955883]

>>14954249
Because Kant straight up took a dump on his chest and he never recovered from it

[Anonymous No.14955892]

>>14955883
I bet you never read a single work by Hume. You're just repeating what you were told in a lecture based on a handful of quotes which you didn't understand either.

[Anonymous No.14955932]

>>14955892
Kant solved the problem of Causality midwit. Go read the Critique if you have the brain capacity for it, faggot Humean.

[Anonymous No.14955960]

>>14955892
Someone sounds touchy. Why don't you go rewatch a game of snooker a bunch of times, I'm sure you'll be able to understand causality that way lmao

[Anonymous No.14955999]

>>14955932
Moving the problem of necessity to the sphere of pure reason doesn't address Hume's basic point, it just asserts that reason is necessary without any justification. There is no way whatsoever for reason to justify its own necessity.

[Anonymous No.14956070]

>>14954249
I never read Hume and don't know shit about philosophy but why would you attempt to refute causality by formulating an argument based on causal reasoning?

[Anonymous No.14956194]

>>14955999
There is if we allow for the utilization of undefined notions.

[Anonymous No.14956286]

>>14956070
Based

[Anonymous No.14956549]

>>14956286
My question was genuine

[Anonymous No.14957187]

>>14956070
Bc Hume isn't trying to disprove causality entirely. He's trying to show how philosophy eventually undermines itself, and that we need to balance it out with respect for our everyday assumptions. Basically, he thinks philosophy is an interesting pastime but that if you take it too far it leads to endless doubt and makes you a worse person.

[Anonymous No.14957194]

>>14957187
That's just one interpretation of Hume btw. There are many others

[Anonymous No.14957669]

>>14954516
Literally no one has forgotten about it. It's in everything from larping new age sorcery to traditional religious mysticism. You are just not well read.

[Anonymous No.14957747]

>>14954249
More like David Whom?

[Anonymous No.14958120]

You can't have causality or objective knowledge without God, sorry fedoras, Hume proved it and Kant's cope doesn't work without God.

[Anonymous No.14958160]

>>14958120
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.14958210]

>>14954293

Essentialist garbage, that entire diagram is pure speculation. I'm embarrassed that this is even considered philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14958284]

>be me, undergrad writing an exam on early modern philosophy

>first section is on Berkeley and percievable objects
>talk about sensible qualities, essi is spaghetti, etc.
>dab on Berkeley by stealing criticism from Hilary Putnam off the internet

>second section is on Hume and the necessary connection
>talk about succession, spatial contiguity, etc.
>proceed to dab on Hume too by drawing on Kant and our intuition of the pure concepts of understanding

>get my results back from my professor
>literally no criticisms whatsoever
>"excellent, you really know what you're doing here"
>awarded 83/100

Analytic philosophy is a fucking joke. I'm a lit major and I literally scored higher than most of the people who majored in phil

[Anonymous No.14958613]

>>14958160
>>>reddit

[Anonymous No.14958625]

>>14954249
>philosophy is a system
bugman pleb

[Anonymous No.14958687]

>>14958284
>no criticism
>83/100
wut

[Anonymous No.14958694]

>>14954249
>If what Hume said is right, causality cannot be logically proved.
He right, and not only that but it can be shown through logic that causality is unreal as the British Idealist FH Bradley and various eastern philosophers have pointed out
>Therefore, science, based on causality, is a worthless and unreliable source of information.
>Therefore, logic and rationality is self-defeating. A system that relies on logic can't produce anything meaningful.
>Therefore, philosophy is worthless.
all correct
>Only systems of belief that reject logic for emotion, such as superstition (religion) or hedonism (political-economy) can offer us any valuable insight into the world.
hedonism is cringe, the implication of Hume is that revealed scriptures are ultimately the only valid source of knowledge, you can either choose one religion to accept as true or get into perennialism. This is the only thing that can lead to true knowledge, as all independent reasoning absent of scriptural authority is susceptible to being undermined. This isn't really rejecting logic for emotion but it's placing the suprarational and suprahuman nature of God above the rational and the human intellect. Many of the most famous theologians who do still are still formidable logicians but they just recognize the limits of logic.
>>14956194
can you elaborate?
>>14956070
if causality is unreal then in all debate with others its taken for granted that despite being unreal it appears otherwise and that we seemingly depend on it to have a conversation, nevertheless if one can still show using conversations seemingly subject to causality that there are contradictions and paradoxes in the idea of causality then that's still a possible indication that it is unreal even if said the communication of said point was seemingly dependent on causality

[Anonymous No.14958728]

>>14958687
I don't know how grading generally works in phil, but in english lit anything above 85-90 is considered of publishable quality. Getting full marks is almost unheard of

[Anonymous No.14958758]

>>14958728
That’s dumb

[Anonymous No.14958768]

>>14958284
>Berkeley and Hume
>analytic philosophy
Wew

[Anonymous No.14958773]

>>14958694
>that's still a possible indication that it is unreal even if said the communication of said point was seemingly dependent on causality
Sorry for being a brainlet but I don't get it. If the method is assumed (not proven) to be wrong, why is it okay to use that admittedly flawed method in order to "prove" its own wrongness?

[Anonymous No.14958776]

>>14958728
What university?

[Anonymous No.14958790]

>>14958694
Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.14958800]

>>14958768
>analytic philosophy can only refer to specific thinkers and not praxis

[Anonymous No.14958879]

>>14958790
not an argument

[Anonymous No.14958882]

>>14958879
not a rebuttal

[Anonymous No.14958925]

>>14958882
calling someone retarded needs no rebuttal

[Anonymous No.14959052]

>>14958773
>why is it okay to use that admittedly flawed method in order to "prove" its own wrongness?
I'm not maintaining that anyone can verifiably "prove" beyond a doubt that causality is unreal but insofar as arguments which demonstrate that it is an illogical concept, we are forced to use methods which seemingly depend on causality to have any discussion about that topic, we are not given any choice in the matter. Hence to engage in that discussion is already to concede that doing so seemingly requires causality, regardless; let us imagine for a moment that if causality was unreal then causality as an unreal hypothesis would be more likely than a real existent thing to seem incoherent/illogical when subjected to scrutiny such as (insert one of the various arguments against causality being real here). To respond that making this argument requires causality being real isn't a point against the person arguing that causality is unreal since they have already conceded that it appears to be real but in truth isn't, if causality weren't real but appeared otherwise but nevertheless was suscepible to its very unreality being uncovered through rational inquiry then the above scenario of someone subjecting it to scrutiny while themselves only accepting causality for conversational or conventional purposes would be just how it would play out and would be just how someone would endeavor to show how it is unreal through logical argumentation.

[Anonymous No.14959634]

>>14955840
>Philosophy was also ended by Pyrrho
absolutely based anon