Philosophy ended with Hume's three contradictions.

[Anonymous No.18485547]

No amount of philosophical reasoning or empirical evidence can lead to any certainty on these three contradictions. If you pay attention, most of a philosopher's ideology hinge on his answers to these three contradictions, yet none of them are satisfactory and introduce doubts:

>[Hume] notes three such contradictions. One centers on what we call induction. Our judgments based on past experience all contain elements of doubt; we are then impelled to make a judgment about that doubt, and since this judgment is also based on past experience it will in turn produce a new doubt. Once again, though, we are impelled to make a judgment about this second doubt, and the cycle continues. He concludes that “no finite object can subsist under a decrease repeated in infinitum.” A second contradiction involves a conflict between two theories of external perception, each of which our natural reasoning process leads us to. One is our natural inclination to believe that we are directly seeing objects as they really are, and the other is the more philosophical view that we only ever see mental images or copies of external objects. The third contradiction involves a conflict between causal reasoning and belief in the continued existence of matter.
Source: https://iep.utm.edu/hume/#H4

In short, these three contradictions are problem of induction, hard problem of consciousness (i.e., a better rephrasing of mind-body problem), and the problem of universals (e.g., nominalism vs. realism).

By focusing on these three contradictions, one can easily summarize any philosopher's overall views. The most honest conclusion is the human mind is not equipped to make sense of these contradictions, especially when considering the answer itself may be an aporia.

[Anonymous No.18485578]

>A second contradiction involves a conflict between two theories of external perception, each of which our natural reasoning process leads us to. One is our natural inclination to believe that we are directly seeing objects as they really are, and the other is the more philosophical view that we only ever see mental images or copies of external objects.

>The third contradiction involves a conflict between causal reasoning and belief in the continued existence of matter.

how are either of these contradictions

[Anonymous No.18485827]

>>18485547
That's why understanding the timeless principle of paticcasamupada is the end of philosophy

[Anonymous No.18485867]

>>18485547
>the human mind is not equipped to make sense of these contradictions
What if it makes sense of them as contradictions? That is, what if it identifies them as contradictions and thereby makes sense of them? By assigning them the identity of "contradictions" the human mind has grasped and identified them. Sense-making complete.

[Anonymous No.18485905]

>>18485547
nah that stupid hat shows why he should be ignored

[Anonymous No.18485909]

Hume's fork is self refuting

[Anonymous No.18485913]

>>18485547
>>18485578
Nothing he said was new.
Outlines of Skepticism BTFO'd all dogma and Metaphysics. After that what you're left with is pure pragmatism.

[Anonymous No.18485919]

>>18485547
>these three contradictions are problem of induction, hard problem of consciousness (i.e., a better rephrasing of mind-body problem), and the problem of universals (e.g., nominalism vs. realism).
None of these problems exist.
t. Plato and Aristotle

[Anonymous No.18485934]

>>18485919
>problem of induction doesn't exist

Yikes!

[Anonymous No.18485941]

The problem with the problem of induction is that Hume sees cause and effect as loose and separate. They may be conceivable as loose and separate, but in actuality they are not. The book standing on the shelf is not loose and separate. Nor is it possible for a cat t just suddenly appear out of a hat. Read Feser.

[Anonymous No.18485967]

Kant put to rest Hume.
Philosophy actually ended with Hegel. The rest is just a reaction to him

[Anonymous No.18485982]

>>18485547
>Our judgments based on past experience all contain elements of doubt;
What does it mean? The ground of any experience and judgement will never be a doubt but the apodicticity of the Subject itself.

[Anonymous No.18486123]

>>18485934
Correct. Try elaborating on the "problem" of induction.

[Anonymous No.18486327]

>>18485547
read kant

[Anonymous No.18486462]

>>18486123
We have no reason to believe in casual relations and necessity when we only experience a constant conjunction

[Anonymous No.18486498]

>>18486462
are the constancy and the conjunction necessary?

