[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 218 KB, 461x567, david_hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3666669 No.3666669 [Reply] [Original]

Hume is the new king of /lit/.

>> No.3666672
File: 20 KB, 334x393, embarrasing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3666672

>>3666666

Ya blew it.

>> No.3666673

I have reason to doubt that /lit/ has a monarchy, requiring a boozed up Scotsman to rule it when he could be disproving God and playing billiards.

>> No.3666695
File: 15 KB, 220x373, Zeno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3666695

Your new prince.

>> No.3666700
File: 9 KB, 300x330, mandc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3666700

King Hume?

hmmm, Queen Laurie isn't happy about this.

>> No.3667920

>>3666695
Zeno was a pleb

>> No.3667937

>>3667920
I feel nothing.

>> No.3667963

>>3666673

yeah definitely not a monarchy. if anything, /lit/ has the hostile political culture of an eastern european pseudo-republic, fragmented by diverse perpetually warring factions and parties, the dominant ones being the "Nietzsche-Humeans" followed by "Diogenean-Stirnerites" aka "the NEET Party", then the "Taolinnian-Lauriepennians" and small subsets of "Aquino-Kantians" and of course, the commonly neglected "Grrm party"...theyre not even on the ballot

>> No.3667980

>>3667920
Also: *snicker snicker*

>> No.3667982
File: 11 KB, 150x205, boethius.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3667982

No, I'm the king.

>> No.3668008
File: 60 KB, 640x802, hume_cage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3668008

>> No.3668019

>>3667963

I fail to see how Nietzsche and Hume are compatible. Nietzsche and Kirkegaard or Shopenhauer, Pierce, Whitehead, Heidegger, Benjamin, Sartre, Foucault, or Hartshorn yes...an empiricist though...NEVER!

>> No.3668028

>>3668019
Hume was the empiricist who saw the end of empiricism...

>> No.3668037

>>3668019

nieech and hume are perfectly compatible, what makes you think that nietzche was anti-empiricism? his approach is entirely anti-rationalist... their positive description and ethics are perfectly aligned though on focuses on the latter while the other focuses on the former.
hume for positive phil
nietzsch for normative phil

>> No.3668050

>>3668037

you could even say that while hume makes use of a reductionist empiricism, nietzsche's is a holistic one

>> No.3668100

>>3668037

I and the every other Nietzsche scholar (who read him as an ontologist) I have encountered count him as a Neo-Kantian. His ethics are assuredly not Kantian...which is a problem since his metaphysics are...sort of (N probably couldn't tell an analytic proposition from a synthetic one but He seems to accept the noumena/phenonema distinction).

Nietsche program was to do what Kant did to reason, practical knowledge, and aesthetics to good and evil (Foucault took this up with the carceral system, the asylum, the hospital, and gay sex).

Nietzsche was a talented writer and had some good ideas but his philosophy is not consistent.

>> No.3668114

>>3666669
Hume is King Forever Alone :'(

>> No.3668119

>>3668100
>He seems to accept the noumena/phenonema distinction

le citation needed face.org

seems to me that accepting that distinction would literally go against everything the murderer of metaphysics stood for, ie. murdering metaphysics.

>> No.3668131 [DELETED] 

>>3668119

Making me pull out my thesis to get cite aphorisms...fuck you stan.

>> No.3668170

>>3666695
Nigga that be Epicurus

>> No.3668174

>>3668119

WtP 473

He does criticize the thing-in-itself on ground that we cannot speak of since we are perspectival beings. I do not see this at odds with Kant. For Kant we cannot know the thing-in-itself but we can know of it. It looks to me like N argues against Kant without actually comprehending what Kant meant. He made a Königsberger shaped strawman.

>> No.3668208

>>3668131
‘all evidence of truth comes only from the senses’ (BeyondGood andEvil: 314)’
if that quote doesnt solidify his empiricsm, it is only because misinterpretations of other quotes such as

"It is perhaps just dawning on five or six minds that physics, too, is only an interpretation and exegesis of the world (to suit us, if I may say so!) and not a world-explanation; but insofar as it is based on belief in the senses, it is regarded as more, and for a long time to come must be regarded as more—namely, as an explanation."BGE 14

here is where people jump in and make claims of freddy identifying with the thing in itself, where in reality i see it as nothing but a skeptic limit on current methods of empiricist epistemic standards...it is not that there is some hidden substratum here, merely that our current modality is rather primitive and evolving...thats how i see it, though again, people might see this quote as contradictory

it is important to note that the evidence for nietzsche empiricist epistemology is abundant. support for this found in his decidedly materialistic positive description, aven highly romanticised notion such as the will to power was borrowed directly from schop's materialist conception of the world as "will of the flesh".

And kant had his head so fucking far up his ass that he could pull out blatantly ludicrous statments such as
>we cannot know the thing-in-itself but we can know of it

nietzsche is saying that since we cannot know it, we cannot therefore know of it, precisely due to our empiricist limitations, which is decidedly at odds with kant.

>> No.3668209

>>3668174

In case I am not clear I am arguing that noumena are transperpectival entities which we as humans with shitty reason and faulty senses can't get at. I think N and K could both agree on that.

>> No.3668210

>>3668170
That's the joke.

>> No.3668211

>>3668208

i guess this is directed at you>>3668174

>> No.3668215

>>3668209

and I know I'm not the only one...

NYU signed my argument stating this.

>> No.3668229

>>3668211

Bear and mind I think that N does radicalize Kant's philosophy. Still it is a variation on a theme.

