/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18768438]

>be david Hume
>be materialist skeptic empiricist
>can’t believe in a self
>can’t believe in meaning
>can’t use logic because it cannot be established through the senses
>there is no past
>there is no causation
>live in an absurd paradigm
>btfo atheist skeptics for hundreds of years who can not justify the use of logic in their paradigm

Heh, nothin personal kid

[Anonymous No.18768471]

>>18768438
What about math
Like Kant said

[Anonymous No.18768477]

>>18768438
This fat fuck just trundled into the philospher autists beach and sat his enormous and rigorous rear on their gay sandcastles and he has remained there ever since while impotent german imps throw sand at him

[Anonymous No.18768490]

>>18768471
Hume accepts the validity of math

[Anonymous No.18768570]

>>18768438
>can’t use logic because it cannot be established through the senses
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.18768610]

>>18768570
I would but being a materialist empiracist I can’t use logic to do so. No where have I seen smelt heard or tasted a logic therefore I cannot be sure it exists

[Anonymous No.18768612]

>>18768477
checked and write a haiku for >>>18766989

[Anonymous No.18768651]

>>18768610
Not true insofar as you experience their equality with themselves (law of identity), containment of senses in other senses (ability to logically deduce), their presence not being coupled with their absense (law of non-contradiction), that between the existence of something and the non-existence of something there is nothing (law of excluded middle) etc.

[Anonymous No.18768661]

>>18768651
>equality
What even is this? I have never seen equality in my life, have you?

>contaiment of senses in other senses
Can we see a smell? Hear a sight?

[Anonymous No.18768729]

>>18768610
Logic is solely based on atomic (exclusive) propositions being either true or false.
Where the exclusivity of a set of propositions refers to the fact that none relies on any other for their truth value, where proposition refers to an expression about reality, and truth and falsity refer to containment in existence and containment in nonexistence respectively. All of these attributes can be percieved.

[Anonymous No.18768743]

>>18768661
You necessarily see equality since everything you see, for instance, is seen, which is an equality which is percieved. Even your percieving of things is an equality insofar as everything is being percieved.

>>contaiment of senses in other senses
>Can we see a smell? Hear a sight?
Ok, now you are purposely confusing what I am saying. If I'm going to argue with you, at least argue honestly. I clearly meant not a sense on the whole, like smell, touch, etc., but an element therein, like the sound of a footstep, or the sight of a chair.

[Anonymous No.18768753]

>>18768729
No it relies on deduction which is not a sensorial attribute.
Furthermore true and false are value judgements, those are not sensorial either

[Anonymous No.18768763]

>>18768743
The act of seeing and being seen are not the same, otherwise I could see my eyes.

But can you elaborate on the senses thing? I really didn’t understand what you meant then.

[Anonymous No.18768784]

>>18768651
>law of identity
this is just a habit, there is no necessary connection between A and A
>ability to logically deduce
habit
>law of non-contradiction
habit
>law of excluded middle
habit
you have zero proof any of these will hold up in the future, only that so far they have held up in the past

[Anonymous No.18768791]

>believe there are no causal relations
>still argue for determinism/compatibilism

[Anonymous No.18768794]

>>18768753
No, true refers to the fact that something exists. This is basic logic.

Logic is much more than just deduction, which is merely a species of tauology which is defined by complex propositions (aka truth functions taking atomic propositions as arguments) resulting in a truth no matter the truth values of the respective atomic propositions calculated via boolean algebra. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are being brutally BTFO'd rn. Please take a basic class of propositional logic.

[Anonymous No.18768807]

>>18768763
>The act of seeing and being seen are not the same,
I never implied they were. My argument is so basic yet it goes right over your head.
>But can you elaborate on the senses thing?
Logical deduction is based on containment. We can see containment since we can see appearances in other appearances. Ergo, we can deduce.