[Anonymous No.18486509]

>>18485913
>Outlines of Skepticism BTFO'd all dogma and Metaphysics
It fails to refute the self-evident existence of consciousness

[Anonymous No.18486718]

>>18486462
You're just avoiding conversation now. Why don't you actually state what induction is and why it is not possible? Why don't you state why you cannot have an understanding of causation? Perhaps you would be like Hume and give a fair example
>All the bread (of this impression) I have eaten has been nourishing
>This next piece of bread (of this impression) I eat will be nourishing
A common one. It aims to expose an epistemological gap in our systems. It is not an epistemological problem. It also has nothing to do with induction. To be fair, a lot of so called induction is quite well handled by Humes argument. For example, every form of induction that asserts a non-necessary conclusion is wrong and Hume is quite good against it. Hume also managed to point out that enumerative induction is nonsense and so he's good on that too. But neither of these are induction properly understood. Induction goes from particulars to universals. It does not go from particular statements to universal statements. It does not assert probabilities. So Hume really says nothing about induction - he can't, he's talking about something else.
Hume's problem claims that there is a uniformity principle implied in induction, and that it is unfounded. As stated, it is correct induction asserts a uniformity principle. It is not unfounded. The uniformity principle is true but not provable in any ontology that denies real essences in the vein of Plato or Aristotle. (Platonist have a slightly more difficult time than Aristotelians fyi).
Hume's problem of induction is really stating the absurdities derived from:
1: Poor understandings of induction
2: Ontologically deprived systems that don't acknowledge real essences in the vein of Platonism and Aristotelianism
3: Failures of the idea of impressions and ideas asserted by e.g. Locke

Any proper understanding of induction (Like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and their disciples had) is not referenced by Hume. Similarly, any system that acknowledges real essences is immune to Hume as Hume's argument necessitates a specie of nominalism.

Platonism remains unaffected by the last 400 years of philosophy as the last 400 years of philosophy simply share no common ground for the Platonist to be objected to.

The above also applies to all arguments we "only experience constant conjunction" - this specifically requires a degenerative understanding of ideas asserted by Locke and carried forwards by Hume. No real system is affected by this - though I'm sure it remains a stumbling block to the logicians in contemporary literature.

[Anonymous No.18486772]

>>18486509
>self-evident
BTFO'd by Zhuangzi's butterfly dream plus dissociation and depersonalization disorders.

[Anonymous No.18486781]

>>18485913
Skepticism was Btfod by Augustine

[Anonymous No.18486791]

>>18486509
self evidency isnt satisfactory

[Anonymous No.18486792]

>>18486772
none of these addresses the point the other anon made, read books

[Anonymous No.18486802]

>>18486791
retard

[Anonymous No.18486812]

>>18486792
So he isn't talking about consciousness from Descartes' perspective?

[Anonymous No.18486820]

>>18486781
No advocate of religion can BTFO skepticism without having blind faith.

[Anonymous No.18486821]

>>18486812
unless you are open to elaborate your point i don't see how any of that makes sense in this context

[Anonymous No.18486830]

>>18486820
>blind faith
ironic when it is the skeptic who must appeal to blind faith, it is self-refuting retard we have gone through this already a million times

[Anonymous No.18486841]

>>18485941
>Nor is it possible for a cat t just suddenly appear out of a hat.
why? and even if it is, whatever makes it impossible could have not been. and even if it couldnt have not been, whatever makes that impossible could have not been.

feser and any other thomists neccesities are unsatisfactory. if circularity is allowed (logic is neccesary because logic) than the opposite could have been too (illogic is neccesary because illogic.)

[Anonymous No.18486845]

>>18486718
True and essences-pilled.

[Anonymous No.18486885]

>>18486830
okay? there is nothing wrong with blind faith as long as youre admitting that it is. skepticism doesnt claim epitemic certainty.

[Anonymous No.18486888]

>>18486821
You made the claim that the other anon meant something else. So how it doesn't makes sense in this way?

[Anonymous No.18486919]

>>18486462
The constant conjunction is in fact a very good reason to believe in causal relations, just not absolute proof.

[Anonymous No.18486972]

>>18485547
Only a problem for representationalist philosophies.

>Hume implies that we are faced with an either/or: either we believe that all causal claims about “matters of fact” are based solely on sense experience, or we must believe that contingent empirical phenomena can be derived (in other words predicted), purely a priori. Hume often identifies the latter option with the traditional accounts he criticises. For Hume, the latter is not an option because, according to him, we can always conceive (in other words, imagine) any empirical event we like, without contradiction, while the former cannot ground causal claims without vicious circularity. Hume suggests that if the latter option were possible, then a man with no previous experience of e.g. fire, should be able to predict that his hand will be burnt if he places it in the fire. Since Hume's empiricist principles lead him to deny any form of intellectual insight (all thinking is a species of imagination), and since sense perception gives us no insight into the hidden “ultimate springs and principles” of nature, he is led to propose his alternative definition of causality, according to which the necessity pertaining to causal connections is, in fact, nothing but the psychological compulsion, born of habit, to expect A to follow B if we have often observed this in the past.

