Philosophy made easy(ish) & fun! Famous philosophers - their lives and times in verse that rhymes (with the odd big idea made reasonably clear). Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein... "I think therefore I am", Plato's Republic, Plato's Allegory of the Cave, "God is Dead", the Categorical Imperative, "Reason is the slave of the passions", Language Games, seemingly complex paradigms brought to life in simple rhymes...
#plato
#aristotle
#descartes
#davidhume
#kant
#nietzsche
#schopenhauer
#wittgenstein
#philosophy #hegel #marx
Пікірлер
Hume was correct for his time. But we now have mechanistic scientific models for how A can cause B. We also can separate causation from mere correlation with appropriate interventionist experiments.
Not objects or events, but the interpretations we place on them are the true problem.
How would you prove robot has consciousness using empirical data. How do you prove to blind man what color red is using empirical data. In theory, robot can be programmed to move its hand when it touches hot surface. How do I know its having the experience of hot using test tube(Deduction/induction). The only thing i am certain of is that i have experience of hot. This experience can only come from entity that can already experience existence (Allah-one/indivisible/self-sufficient/unique/All-Loving infinite perfection). If you cannot prove your own consciousness using “scientific method”, then how can you reject the existence of Perfect/infinite metaphysical being(Allah)? “Cogito ergo sum”( I think therefore I am) should be read as “cogito ergo est”(I think therefore Allah is).
This channel is like a breath of fresh air!
Cheers👍!
Less talk. More work.
Tortoise and taught us. Marvellous.
Cheers! 👍
In what way is a question 'unhelpful' ? What exactly is any question suppose to help ? If I ask 'what time it is?', the answer to the question might help me in numerous ways -- for example, to get to work on time. If I ask, 'what is time?', this answer to this question might help me understand the nature of time and its relation to other fundamental aspects of my experience. Granted, the first question has a more immediate application in my everyday affairs, but the second question doesn't seem 'unhelpful' simply because I have not yet determined the correct answer. In so far as the second question potentially broadens my understanding of what appears to be a fundamental aspect of my experience and reality, it is helpful for that purpose -- which, of course, is the purpose of philosophy itself. Even supposing there is no answer -- or none determinable -- the question might still prove helpful in leading me to understand why that is the case. Whereas, if I never asked the question, nor ever tried to answer it, my understanding would always be deficient in that respect. If you analyze a question in attempting to answer it, only to find-out the question has no determinable answer -- or that is based on a confusion of language and meaning -- then the question has already helped you to discover something about questions, answers, language, meaning --- and, perhaps, yourself -- in the process of analyzing it and trying to answer it.
A fair point! Yes, every question has the potential to be helpful (whether practically or philosophically) but, in the Tractatus, Wittgenstein had set out dividing lines between the kind of language that serves a purpose, describing the world factually, in line with his Picture Theory, and the kind of language that involves abstract concepts, values and metaphysics. At the time he believed that the latter kind of language simply led philosophers down blind alleys, trying to answer questions that could not be answered. He radically changed his mind later, but when writing the Tractatus, I think Wittgenstein would have considered such questions ‘unhelpful’.
@@philosoverses Yes, I understood all that already about Wittgenstein's earlier position, but as philosophers we always want to question the philosopher -- and take them to task, so to speak. You should never take what a philosopher says at face-value -- especially one that you agree with ! The whole point of philosophy, as I see it, is to get behind the meaning of what is being said, to analyze it rationally, and seek the deeper meaning --- you know, like that guy in Athens... What was his name ? Oh yeah, Socrates.
👍
A Stoi-Para Poem of epic proportions. Thank you and good day.
Cheers! and good day to you! 👍
Wonderful stuff. Just love it. And I now take a kinder view of Hegel, perhaps, a little bit. This is in the context that 'a philosopher's importance lies not in what he said, but in what he is generally believed to have said', which is pretty dark, in the case of Hegel's followers such as Marx.