[Anonymous No.18768815]

>>18768784
Self refuting. Now leave this place and sit in silence since you are so filled with skepticism that you can neither have a conversation nor support one

[Anonymous No.18768816]

>>18768784
The law of excluded middle was actually rejected by Stoic logic, so it's not even generally objective by habit

[Anonymous No.18768824]

>>18768438
Hume wasn't a materialist. Hume was not a total skeptic, he explains this in both the Enquiry and the Treatise, the point of his skepticism is to show that we have to accept justification by natural belief and not reason. There's a reason the Germans (Jacobi and Hamann) saw Hume as a fideist: he wasn't actually a skeptic. Hume by the appendix of the Treatise notes that, given more thought, he's really more agnostic about the existence of the self, rather than denying it anymore like he did in the body of the text. I just don't understand why nobody on /lit/ who memes Hume actually reads Hume. He's fantastic but everybody who claims to like him here clearly hasn't read him.

[Anonymous No.18768827]

>>18768815
Why? We act on habit all the time, Hume is fine with that. The problem arises when you try and turn those habits into metaphysical principles

[Anonymous No.18768828]

>>18768784
>you have zero proof any of these will hold up in the future, only that so far they have held up in the past
I don't need to prove that they will hold up in the future, only that they follow from existence and non-existence being mutual and exclusive (which is and has been done fyi, since all tools to do it are built from this basis). Consciousness relies on this framework in order to even exist, since if logic didn't exist then consciousness would no longer be distinct from non-consciousness, and so there would be no consciousness. Insofar as you are conscious, the world is necessarily logical.

[Anonymous No.18768833]

>>18768794
There is no sensorial justification for the use of logic. Logic is a faculty of mind, not the senses. Do your eyes process logical propositions? Do your ears? Does your smell make atomic propositions as arguments? Sorry materialist empiricist cuck, you have no justification for logic in your worldview, nor do you have justification for the self or telos, meaning therefore have no reason to debate and there not even a person making your posts. You live in a blur of unconnected sensorial impressions

[Anonymous No.18768848]

>>18768784
>habit
Habit is an identity which relies on it's being distinct from it's logical opposite in order to exist, and this requires the law of noncontradiction, which requires the propositional calculus right down to the law of exluded middle of atomic propositions. Your own response necessitates logic.

[Anonymous No.18768850]

>>18768828
>prove that they follow from existence and non-existence being mutual and exclusive (which is and has been done
topkek uhh if you read Kant it takes a lot more gymnastics to get here

[Anonymous No.18768855]

>>18768848
empirically prove it, oh wait, you can't

[Anonymous No.18768863]

>>18768816
No it isn't, stoics had a basic version of propositional calculus.

[Anonymous No.18768865]

>>18768610
>Trying to use reason to argue that reason does not exist, which is self-evidently impossible.
NGMI.

[Anonymous No.18768870]

>>18768824
I've read him, and you're wrong about the major assertions in your post - mainly the fact that he is indeed a total skeptic about proof in reason. Seems like you just agree with German interpretations (why you'd listen to Germs over your own proper interpretation, who knows).

[Anonymous No.18768871]

>>18768833
>Do your eyes process logical propositions? Do your ears? Does your smell make atomic propositions as arguments?
Yes, just not in english language. This would be obvious to you if you know any model theory.

[Anonymous No.18768872]

These threads are always a hoot. What will these great minds of /lit/ do with this information? Will they conquer their minds and reach eternal enlightenment? Or will they shit, cum, and cry until their timely death just like the lowest of our people? It's a mystery!

[Anonymous No.18768878]

>>18768863
Yes it is, and we don't actually have all of the Stoic texts on their logic so you have no basis to even make that claim (there are some modern logicians who try to argue it MAY have been an early attempt at it). All we do know is that the law of excluded middle was rejected by the Stoics in their system of logical reasoning and deduction.

[Anonymous No.18768888]

>>18768807
The intelligibility of the senses are not attained by the senses. Read Plato (Phaedo would be good precisely on your point about equality).

[Anonymous No.18768894]

>>18768870
No, I didn't base it on Germans. It's well known in the Hume literature. He literally spends time in the Enquiry distinguishing his "mitigated skepticism" from what he calls "Pyrrhonian skepticism." The end of Book I of the Treatise is well known because it ends with Hume snapping back to belief after considering the woes of skepticism. "Natural belief" is a formal term employed in Hume and in Hume literature. Also what I said about the self is literally in the appendix to the Treatise, and what I said about materialism is just without question, the guy famously denies the existence of matter and is a phenomenalist.