>In contrast, Goethe, like Aristotle, respects the difference between sense perception and intellection, recognises the role of an intuitive intellect in knowledge, and rejects the dualistic idea that knowledge aims at accurately representing an “external” world hidden behind a screen of representations. Instead, for Goethe, knowledge involves the discernment of the ideal or intelligible principles of sensible phenomena.

>The term “rational empiricism” arose in the context of the correspondence between Goethe and Schiller in 1798. This discussion seems to have been precipitated by a letter from Goethe, dated January 10, 1798, in which he sent to Schiller a copy of his essay “The Experiment as Mediator between Object and Subject.” On January 15, 1798, Goethe sent Schiller a copy of another, shorter essay – “Empirical Observation and Science.” This gives a condensed account of his scientific method leading up to the perception of the Urphänomen, or archetypal phenomenon. Goethe begins this latter essay as follows: "Phenomena, which others of us may call facts, are certain and definite by nature, but often fluctuating in appearance. The scientific researcher strives to grasp and keep the definite aspect of what he beholds; in each individual case he is careful to note not only how the phenomena appear, but also how they should appear." Knowledge, for him, is not the attempt to grasp, by means of representations, a radically transcendent reality behind appearances. Rather, knowledge is the always finite participation of the knower in reality by means of phenomena made intelligible in act of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.18487368]

>>18486509
This really is the trump card of any non-materialist position. So long as materialists cannot come up with a satisfactory explanation for conscious experience then there is a huge chink in the armor of the materialist viewpoint.

[Anonymous No.18487394]

This nigga got a diaper on his head!

[Anonymous No.18487408]

>>18486791
the only reasonable conclusion for this is that you're either an absolute skeptic (because all non self-evident positions are dependent on the self-evidence of consciousness) or that you're an NPC.

>>18486772
the "self-evident" part does not refer to "self-evident" that the world as we know it exists, but rather that there is an ontologically meaningful object that DOES exist (the "self" or at least the "thought" which is self-evident) and appears (STRONGLY) separate from material existence.

as someone who has experienced severe dissociative episodes, these have nothing to do with it and actually have strengthened my sympathies towards non-material positions. dissociation feels like being torn away from material reality and into some inchoate, abstract and subjective world.

[Anonymous No.18487432]

>>18485909
this is as cringe as saying the cogito is self-defeating

[Anonymous No.18487485]

>>18487394
I really can’t stand that stupid fucking hat. It makes it impossible to take the man seriously

[Anonymous No.18487500]

>>18486841
>if circularity is allowed (logic is neccesary because logic) than the opposite could have been too (illogic is neccesary because illogic.)
It's actually impossible not to use logic (A=A).

[Anonymous No.18487508]

>>18487408
i believe in consciousness but i acknowledge that it is not for certain, and certainty was what they were arguing for. when it comes to certainty, absolute skepticism is the only viable option.
>>18487368
the discussion isnt ontological but epistemological.

[Anonymous No.18487509]

>>18486841
> if circularity is allowed (logic is neccesary because logic) than the opposite could have been too
Circularity is not allowed and necessarily never proves anything - even for works of logic. Please read Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.18487523]

>>18487508
>i believe in consciousness but i acknowledge that it is not for certain
On what grounds do you state it is not certain?

[Anonymous No.18487529]

>>18487508
but that is what he is getting at: apodicticity of consciousness/subject. there simply cannot be anything without that which makes things intelligible, eg. the fact that there is something rather than nothing.

[Anonymous No.18487532]

>>18487509
>Circularity is not allowed and necessarily never proves anything
Unfortunately this a circular statement, as are all statements.

[Anonymous No.18487542]

>>18487532
>Unfortunately this a circular statement, as are all statements.
Something you will never actually demonstrate!

[Anonymous No.18487548]

>>18487542
How do you know? Where is the evidence?

[Anonymous No.18487554]

>>18485547
You have five senses…they can confirm each other…

I can confirm what I’m looking at by touching it, sometimes smelling it and sometimes tasting it too..

Other people and even tools can confirm what I’m looking at…

I’ve never been drastically wrong because of my senses.

This philosophy is a fucking joke dude. Go outside and touch things. Do your senses fail you often enough to not be able to trust them?

[Anonymous No.18487560]

>>18487548
So you can't demonstrate all statements are circular? Why do you bother claiming something you have no intention of actually defending?

[Anonymous No.18487562]

>>18487500
>It's actually impossible not to use logic (A=A).
its impossible to concieve of, but i dont see any reason why reality couldnt be illogical. if there were problems, they could be solved illogically.
>>18487523
Münchhausen trilemma
>>18487509
if circularity isnt allowed, as it shouldnt, then how can anything be fundementally neccesary? neccesary essences just seem circular

[Anonymous No.18487565]

>>18487554
Sense information can't provide us with absolute truths.

[Anonymous No.18487575]

>>18487565
You’re going to have to use a specific example. I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about. My senses work, it’s literally never been a problem.

[Anonymous No.18487582]

>>18487560
All statements are circular because they possess the identity of themselves. They are themselves and not any other. This cannot be refuted.

[Anonymous No.18487603]

>>18487582
This is the iprinciple of identity of indiscernibles, nothing to do with epistemology, that's ontology

[Anonymous No.18487620]

>>18487562
"Solving problems" implies some kind of order. Any possible reality that's not pure chaos would still be logical, just with perhaps different axioms.

[Anonymous No.18487631]

>>18486772
>BTFO'd by Zhuangzi's butterfly dream plus dissociation and depersonalization disorders.
No, that doesn't refute the self-evident existence of consciousness, in a dream and in disorders people are still conscious, that they can be confused about things external to consciousness doesn't refute that the consciousness still exists

>>18486791
>self evidency isnt satisfactory
It is, because a non-existent thing wouldn't even be able to ask the question, that you are asking and debating the question of skepticism at all shows there is a conscious presence which cannot be explained away by skepticism

Vidyaranya, an Advaita Vedantic philosopher, expresses this argument as:

>No one can doubt the fact of his own existence. Were one to do so, who would the doubter be?

>>18487529
this

[Anonymous No.18487649]

>>18487562
>munchhausen trilemma
that's been refuted so many times and even on fucking 4chan.

also
>problems could be solved illogically
this makes absolutely no sense, you cannot have understanding of what is illogical without what is logical

[Anonymous No.18487663]

>>18487649
The trilemma hasn't been refuted. Infinite regress, foundationalism and coherentism are all unsatisfactory and seem to be the only options.

[Anonymous No.18487668]

>>18487620
>"Solving problems" implies some kind of order
an illogical reality could be ordered, yet still illogical. in an illogical way.

and is it neccesary for reality to not be pure chaos just cause it isnt pure chaos?
>>18487631
>It is, because a non-existent thing wouldn't even be able to ask the question, that you are asking and debating the question of skepticism at all shows there is a conscious presence which cannot be explained away by skepticism
me doubting my existance is doubtable. along with everything else in this.

[Anonymous No.18487671]

>>18487663
See: >>18487529
The foundation for skepticism is the same as any other foundationalism.

[Anonymous No.18487672]

Of course a bougee asshole from Germany was in doubt as to whether the physical world really exists.

Probably never played sports, did anything dangerous, had any fun doing physical activity ever

[Anonymous No.18487675]

>>18487562
>Münchhausen trilemma
The trilemma arises when you have the belief that anything proved must be done so in a demonstrative deductive manner. There is no need to actually hold this position. It's not much different from the senses:
Some thing perceptible to a sense actualizes the sense perception resulting in sense knowledge of that thing.
Some thing perceptible to the mind actualizes knowledge of it in the mind. This applies even to those most fundamental premises that all others are based on.

[Anonymous No.18487678]

>>18487663
Also, check this thread >>/lit/thread/S18285551

[Anonymous No.18487692]

>>18487668
>me doubting my existence is doubtable
no it is not and you are even affirming that it is doubting, not doubting it is doubting

[Anonymous No.18487709]

>>18487668
>and is it neccesary for reality to not be pure chaos just cause it isnt pure chaos?
What is chaos?
>me doubting my existance is doubtable.
What is the me that is doubting the my?