Thanks! 👍 Yes, I try to address the problems of interpretation further in the video on Marx vs Hegel... kzread.info/dash/bejne/opt-sauQfaWTndY.html
Great explanation. Thank you
Glad you liked it. Thanks! 👍
What a joy to have found this channel!
Thank you!👍
He had metaphysical understandings. The "kelipot" is that force of language upon us. Stoic principles help to burn that error right out of any sincere vessel. But the pithoi are not in control. They build the case against themselves with language. And, may all those with sharp words on their lips feel that language fall upon their skulls before they meet their "destiny". Words are a metaphysical matter. Remember babble? Yes, people still speak vanity and build that case right up to the heavens so Almighty can throw it down. On their guilty skulls because of sinful lips.
But pure consciousness need only silence..
❤
👍
I love what you do! Thank you!
Thank you! 👍
While Russel is right about the burden of proof, his analogy isn't all that good, as we have reasons to think there's no teapot in space. We've only been launching things into space for ~70 years, and there are no records of any country putting a teapot into space, nor does any country have much a reason to aside from a laugh. A better analogy would be a claim that there's life in underground pools on Mars or up in the clouds of Venus or in the seas of Europa. All such places aren't unfit for simple microbial life. Another good example from my real life is this. I once looked up if anyone passed a standardized literature test by writing an essay on a book he made up. The only evidence I could find was a reddit post, which linked to another reddit post and a buzzfeed article that linked to a defunct reddit post. In other words, not much evidence at all. Once again, it's not impossible, but since I don't have any good evidence, I don't believe it even if I don't disbelieve it.
“There is a famous dictum of a western philosopher, Rene Descartes: COGITO ERGO SUM - I think, therefore I am. This is absurd: I THINK. therefore I am? It shows that thinking is primary and being is secondary - I think, therefore I am. Thinking is secondary. being is first. First you are, then you think. If you are not, then who is going to think? Thinking cannot exist in a vacuum. If somebody says, “I am, therefore I think”, it is right. But to say “I think, therefore I am” is simply absurd. But still there is a meaning to it: Descartes is the father of western philosophy, and the whole western mind has been influenced by two persons - Aristotle and Descartes. So in the west everything goes through thinking; EVEN BEING GOES THROUGH THINKING. Even being is not a simple fact; you have to think about it first, then you are - as if it is a logical conclusion. It is existential, it is not logical. So first stop thinking that you are a man or woman. Just know it. Knowing is direct. Somebody else can be in suspicion, but you should not be in suspicion. Somebody else can think about whether you are a man or a woman - and if you live in hippie style, sometimes it can be very difficult… If others are in suspicion as to whether you are a he or a she, it is okay. But you yourself? - then the doubt has entered very deep and has become a disease. Drop that.”
This is fantastic.
Cheers! 👍
fucking loves how it rhymes
cheers! 👍
W
Please next do Wittgenstein vs karl popper next
При капитализме человек эксплуатирует человека, а при социализме- наоборот!