[Anonymous No.18768897]

>>18768855
I can, as has already been said. In order to identify something (act of perception), it has to be true of the thing you are percieving, which means those truths must not be invisible, which implies the perception of something must not be the same as it's invisibility, and perception of soemthing and invisibility are general and therefore contain the whole gambit of perceptions.

[Anonymous No.18768907]

>>18768850
If youve read an introductory text on logic you would have realized kant was wrong. I recommed reading some chris langan.

[Anonymous No.18768909]

>>18768894
He was literally just out-pyrrhoing Pyrrho for pragmatic reasons

[Anonymous No.18768918]

>>18768888
What i said has nothing to do with intelligibility, only consciousness.

[Anonymous No.18768920]

>>18768824
>>18768894
What would be the retort in favor of this natura belief against the argument from reason?

[Anonymous No.18768924]

>>18768878
They believed everything was true or false, which is LOEM

[Anonymous No.18768926]

>>18768918
>consciousness and intelligibility are not implicated in each other

[Anonymous No.18768927]

>>18768871
No in the most blunt reality, the taste doesn’t make logical propositions, it receives sensory data. The smell does not formulate logical propositions. The ears do not formulate propositions of telos. None of those things are found in sensory perception. They are deduced secondarily by the mind.
Sensorial empiricism is a blur of unconnected impressions where there is no justification for the constancy of laws of logic

[Anonymous No.18768932]

>>18768897
>In order to identify something (act of perception), it has to be true of the thing you are percieving, which means those truths must not be invisible
then surely you can identify the necessary connection of causation, we're waiting

[Anonymous No.18768936]

>>18768907
kek not the best troll but you kight get a few yous

[Anonymous No.18768942]

>>18768924
you should look up the tetralemma, Greek logic was more complicated thatln true/false

[Anonymous No.18768954]

>>18768894
>it ends with Hume snapping back to belief after considering the woes of skepticism
Belief has nothing to do with reason. Skeptics can believe in things too, but belief is entirely different to proof or knowledge (which is why he is a skeptic). You seem to be confused about mere words.

[Anonymous No.18768961]

>>18768924
No they didn't, that was their major difference from Aristotle. Aristotle's foundations are the ones we operate with today, not Stoic.

[Anonymous No.18768974]

Logic can only be established through the senses. Logic is the conceptualization process which follows the manuatonomy (manual and automatic) of sensing from anything. Causality is not illogical, causality is the manual process of conceptualization. To throw away causality would be a complete disregard for everything. Hume never innovated. Many before have disregarded everything without taking into the consideration of the following, it is impossible for anything to disregard the senses while be affected or affecting.

[Anonymous No.18768982]

>>18768791
more like
>>believe there are no causal relations
>>still argue

[Anonymous No.18768998]

>>18768974
>Logic can only be established through the senses
it if only inferred, never sensed. this is why you appeal to logic rather than showing me an empirical cause

[Anonymous No.18769002]

>>18768998
it is*

[Anonymous No.18769021]

>>18768954
I'm not confused about mere words. You're saying the right thing, that skeptics can believe in things too, yes Hume would accept that and even say we ought to believe, but that's precisely the sense in which he makes distance between himself and his "mitigated skepticism," and what he calls "Pyrrhonian skepticism." I think you're the one confused about Hume's own words. You're also confused about what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.18769036]

>>18768998
The cause of sensibility would be to understand what caused the forbearance of everything. I have a postulation of that but it may be difficult to understand.

[Anonymous No.18769048]

>>18769036
>understand
Hume is an empiricist, he wouldn't think that the understanding could give knowledge. The only true knowledge exists in sense data. Extrapolating principles based on the understanding is precisely what Hume was against

[Anonymous No.18769057]

>>18769048
Sense data is understanding sensibility in the form of thought. The extrapolation of principles is what he did to come to that conclusion.

[Anonymous No.18769059]

>>18768974
>Logic can only be established through the senses. Logic is the conceptualization process which follows the manuatonomy (manual and automatic) of sensing from anything.
Logic is purely a combinational art. Its field opens up to you in the transcendental structure the moment you have derived a mereology from an initial monadology.
The practice of teaching and learning logic (and the fields that derive from it, such as math and geometry) is itself founded in the sense-bound ability to recognize a specific form of unity (and from it, a multiplicity). The matter-of-fact of logic itself is apodictic and remains true for an hypothetically disembodied and senseless being.
Causality is neither logical or illogical, that'ds like asking if causality is ethical or not. But we use logic in propositional statements to model the causality we find in the world in our language. Logic itself is not in essence propositional.

[Anonymous No.18769094]

>>18768438
No one in this thread understands logic but me, it seems. If logic didn't exist, then everything would be true (and false). This is the principle of explosion.

[Anonymous No.18769106]

>>18768932
>then surely you can identify the necessary connection of causation, we're waiting
How is that at all relevant to what we are talking about? God, this place disgusts me.

[Anonymous No.18769107]

>>18769057
>Sense data is understanding sensibility in the form of thought.
what? sense data is pre-conceptual, it doesn't exist to the understanding until rendered through reason. we don't need to reason sight, but we do need to reason to understand the things we see

[Anonymous No.18769108]

>>18769021
You're confused about the very meaning of the word skeptic. That's your entire misunderstanding, I've understood what you're trying to say perfectly (that Hume is not a proper skeptic because he still thinks natural belief is valid). If being a proper skeptic means not believing in anything, then there has yet to be a proper skeptic who has ever been on Earth. Because to stay alive means to believe in the efficacy of food and water, and skeptics do not simply kill themselves through neglect as soon as they start doubting the usefulness of reason and proof. Hume was as skeptical as it is possible to be without simply killing himself. So yes, Hume was, by any reasonable standard, a skeptic.

[Anonymous No.18769115]

>>18768927
>No in the most blunt reality, the taste doesn’t make logical propositions, it receives sensory data.
You seem to not know what a proposition is. I stopped reading here btw.

[Anonymous No.18769117]

>>18769106
that is almost a direct quote of Hume's objection to causation, sense cannot provide a "necessary connexion"

[Anonymous No.18769119]

>>18768926
Not necessarily implicated. Intelligibility necessitates consciousness but not the other way around (this is a logical statement btw).

[Anonymous No.18769123]

>>18769094
>If logic didn't exist
if logic didn't exist, there would be no truth function, and no possibility for a language to represent facts through propositions, rendering the whole issue moot anyways.

[Anonymous No.18769126]

>>18769115
Classic sceptical empiracist cuck. What’s it like living in an absurd paradigm without meaning?

[Anonymous No.18769131]

>>18769117
That is not relevant at all to logic, which is what we are talking about. He is talking about empirical causation jfl.

[Anonymous No.18769133]

>>18769059
>Causality is neither logical or illogical
I was going to say this, but I have reasons as to why it is illogical. Ethics is a concept derived from experience so I see why you would equate logic with ethics, however I see logic as a constituent of ethics. The constituent of logic is sensibility. Here are is a question. How can the constituents of thought, the assessments of sensibility, be observed for assessment? Causality is not logical. Understanding how to prove existence is. Existence can be proven as an emergence of fields from heterostatic fluctuations from relationships of inherentional constituents within a continua of constinuential constituents with a xennotional continua of constinuential constituents is a priori.

>>18769107
Sense-data does not exist without thought. Sensibility is not a human phenomena. If it is affected or affecting it is forming thought. Human reasoning of what you see as not being reasoned is an autonomous reasoning which become monotomous upon thought formation.

[Anonymous No.18769136]

>>18769131
read Hume lmao

[Anonymous No.18769139]

>>18769119
If there is no intelligibility in consciousness than consciousness is conscious of what?

[Anonymous No.18769141]

>>18769126
A proposition is an expression of and about reality. All prts of reality are propositions therein. Consciousness necessitates propositions.

[Anonymous No.18769147]

>>18768438
Most brilliant man to ever exist.

[Anonymous No.18769149]

>>18769139
The things it is conscious of. Intelligibility merely refers to the mind being able to make sense of things.

[Anonymous No.18769153]

>>18769133
>Sense-data does not exist without thought
? this is just wrong lmao some bug can react to sense data but it doesn't think. an aemoba could sense it's surroundings but it never understands them. reason is a higher level faculty not simply guaranteed by awareness

[Anonymous No.18769156]

>>18769136
Understand the difference between empirical causation and logical deduction. You sound like a babbling child scrawling off snippets of a philosopher who you are merely copying yet have no understanding of.

[Anonymous No.18769160]

>>18769133
>If it is affected or affecting it is forming thought
We have to distinguish between physiological reactions and rational thoughts, etc.

[Anonymous No.18769163]

>>18769141
Proposition can mean a plan, judgement, opinion, or task. Not all parts of reality materialist cuck. Imagine being this little homo cucked by david hume denying all ideational, logical, deductive and propositional aspects of life in his worldview and trying to defend it with logic. Pathetic!

[Anonymous No.18769165]

>>18769153
Why do you believe this?
If there is no awareness of senses how could there be affectivity?

>>18769160
Physiological reactions predicate rational thoughts.

[Anonymous No.18769174]

>>18769149
> Intelligibility merely refers to the mind being able to make sense of things.
Exactly, that is why consciousness and intelligibility go together.
See this: you say consciousness by itself is conscious of the things which it is conscious of. The thing it is conscious of is perceived as a thing. This thing must be intelligible (there must be intelligibility in the process), otherwise it would not be intelligibly conscious, that is, consciousness would not be conscious of a thing (for if the thing was not intelligibly a thing, this thing precisely, it would not be conscious of it as what it is).

[Anonymous No.18769180]

>>18769108
Dude how many times do you have to see me say "Hume called himself a mitigated skeptic" before you stop thinking I don't accept what you're saying? My point is he's not the sort of skeptic the OP said. That's a huge misconstrual of Hume's view, and he thinks of that brand of skepticism (you're making me repeat myself but he calls it "Pyrrhonian skepticism") is in fact unlivable. But it's still a position, even if unlivable, and he criticizes it, he thinks anyone who wants to say "This is how you should be!" is going to shrivel up and die. I know this. You have some really bad reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.18769182]

>>18769165
Sure but you said that affection forms thought when something affected does not think in order to react to that affect.

[Anonymous No.18769188]

>>18769165
awareness is not the same thing as understanding, I granted those things awareness lmao read closer

[Anonymous No.18769196]

>>18769156
>it's an anon gets called put so they start babbling about how the other person doesn't understand episode
seriously just read Hume

[Anonymous No.18769216]

>>18769182
Autonomous affectivity. How can something be formed without autonomous affectivity being present? Why is autonomous affectivity not a form of thinking? How are you breathing?

>>18769188
What is your point?
Understanding is the only means of rationalization?
I did not make this claim.

[Anonymous No.18769227]

>>18769216
that awareness doesn't automatically mean rationality. again, an amoeba has some level of awareness but it doesn't have the faculty of reason

[Anonymous No.18769229]

>>18769216
>Autonomous affectivity
What are you even talking about? If anything this is precisely my point: there is no thought involved in affects and their reflexive responses.

[Anonymous No.18769242]

Stop using logic materialist cucks. The mere act of doing so disproves you’re worldview. The second you stop looking at this post it stops existing because you have no justification for the existence of the past

[Anonymous No.18769243]

>>18769229
Autonomous affectivity is coherence. Coherence is rationalization.

[Anonymous No.18769248]

>>18768894
This guy is correct. I worked with an eminent Hume scholar on the Treatise and this interpretation is legit.

[Anonymous No.18769251]

>>18769243
>Coherence is rationalization
water seeking the lowest possible point is coherent bit that doesn't mean water is rational lmao

[Anonymous No.18769253]

>>18769133
>Ethics is a concept derived from experience so I see why you would equate logic with ethics
You have to distinguish between your natural state, where *everything* is derived from experience, as you (and me) as a Transcendental Person is an formative 'object', and the transcendental attitude proper in which all accidents of historical formation have been reduced away. In this second moment, logic, like ethics, are constituted "atemporally" in the specific form of transcendental time, through a development of secondary idealities which emerge has having always been related to the primary one, even before the conceptualization of the relation.
Logic is structurally above Ethics because all it needs to be derived is a mereology and a concept of truth-function, while Ethics would require the development of pretty much the whole Tree of Sciences.
>The constituent of logic is sensibility.
No, we use logic in language to relate the content of our sensibility. Sensibility is how we can come to realize that logic goes beyond at the ideality itself. And this is purely natural to us.
Take a pinch of salt or sand in your fingers. Realize how, at that moment, the sand feels like an indistinctive mass in your fingers. Roll it through slowly, allowing some grains to slip away each time. At a certain point, around 4~5 grains, the number of grains will emerge through the action.
Sensibility didn't create the mathematical knowledge here, what it did was use a weird method of mapping the sense-data derived from the movement and co-constitutive senses of the fingers against each other and the grains to obtain the unity of each grains. Once I have access to that unity, the multiplicity appear also.
Because we aren't God or absolute intellects, we need that sense-data to kick us toward the idealities, but it is off those idealities that the apodictic sciences are born, not from the sense-data.

[Anonymous No.18769263]

>>18768438
>can’t use logic because it cannot be established through the senses
What? Did he actually believe this? If so, he is very shortsighted.

Any act of perception, any sensory act, any sensation, the perception of anything, even the merest consciousness of anything, is a full proof of logic and it's universality, since the inconsistency of any part of existence necessitates everything being inconsistent, since everything could be proved through the contradiction, meaning your consistent act of perception and consciousness would not exist. But your consistent act of perception does exist. Ergo, logic is universal as long as consciousness exists.

If a Humean were to deny logic, he would also have to deny the senses.

[Anonymous No.18769275]

>>18768438
>hume
>materialist
Kek

[Anonymous No.18769276]

>>18769263
>since everything could be proved through the contradiction your consistent act of perception and consciousness would not exist
why do you assume this?

[Anonymous No.18769283]

>>18769243
Coherence is intelligibility. An autonomous affectivity can be intelligible, that is, it can be understood why it happens. It does not mean that there is consciousness involved in the process (only if you considere de Divine Mind :D)

[Anonymous No.18769312]

>>18769174
I think this is the closest a thread has come to seeing an argument fructify in a logical space, bringing someone closer to consciousness, or both sides to a beautiful single arena of thought itself. Being in time, prescientific thought, Ur-language, intelligibility, logic, propositions, Dasein.

[Anonymous No.18769316]

>>18769253
The entire post of what you quoted should have been referenced in your analysis.

>>18769283
The dynamic of existence and a void lacking inherent constituents results in an inxenherence. The relationship of inxenherence inlays manuautonomy. The separated constituents of space-void-time would result in two states which differ from space-void-time. Space-time has inherent sensuality from anima. A void does not. Metempsychosis is the process to describe something which fluctuates within space-void-time, to and from space-time and a void, to a new location, which is the topological projection of conscious being. Conscious being is affecting or being affected. Due to this, everything is conscious.

[Anonymous No.18769336]

>>18769316
*everything other than a void is conscious

[Anonymous No.18769345]

>>18769316
>The entire post of what you quoted should have been referenced in your analysis.
Sorry, too high, and the thread bumps quickly for a /phi/ one. :/

[Anonymous No.18769356]

>>18769316
>inxenherence
>Metempsychosis
Oh, we are just straight up schizo posting now? Meh, without Frater it's a bit lame.

[Anonymous No.18769621]

>>18768438
based

[Anonymous No.18770022]

>>18768438
Hume wasn't a Materialist at all and you are clearly retarded LOOOOOOL.

[Anonymous No.18770133]

>>18768438
I'm about to ruin this man's whole career.
>It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations; and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these or any combination of them should exist unperceived?'