[Anonymous No.18487724]

>>18487692
i doubt this as well
>>18487709
>What is chaos?
A=not A lets say
>What is the me that is doubting the my?
possibly misguided and non existent

[Anonymous No.18487733]

>>18485547
What in the logicus philosophicus did you just philosophucking just say to me you little Metaphysician? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Vienna Circle, and I've been involved in numerous secret debates in politically powerful circles, and I have over 300 published analytical papers. I am trained in logical analysis and libertarian think tank organization and I'm the top logician jn the entire Jewish Intellectual Forces. You are nothing to me but just another argument. I will destroy with facts and logic the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my smart words. You think you can get away with saying that philosophical fecal fecundus to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of Jews across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, OP the faggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your world view. You're fucking done, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can debate you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my protolinguistic dialectic. Not only am I extensively trained in verbal combat, but I have access to the entire set of libraries of the United States and Israel and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable pretenses off the face of the continent, you little shieze. If only you could have known what unprovable retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your friendly tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you g-d-damnedidiot. I will scribble symbolic fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're game is over, lotus eater.

[Anonymous No.18487736]

>>18487724
>A=not A lets say
This is necessarily not possible and if you believe it is, you are just using words without having any meaning behind them.
>possibly misguided and non existent
Again, you're just using words but not containing any meaning with them. What is possibly misguided and what is possibly non-existent?

[Anonymous No.18487750]

>>18487724
>i doubt
another affirmation...

[Anonymous No.18487756]

>>18487736
>This is necessarily not possible
demonstrate why. why should reality neccesarily abide by logic?
>>18487750
i doubt that it is

[Anonymous No.18487778]

>>18487756
If you allow some illogic, there's no reason to not allow all illogic. Thus there's a possible world with screwed modality, such that possibility=necessity. But necessary facts are true in every possible world, including ours. This irrational world goes metastatic, devouring all other worlds. Thus it's impossible. QED

[Anonymous No.18487785]

>>18485547
Why did he dress like a fat gay grandma fresh out of the shower?

[Anonymous No.18487788]

>>18487756
>demonstrate why. why should reality neccesarily abide by logic?
It's not demonstrable - it's simply known.
>reality neccesarily abide by logic?
You're mistaking what is prior. Reality is so - is derived from the principles of reality. There's no such thing as a reality that does not abide by logic.

I'd suggest you start with Plato and work your way onwards.

>>18487778
Possible worlds are nonsense to drive convenient but unsound logics into the mainstream.

[Anonymous No.18487800]

>>18487788
Possible worlds are just an intuitive semantics for modal logic. Why are they bad?

[Anonymous No.18487815]

>>18485547
Hume ended with Thomas Reid
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.18487828]

>>18487432
It is. Read Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.18487833]

>>18487554
>This philosophy is a fucking joke dude. Go outside and touch things. Do your senses fail you often enough to not be able to trust them?
This was actually Hume's solution. But it doesn't disprove anything he says.

[Anonymous No.18487840]

>>18487833
Yoi have five senses…they can confirm each other…

I can confirm what I’m looking at by touching it, sometimes smelling it and sometimes tasting it too..

Other people and even tools can confirm what I’m looking at…

I’ve never been drastically wrong because of my senses.

[Anonymous No.18487937]

>>18487788
>It's not demonstrable - it's simply known.
unsatisfactory
>You're mistaking what is prior. Reality is so - is derived from the principles of reality. There's no such thing as a reality that does not abide by logic.
why?

[Anonymous No.18488040]

>>18487603
The principle of identity applies to all things.

[Anonymous No.18488064]

>>18488040
all things... ontologically, you cannot verify common predicates of things through it without an epistemological ground before.

[Anonymous No.18488250]

>>18488064
The only thing required to verify that A=A is a functioning mind.

[Anonymous No.18488260]

>>18488250
Just read the thread, you have no idea what is the issue here.

[Anonymous No.18488715]

>>18487500

>>18485967

[Anonymous No.18488815]

>>18486972
"Representationalism" being... what, exactly?

[Anonymous No.18488985]

>>18488815
The Cartesian view that mind is distinct from matter and its assumption that the mind is merely interpreting reality rather than observing it as it actually is which was the view of Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.18489299]

>>18487840
How have you checked whether you're drastically wrong?

[Anonymous No.18489862]

>>18487756
>I doubt that it is
I doubt you doubt it. You're just playing word games.

[Anonymous No.18491204]

>>18485547
>Our judgments based on past experience
>the anglo unwittingly exposes himself as an animal with no abstract cognition