Nice one! 👍
" This is for the real adepts in madness, who have gone beyond all psychiatry, psychoanalysis, who are unhelpable. This third book is again the work of a German, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Just listen to its title: TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. We will just call it TRACTATUS. It is one of the most difficult books in existence. Even a man like G.E.Moore, a great English philosopher, and Bertrand Russell, another great philosopher - not only English but a philosopher of the whole world - both agreed that this man Wittgenstein was far superior to them both. Ludwig Wittgenstein was really a lovable man. I don't hate him, but I don't dislike him. I like him and I love him, but not his book. His book is only gymnastics. Only once in a while after pages and pages you may come across a sentence which is luminous. For example: That which cannot be spoken should not be spoken; one should be silent about it. Now this is a beautiful statement. Even saints, mystics, poets, can learn much from this sentence. That which cannot be spoken must not be spoken of. Wittgenstein writes in a mathematical way, small sentences, not even paragraphs - sutras. But for the very advanced insane man this book can be of immense help. It can hit him exactly in his soul, not only in the head. Just like a nail it can penetrate into his very being. That may wake him from his nightmare. Ludwig Wittgenstein was a lovable man. He was offered one of the most cherished chairs of philosophy at Oxford. He declined. That's what I love in him. He went to become a farmer and fisherman. This is lovable in the man. This is more existential than Jean-Paul Sartre, although Wittgenstein never talked of existentialism. Existentialism, by the way, cannot be talked about; you have to live it, there is no other way. This book was written when Wittgenstein was studying under G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell. Two great philosophers of Britain, and a German... it was enough to create TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. Translated it means Wittgenstein, Moore and Russell. I, on my part, would rather have seen Wittgenstein sitting at the feet of Gurdjieff than studying with Moore and Russell. That was the right place for him, but he missed. Perhaps next time, I mean next life... for him, not for me. For me this is enough, this is the last. But for him, at least once he needs to be in the company of a man like Gurdjieff or Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma - but not Moore, Russell, not Whitehead. He was associating with these people, the wrong people. A right man in the company of wrong people, that's what destroyed him. My experience is, in the right company even a wrong person becomes right, and vice-versa: in a wrong company, even a right person becomes wrong. But this only applies to unenlightened men, right or wrong, both. An enlightened person cannot be influenced. He can associate with anyone - Jesus with Magdalena, a prostitute; Buddha with a murderer, a murderer who had killed nine hundred and ninety-nine people. He had taken a vow to kill one thousand people, and he was going to kill Buddha too; that's how he came into contact with Buddha. The murderer's name is not known. The name people gave to him was Angulimala, which means 'the man who wears a garland of fingers'. That was his way. He would kill a man, cut off his fingers and put them on his garland, just to keep count of the number of people he had killed. Only ten fingers were missing to make up the thousand; in other words only one man more.... Then Buddha appeared. He was just moving on that road from one village to another. Angulimala shouted, "Stop!" Buddha said, "Great. That's what I have been telling people: Stop! But, my friend, who listens?" Angulimala looked amazed: Is this man insane? And Buddha continued walking towards Angulimala. Angulimala again shouted, "Stop! It seems you don't know that I am a murderer, and I have taken a vow to kill one thousand people. Even my own mother has stopped seeing me, because only one person is missing.... I will kill you... but you look so beautiful that if you stop and turn back I may not kill you." Buddha said, "Forget about it. I have never turned back in my life, and as far as stopping is concerned, I stopped forty years ago; since then there is nobody left to move. And as far as killing me is concerned, you can do it anyway. Everything born is going to die." Angulimala saw the man, fell at his feet, and was transformed. Angulimala could not change Buddha, Buddha changed Angulimala. Magdalena the prostitute could not change Jesus, but Jesus changed the woman. So what I said is only applicable to so-called ordinary humanity, it is not applicable to those who are awakened. Wittgenstein can become awakened; he could have become awakened even in this life. Alas, he associated with wrong company. But his book can be of great help to those who are really third-degree insane. If they can make any sense out of it, they will come back to sanity."
By the way, Wittgenstein was an Austrian, a German never could have written such books or could have thought such thoughts... And that language and thus knowledge are social affairs....
@@WMedl thank you for pointing out his birthplace.