I have never met a philosopher that does not think of N as a radicalization of K in my decade of involvement in higher education.

>> No.3668241

>Truth
>Empiricism

pick one

>> No.3668245

>>3668241

someone knows the problem of induction well

>> No.3668258

>>3668229

right i understood that,
i just don't agree with it and i wish you would have replied to my post instead of appealing to fucking NYU..lel


a kantian perception of freddy is only through misunderstanding of mere qualifications he makes in order to not fall into the idealist traps of extreme empiricism. think berkeley.
for example

"To study physiology with a clear conscience, one must insist that the sense organs are not phenomena in the sense of idealistic philosophy; as such they could not be causes! Sensualism, therefore, at least as a regulative hypothesis, if not as a heuristic principle.
What? And others even say that the external world is the work of our organs? But then our body, as a part of this external world, would be the work of our organs! But then our organs themselves would be—the work
of our organs! It seems to me that this is a complete reductio ad absurdum, assuming that the concept of a causa sui is something fundamentally absurd. Consequently, the external world is not the work of our organs—?" BGE 15

this qualification he makes, through a naive realist kind of assumption of material sense organs, is so that he can open the doors for his empiricist epistemology without falling into the void of berkleyan empiricist idealism.
once here, we have his limited empiricist perspectivism. once the existence of material world is assumed, he says himself that truth only comes from senses, however this truth will be limited according to the current epistemic standards and barriers of interpretation. this does not make things as having "impossibly reachable things-in-themselves", rather, the perception of things is limited by our relevant evolving epistemic standards, thus not unknowable, merely "hard-to-know."

>> No.3668268

>>3668258

I'll let you in on a secret about "freddy"

He is not consistent. You can cherry pick arguments to make him into a humean empiricist and I can pick mine to make him a critical philosopher.

We will both be right and I think both arguments have merit. However, am of the opinion that more can be accomplished with critical philosophy than a resurrection of empiricism.

>> No.3668299

>>3668268

>hrhrhrhrhr agree to disagree

well,that was disappointing...at least warn me next time before i type out two fucking pages of researched analysis; is everyone at NYU such a lazy cunt?lel
post that paper you wrote,if you dont mind, i'd like to read it

>> No.3668306

>>3668258

I also fail to see how my mentioning my alma mater does not help my case. I am merely showing that my reading is not idiosyncratic.

>> No.3668310 [DELETED] 

>>3668299

>Then you and all of /lit/ will see who I am, get my email, affiliation, etc... and we can't have that

>> No.3668328

>>3666666
Just wanna see who got it

>> No.3668329

>>3668299

I would have liked you to read it. You seem qualified to give proper feedback. Too bad 4chan is full of psychos and any sentence of my thesis that is searched yields links to contact info.

>> No.3668336

>>3668329

yeah, probably for the best.

>> No.3668349

>>3668336

Since you are interested in empiricism... do you by chance go to any conferences in the philosophy of science?

If so I'll be in Vancouver in June. I'll let you read it then if you are there.

>> No.3668362

>>3668349

no, i dont even do phil anymore, going to law school

and this summer i'll be roaming eastern europe,

>> No.3668370

>>3668362

>i dont even do phil anymore,

im always reading philosophy,
i meant to say that its merely a past-time now

>> No.3668386

>>3668370
>im always reading philosophy,

Figures.

>> No.3668410

>>3668362
Wow, it's like the more I learn about you...

YOU'VE GOT YOUR HEAD UP YOUR ASS.
CAN YOU HEAR ME IN THERE?

>> No.3668437

>>3668410
>YOU'VE GOT YOUR HEAD UP YOUR ASS.

He's preparing for Europe.

>> No.3668446

>>3668437
Oooh yeah I'm going to EASTERN EUROPE
Hurrp a Derp I like COMMUNISM
I'm a THINKING MAN
I got three words for you:
Get over yourself

>> No.3669403

>>3668174
>using the scattered notes from his rooms scavenged by a dull nazi as proper Nietzsche canon

>> No.3669415

>>3668386
>>3668410
>>3668446
>stan stan pls respond pls

Lel.

>> No.3669421

>>3667963
What about people who like pre-19th century English literature and nothing else?

>> No.3669472
File: 7 KB, 239x300, th.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3669472

Fuck you Hume.

>> No.3669509

>>3669421
Don't exist.

>> No.3669707

>>3668210

That's an awful joke.

>> No.3670403

>>3667963

I'd add on there:

"The Babby's First Party" and the largely ostracized "Randians". I think that covers it.

>> No.3670416

>>3669707
It's only awful if it has to be pointed out.

>> No.3670447

>>3670403

also, "The Party for The New American Frontier" also known as "The Dolores Haze Party"

>> No.3670482

>>3670447
Fuck you, Stan.

>> No.3670494

>>3670447

>The Party for The New American Frontier

What u did thar, i sees it.

>> No.3670505

ezra you attention starved boring little retard, back to your corner

>> No.3670519

>>3668386
>>3668410
>>3668437
>>3670482

Lol, holy shit, this one is about to have an autism meltdown.
Stan, I think he likes you.

>> No.3670524

>>3670482
>Trip ends in ZRh2, not Sxqo
There's your problem right there!

>> No.3670532

>>3670524
My trip ends in RfmU

>> No.3670534

>>3667963
>"Diogenean-Stirnerites" aka "the NEET Party"

I hate the fact that that's accurate.

t: Diogenean-Stirnerite.