/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20019749]

What are /lit/'s honest thoughts on David Hume?

[Anonymous No.20019820]

> Fat
> Scottish
> Atheist

[Anonymous No.20019838]

>>20019749
Smart feller, innovative for his time, but I think Kant’s successful challenges to Humean causality and bundle theory has diminished the value of his ideas somewhat.

[Anonymous No.20020051]

.

[Anonymous No.20020066]

>>20019820
he sounds based

[Anonymous No.20020124]

>>20019838
>has diminished the value of his ideas
I would disagree. When considering the history of philosophy, individuals like Hume are not valuable because they were right, but because they were wrong in ways that were revolutionary.

[Anonymous No.20020179]

>>20019749
Incoherent idealist hack, ruined modern philosophy for centuries to come

[Anonymous No.20020199]

>>20019838
Kant refuted nothing is/ought and the problem of induction devastated philosophy. Hume shitting all over metaphysics is just the cherry on top

[Anonymous No.20020212]

One of the best contemporary thinkers we've had. He has been extremely missunderstood lately, specially about his thoughts on art, taste and religion.

[Anonymous No.20020226]

>>20020124
> they were wrong in ways that were revolutionary.
Can you imagine being a dead philosopher looking over your legacy, and realising this is how people see you? A fuck up whose fuck ups were so radically
monumental that it actually helped improve philosophy for the better. Maybe he would be content with that, who knows?

>>20020199
I didn’t say he outright refuted the problem of induction, I said that he posed a valid challenge to humean thought. Whether it was successful is up to you, but you can’t deny that so much of philosophy post-kant has been involved in either trying to complete his system of idealism or overcome it. No one can “do” philosophy without at least locating themselves in relation to him.

[Anonymous No.20020440]

>>20019749
Debunked by Judea Pearl