" This is for the real adepts in madness, who have gone beyond all psychiatry, psychoanalysis, who are unhelpable. This third book is again the work of a German, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Just listen to its title: TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. We will just call it TRACTATUS. It is one of the most difficult books in existence. Even a man like G.E.Moore, a great English philosopher, and Bertrand Russell, another great philosopher - not only English but a philosopher of the whole world - both agreed that this man Wittgenstein was far superior to them both. Ludwig Wittgenstein was really a lovable man. I don't hate him, but I don't dislike him. I like him and I love him, but not his book. His book is only gymnastics. Only once in a while after pages and pages you may come across a sentence which is luminous. For example: That which cannot be spoken should not be spoken; one should be silent about it. Now this is a beautiful statement. Even saints, mystics, poets, can learn much from this sentence. That which cannot be spoken must not be spoken of. Wittgenstein writes in a mathematical way, small sentences, not even paragraphs - sutras. But for the very advanced insane man this book can be of immense help. It can hit him exactly in his soul, not only in the head. Just like a nail it can penetrate into his very being. That may wake him from his nightmare. Ludwig Wittgenstein was a lovable man. He was offered one of the most cherished chairs of philosophy at Oxford. He declined. That's what I love in him. He went to become a farmer and fisherman. This is lovable in the man. This is more existential than Jean-Paul Sartre, although Wittgenstein never talked of existentialism. Existentialism, by the way, cannot be talked about; you have to live it, there is no other way. This book was written when Wittgenstein was studying under G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell. Two great philosophers of Britain, and a German... it was enough to create TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. Translated it means Wittgenstein, Moore and Russell. I, on my part, would rather have seen Wittgenstein sitting at the feet of Gurdjieff than studying with Moore and Russell. That was the right place for him, but he missed. Perhaps next time, I mean next life... for him, not for me. For me this is enough, this is the last. But for him, at least once he needs to be in the company of a man like Gurdjieff or Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma - but not Moore, Russell, not Whitehead. He was associating with these people, the wrong people. A right man in the company of wrong people, that's what destroyed him. My experience is, in the right company even a wrong person becomes right, and vice-versa: in a wrong company, even a right person becomes wrong. But this only applies to unenlightened men, right or wrong, both. An enlightened person cannot be influenced. He can associate with anyone - Jesus with Magdalena, a prostitute; Buddha with a murderer, a murderer who had killed nine hundred and ninety-nine people. He had taken a vow to kill one thousand people, and he was going to kill Buddha too; that's how he came into contact with Buddha. The murderer's name is not known. The name people gave to him was Angulimala, which means 'the man who wears a garland of fingers'. That was his way. He would kill a man, cut off his fingers and put them on his garland, just to keep count of the number of people he had killed. Only ten fingers were missing to make up the thousand; in other words only one man more.... Then Buddha appeared. He was just moving on that road from one village to another. Angulimala shouted, "Stop!" Buddha said, "Great. That's what I have been telling people: Stop! But, my friend, who listens?" Angulimala looked amazed: Is this man insane? And Buddha continued walking towards Angulimala. Angulimala again shouted, "Stop! It seems you don't know that I am a murderer, and I have taken a vow to kill one thousand people. Even my own mother has stopped seeing me, because only one person is missing.... I will kill you... but you look so beautiful that if you stop and turn back I may not kill you." Buddha said, "Forget about it. I have never turned back in my life, and as far as stopping is concerned, I stopped forty years ago; since then there is nobody left to move. And as far as killing me is concerned, you can do it anyway. Everything born is going to die." Angulimala saw the man, fell at his feet, and was transformed. Angulimala could not change Buddha, Buddha changed Angulimala. Magdalena the prostitute could not change Jesus, but Jesus changed the woman. So what I said is only applicable to so-called ordinary humanity, it is not applicable to those who are awakened. Wittgenstein can become awakened; he could have become awakened even in this life. Alas, he associated with wrong company. But his book can be of great help to those who are really third-degree insane. If they can make any sense out of it, they will come back to sanity."
Well done! We need to understand that words are amazing things when combined with the logical concept of “identity.” The word tree identifies something we are looking at as a tree. And, when we show other people, even logical positivists, the tree, they all agree. “Tut, tut old man, we agree but so what?” Agreement is divine! But, so what!
Please never stop this
Agreed, his work is amazing
Thanks, I'll do what I can! 👍
Too kind, thanks! 👍
Which philosopher actually did write in verse?
What's funny is that everyone now knows that Leibniz was one of the very smartest persons who ever lived, while Voltaire was just one of the better writers in history. I mean, see en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz
Really good
Cheers! 👍
Well, certainly if we are dead we don’t have to worry about all this. You make Hume a precursor of Freud! Show gravity, show passion. Passions are strong but don’t last long; reasoning lasts for a lifetime. