Would he "trust the science" ?

[Anonymous No.19027287]

[Anonymous No.19027295]

>>19027287
Obviously not. The corruption of the modern state would be as plain as day to him.

[Anonymous No.19027302]

No one should trust anything blindly, and seek proofs for the respective phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.19027307]

>>19027287
Yes he would. He'd say it was all bs if you looked at it, but he'd be a gloater of trusting the science

[Anonymous No.19027309]

>>19027287
No. Pretty much anyone who lived prior to the 1930s would be completely disgusted with the state of modern day western civilization and would think it's a complete dystopia.

[Anonymous No.19027399]

>>19027287
Yes. His point was that we can't philosophically ground science and that's a problem with our reason, not science.

[Anonymous No.19027419]

>>19027309
>a complete dystopia.

Dystopia? Just because the collection of atoms we call a brick broke windows in the last race riots doesn't mean we have any valid reason to believe they will behave in that manner again, anon

[Anonymous No.19027442]

>>19027287
pretty shitty thread, anon

[Anonymous No.19027447]

>>19027442
There are always people like you.

[Anonymous No.19027455]

>>19027447
Any "science" on that?

[Anonymous No.19027486]

>>19027399
Or a problem with Hume's philosophy.

1. If induction works Humeanism is false
2. Induction works
3. Therefore Humeanism is false

[Anonymous No.19027732]

>>19027486
Hume doesn't dispute that induction works by experience. His point is that induction can't be rationally justified.

[Anonymous No.19027742]

>>19027287
Yeah but not the (((science)))

[Anonymous No.19027757]

>>19027399
And isn’t reason/epistemology the ground of science?

[Anonymous No.19027763]

>>19027732
There's not really much that can be rationally justified if you're hardcore committed to a positivist empiricist epistemology. At some point you need to be able to make valid inferences and if you deny that you can infer truth about something that lies outside your ability to empirically verify then the whole thing comes crashing down. It's pure pragmatism. I respect Hume in so far as he was actually able to admit the problem of induction when you deny the ability to make valid inferences about reality, but he was still a massive sperg for continuing to commit to a view of reality he knew was fundamentally flawed.

That's the difference between the Greeks and the Enlightenment philosophers. The Greeks would ask "How does this help you know how to live a good life" and if the answer is "it doesn't" then it's useless.

[Anonymous No.19027799]

>>19027763
>the Greeks is Plato

[Anonymous No.19027820]

>>19027763
I'm not sure what your point is or what even is your interpretation of Hume. You're right to say Hume is a pragmatist - I'm not sure why that would make him a "sperg" or make him deny valid inferences. We can justify science, just pragmatically, not rationally.

The Greeks philosophised tons of shit that had little or nothing to do with the good life. In fact there were generations of thinkers before Socrates reoriented philosophy around ethics, and then Plato immediately metaphysicised it.

>>19027757
You'd think so, but no.

[Anonymous No.19027859]

>>19027820
>We can justify science, just pragmatically, not rationally.
then you have tons of pragmatists humans (current time), not rational ones. and thats a huge difference. still, scientists and positivists dont want to view themselves like pragmatist without the possibilty of pure knowledge. they tend to see the induction problem as pure infantile bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19027869]

>>19027859
The entire point of Hume's induction problem isn't to critique science but to destroy *metaphysical* reasoning that relies on chains of causation outside of our experience.

[Anonymous No.19027875]

>>19027287
No, he'd believe /pol/ threads, Facebook images and YouTube videos instead.

[Anonymous No.19027885]

>>19027875
You will never be a woman

[Anonymous No.19027902]

>>19027763
>"How does this help you know how to live a good life" and if the answer is "it doesn't" then it's useless
At least read Metaphysics before opening your mouth, retard

[Anonymous No.19027906]

>>19027869
he doesnt live the science power have today. his intentions are not important anyway. still is a problem to science.

[Anonymous No.19028041]

>>19027820
>no
What is it then?

>>19027869
>chains of causation
How is this outside our standard interpretative experience?

[Anonymous No.19028054]

Look at his pedigree. Of course he would.

[Anonymous No.19028133]

>>19027820
Platos metaphysics is directly related to his ethics. The two are intimately connected and cannot be seperated. It is only modern man who believes he can state anything about how the world is without that commiting him to any position about how man should act.

[Anonymous No.19028150]

>>19028133
Exactly. Even in the esoteric unwritten doctrines this is too patent (the threefold espitemological, axiological and ontological values of unity - the expression of the One-Dyad-Mixture).

[Anonymous No.19028164]

>>19028133
> It is only modern man who believes he can state anything about how the world is without that commiting him to any position about how man should act.
There is a picture of Hume in OP. The is-ought problem says hello

[Anonymous No.19028174]

No, he would not trust the science, but his fat ass never had problem putting stuff in his body so he'd take the vax.

[Anonymous No.19028205]

>>19028041
>How is this outside our standard interpretative experience?
When one tries to use pure logic to prove facts about the universe, like Leibniz wittering on about monads or Anselm trying to prove the existence of God via ontology. This sort of thing is the target of Hume's inductive scepticism: since we can only justify induction pragmatically and with experience, metaphysical theorising about anything involving causation is building castles in the sky.

The entire point of Kant's "Copernican revolution" in metaphysics was to get around this by basing causation in our mind, so we could rescue some account of logically-justified metaphysics based in what we experience. After this all metaphysics from Hegel to Husserl to Heidegger had to be phenomenological to be credible.

[Anonymous No.19028228]

>>19028164
The is-ought "problem" is only a problem if you deny intrinsic teleology. Which means its a view of ethics that stems directly from your metaphysical worldview. The is-ought issue obviously poses no problem for people who accept teleology and the ability of the rational mind to discern purpose and thus how one should act to achieve the designed end.

[Anonymous No.19028234]

>>19028205
Kant failed and Hume ultimately posed no threat as his brand of scepticism folded in on itself and proved to be entirely irrational and self defeating.

[Anonymous No.19028252]

>>19028228
What's the difference between intrinsic teleology and your opinion? How do you objectively determine something's final purpose? And if intrinsic teleology is a real property of things what makes it different from any other property as far as the is-ought problem is concerned?

[Anonymous No.19028259]

>>19028228
And teleology is BTFOed by the problem of induction. Back to square one.

[Anonymous No.19028267]

>>19028252
Read Plotinus

[Anonymous No.19028283]

>>19028234
>self defeating
Kek
I agree Kant failed though, even if it was a brilliant attempt. Worse was the G*rmans after Kant (cough Hegel) who didn't understand why Kant made the moves he did and so started making shit up again.

[Anonymous No.19028289]

>>19028283
Ultimately Aristotles philosophy remains unchallenged. Nobody has dethroned his metaphysics, probably nobody ever will.

[Anonymous No.19028293]

>>19028289
LMAO no-one takes Aristotelian metaphysics seriously anymore except Thomist apologists who feel it's necessary to defend their Medieval religious doctrine.

[Anonymous No.19028299]

>>19028267
My intrinsic teleology is not to read Plotinus. You've done an objectively evil act by suggesting it.

[Anonymous No.19028303]

>>19028293
Ground ethics within a positivist materialist framework or I'm afraid I'll have to disregard you and your opinions on philosophy

[Anonymous No.19028306]

>>19027419
Oh na. Those guys are alright.
I hate these people. pic related.

[Anonymous No.19028314]

>>19028293
Sam Harris is the modern day successor to Hume and we all know how well he's regarded

[Anonymous No.19028320]

>>19028303
Do you have a better idea? is not a valid criticism in philosophy. Neither Aristotelianism or positivism provide an objective ethics.

[Anonymous No.19028337]

>>19028320
Aristotlean philosophy provides objective ethics. Read Nicomachean Ethics. Ethics is grounded in identifying final causality through the nous.

[Anonymous No.19028339]

>>19028306
They all look the same

[Anonymous No.19028353]

>>19028337
Positivism can provide an objective ethics in the same way just assume basic moral axioms and derive from there. Final causes and teleology are just moral axioms wearing a mask. You have to assume they exist

[Anonymous No.19028379]

>>19028353
No you infer they exist through dialectic. Its positivism that denies inferences outside empirical experience are valid and it fails because of it. Its axioms are arbitrary and can be disregarded. The logic doesn't hold up. While Aristotles logical deduction of morality through reason is airtight, it cannot be denied since his argument follows from every premise perfectly and his premises are undenkable facts of reality.

[Anonymous No.19028391]

>>19028379
So what are some final causes that can not just be disregarded as someones opinion? How do you objectively know what somethings teleology is without just assuming it like an axiom?

[Anonymous No.19028395]

>>19028379
I denk reality though.

[Anonymous No.19028405]

>>19028391
The teleology of an eye is to provide sight. This isn't axiomatic its observable fact.

[Anonymous No.19028407]

>>19028205
But the fundamental point that unites ancient (read platonic/christian) and post-Hegel (Husserl, etc.) metaphysics is the ''problem'' of intelligibility. The fact that experiences are comprehended implies that these are intelligible. How do I understand anything without intelligibility? How can an experience be not only grasped as an experience at all but as that particular experience?

[Anonymous No.19028423]

>>19028405
This is just the is-ought problem again. What physical observation of the eye indicates what it's purpose is? Maybe we were genetically engineered by aliens to produce eyeballs as a delicacy and sight is just a freakish byproduct.

[Anonymous No.19028424]

>>19028299
>>19028252
Couldn't it be argued that the teleological ground is the justification of something's intelligibility? The what of a thing converging to its how, why.

