/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5660279]

>knowledge a priori
>God is perfect
>I can think of God, therefore God exists

ITT: we discuss why Hume is perfect and empiricism is the master race epistemology

Let's discuss one of his ideas: If it exists as an image in my mind, it is impossible to disprove it's existence.

[Anonymous No.5660325]

>>5660279
We have never sensed anything in the world that is perfect
Therefore, perfect is a senseless, and thus meaningless, adjective, since everything we can talk about a priori is from our senses

Christians might as well be saying this:
God has swag and won't let you into heaven since you don't have swag. Since God has all the swag, and sine you don't, you won't get into heaven unless you give me money

[Anonymous No.5660482]

>>5660279

>Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.

bump, Hume is amazing, but idk if i agree with above quote

[Anonymous No.5660515]

>>5660482
I agree with him, honestly. At some point, all moral reasoning has to stem from some sort of axiom about what "should" be. After that gap has been met, then you can start to talk about what is in regards to morals sensibly

For instance, you and I may agree that "the golden rule", or even just that people should be treated well, but there is absolutely no way to establish this from what is.

Ultimately, our inclination towards morality is a faculty, an intuition. We can possibly explain what people are likely to think is moral, but not what is moral.

You have to realize that virtually all "human" aspects of life are contained in this way. There's no foundation for why we should continue living, why we should want to eat, why we should find women attractive or whatever. None of these are right or wrong, or good or bad. They just are.

[Anonymous No.5660560]

>>5660279
What the fug is on his head?

[Anonymous No.5660569]

>>5660560
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hat

[Anonymous No.5660594]

>>5660569
I think it's actually a bathcap.

[Anonymous No.5660603]

>>5660594
What is that nigger doing wearing a bathcap while he gets his portrait done?

[Anonymous No.5660628]

>>5660603
>implying we can induce any logical reason or cause for any event much less any that would cause a nigga to be wearing a bathcap throughout the entire time his portrait was being painted
nigga it's just an observable regularity

[Anonymous No.5660654]

>>5660515
>You have to realize that virtually all "human" aspects of life are contained in this way. There's no foundation for why we should continue living, why we should want to eat, why we should find women attractive or whatever. None of these are right or wrong, or good or bad. They just are.

well put, this i can agree with. the quote, however, seems to suggest innate knowledge of good and evil, which i do no believe. i feel that most people agree "the golden rule" is because the physical attributes of a healthy brain will be consistent across the world, overlapping things like culture, religion, and personal opinions

don't most serial killers, as an example, turn out to have physical abnormalities to their brains composition/chemistry?

maybe i agree with the quote more than i thought i did

[Anonymous No.5660684]

>>5660279
Is there any reasonable answer to the induction problem beside Karl Popper's one?

[Anonymous No.5660701]

>god
>image
>senses

[Anonymous No.5660707]

>>5660279
>Hume is perfect
>there must be something onto which the impressions are impressed upon, in which thought takes place, in which memory and sense-data are experienced
>this thing has certain qualities
viola, intro kant

>>5660325
the perfection of god is realized a priori

[Anonymous No.5660733]

>>5660654
>seems to suggest innate knowledge of good and evil, which i do no believe.
You're right, this can lead to "Sam Harris" type individuals who believe morality can be reduced and codified.

Simply put, it can't. Each and every human, which we operate somewhat similarly, each have divergences in our opinions, attitudes and thoughts (though libertarians take this to a ridiculous level). It's sort of like an "evolution" of morals: morality simply emerges and it is what it is. That's why we have conviction by a jury of your peers: we can't mechanize law. Ultimately, it requires the moral intuitions of those people to decide whether they were repulsed enough by what the person did to enact punishment.

>>5660684
I'm actually having a long debate right now with some philosophers about knowledge a priori and the problem of induction.

>>5660701
God is senseless. Therefore, we cannot talk about him sensibly. Therefore, he is a meaningless topic.

[Anonymous No.5660739]

>>5660707
>viola, intro kant
Excuse me sir but you seem to be ignoring Kant's error.

Structure to knowledge is not knowledge a priori.

>the perfection of god is realized a priori
No it is not.

[Anonymous No.5660764]

God predates knowledge of God, because all ideas existed in God's being before the beginning of time.

[Anonymous No.5660783]

>>5660764
Hmmm....

[Anonymous No.5660785]

>>5660739
>Structure to knowledge is not knowledge a priori.
it's a priori. the concept of knowledge presupposes certain structural features by which knowledge can be said to exist at all

>>the perfection of god is realized a priori
>No it is not.
god is perfect definitionally. i don't have to go out and experience god to know this fact.

[Anonymous No.5660791]

Hi guys, student here. I'm currently reading Hume's Enquiry. I plan on reading all of his books and then starting Kant's Critiques. Where should I go from Kant having in mind that I want to read Hegel eventually?

[Anonymous No.5660801]

>>5660791
Straight from Kant to Hegel is fine. There's not much in between unless you really want to read Fichte and Schelling for some reason.

[Anonymous No.5660803]

>>5660764
God predates knowledge of God is knowledge of God.

[Anonymous No.5660806]

>>5660785
>it's a priori. the concept of knowledge presupposes certain structural features by which knowledge can be said to exist at all

That's not knowledge a priori.

>god is perfect definitionally.

Okay, but since we have never experienced perfection, it is a definition which carries absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

> i don't have to go out and experience god to know this fact.

fact or not, you're not saying anything at all.

[Anonymous No.5660818]

>>5660806
>>it's a priori. the concept of knowledge presupposes certain structural features by which knowledge can be said to exist at all
>That's not knowledge a priori.
those qualities for kant are present in any coherent idea of knowledge, and aren't a posteriori. that's a pretty straightforward designation of a priori.

>Okay, but since we have never experienced perfection, it is a definition which carries absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
you're assuming hume's epistemology here which if a priori knowledge is possible at all disproves that epistemology.

the rest is just mindless posturing

[Anonymous No.5661011]

>>5660818
a priori knowledge does not exist

[Anonymous No.5661112]

Hume is the best philosopher ever. He makes Kant look like a bitch

[Anonymous No.5661119]

I'm new to epistemology.
Do Mach's findings go against Transcendental idealism or just rationalism/materialism

[Anonymous No.5661153]

>>5661119
Wtf are you blathering about?

[Anonymous No.5661163]

>>5660560
I'm sure it's a turban of some sort. West Asian fashion was popular then if I am not mistaken.

[Anonymous No.5661167]

>>5660279
>If it exists as an image in my mind, it is impossible to disprove it's existence.

I'll let Louis CK address that statement and why you can't have "nothing isn't."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJlV49RDlLE

[Anonymous No.5661169]

>>5661163
He's dressed like the earl of sandwich during his oriental phase.

You're correct.

[Anonymous No.5661173]

>>5661163
Yep.

Check out mah nigga, Byron, for more evidence of this.

[Anonymous No.5661177]

>>5661173
I wish we still dressed like this.

[Anonymous No.5661179]

>>5661177
You don't?

[Anonymous No.5661197]

>>5661179
Touché

[Anonymous No.5661206]

>>5660515
>After that gap has been met, then you can start to talk about what is in regards to morals sensibly

>why we should continue living, why we should want to eat, why we should find women attractive or whatever. None of these are right or wrong, or good or bad

[Anonymous No.5661221]

>>5660325
god doesn't even have to be perfect, just a being where no greater being could ever be conceived

thats not a great response to the ontological argument

[Anonymous No.5661240]

>>5661167
You're too stupid for this conversation

[Anonymous No.5661243]

>>5661221
>no greater being could ever be conceived
Great in this context is, again, senseless.

It's not a response, it's a reductio ad absurdum and a joke.

[Anonymous No.5661504]

>>5660791
If you haven't already make sure to read Plato and take him seriously, understand him to his full depths then pick up where you left off.

[Anonymous No.5662525]

I like the part where he advocates book burning.

[Anonymous No.5663238]

>>5661504
Kant brings back Plato, which is the sad part

[Anonymous No.5663375]

niggas in this thread never read critique of pure reason smh lmao