[Anonymous No.19028443]

>>19028423
Thats only a problem for positivism. The fact it does pose a problem for positivism is evidence in itself that positivism is a failed epistemology. Aristotles epistemology suffers no such fatal flaws.

[Anonymous No.19028449]

>>19028423
There is an old movie about this The God's Must Be Crazy. A pilot tosses a glass coke bottle out of the window over some African tribe and the tribes people use it for all different types of things and fight over it. Finally one of them decides it is a test from the Gods and throws it off a cliff

[Anonymous No.19028456]

>>19028443
No it's not just a problem for positivism it's a problem for teleology as well. How do you get from the facts of a things existence to what the purpose of that thing is?

[Anonymous No.19028474]

I took the jab. What now, chuds?

[Anonymous No.19028476]

>>19028407
>The fact that experiences are comprehended implies that these are intelligible. How do I understand anything without intelligibility?
This is, if anything, a basic Kantian point i.e. we have inbuilt cognitive faculties that makes causation intelligible to us. But I'm not sure why your point is relevant.

[Anonymous No.19028481]

>>19028306
Every single one of those girls is hot, black guys are so lucky

[Anonymous No.19028487]

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the BEING OF A GOD, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason

[Anonymous No.19028488]

>>19028456
Infer it

[Anonymous No.19028503]

>>19028488
The inference step is what is being BTFO by Hume with the is-ought problem

[Anonymous No.19028506]

I trust Science as in reality, but I do not scientism cultists and their perverse religion.
Hey, So basically I'm just gonna not take the vaccine.

[Anonymous No.19028519]

>>19028503
Except his criticism only works within a positivist framework. You're going in circles. Its only a problem for positivism, you then say it isn't and then say inferences are invalid because...Positivism! You can't use positivism as the measuring stick to judge all other epistemologies.

[Anonymous No.19028522]

>>19028476
>inbuilt cognitive faculties that makes causation intelligible
I think this is just a mechanistic interpretation dealing with mere minutiae.
The relevancy is is that by any justification at all be it pragmatic, empirical or rationalistic, there is intelligibility implied.

[Anonymous No.19028526]

>>19028353
>just assume
The fatal flaw of all logical positivists and materialists.

[Anonymous No.19028532]

>>19028519
It doesn't work just within a positivist framework see here >>19028487 for the actual argument. The notorious atheist David Hume who said to throw all metaphysics into a fire was not defending Aristotle. Determining the final cause of something is just as subjective as saying something is wrong

[Anonymous No.19028539]

>>19028526
Did you read the rest of the post? How do you know what the final cause of something is without just assuming it?

[Anonymous No.19028547]

>>19028532
>Determining the final cause of something is just as subjective as saying something is wrong
Not according to Aristotle. Hume would need to demonstrate his epistemology is correct before his critique holds any water.

[Anonymous No.19028552]

>>19028539
But what is your grounds for assuming this when your whole worldview has no foundation in absolute eternal truth, and in fact, by definition, denies such a thing?

[Anonymous No.19028554]

>>19028547
So you can just assume that final causes are not subjective? How is that different from just assuming whatever moral axioms are not subjective?

[Anonymous No.19028563]

>>19028539
You use the nous to determine a things essence. Knowing a things essence flows directly on to knowing its final cause.

[Anonymous No.19028574]

>>19028552
What am I assuming in that post? That statements need to be justified? Seems like a reasonable assumption.

[Anonymous No.19028581]

>>19027287
COVID is fake and gay.

[Anonymous No.19028586]

>>19028563
And the "nous" runs right into the is-ought problem. How do you objectively determine somethings essence? That's a very subjective judgment.

[Anonymous No.19028592]

>>19027763
"In 1915, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the philosopher and physicist Moritz Schlick, who had recently composed an article on the theory of relativity. Einstein praised it: ‘From the philosophical perspective, nothing nearly as clear seems to have been written on the topic.’ Then he went on to express his intellectual debt to ‘Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I had studied avidly and with admiration shortly before discovering the theory of relativity. It is very possible that without these philosophical studies I would not have arrived at the solution.’"

Is it possible that you're missing something about Hume?

[Anonymous No.19028599]

>>19028554
I'm not assuming anything. This entire discussion has been you claiming that Aristotle needs to play by Humes rules and I'm trying to point out that Aristotle does not need to be proven according to positivist measuring sticks. If you're taking Humes position then to you they might seem like assumptions but the Aristotelean logic backing his positions is perfectly justifiable if you accept inferences about the world from observed phenomena are valid.

[Anonymous No.19028603]

>>19028586
Its not subjective at all if you're not working from an axiom that Hume is right

[Anonymous No.19028633]

>>19028599
So if you assume Aristotle's position it can give you objective morality. In the same way you can just assume moral axioms and positivism can give you objective morality.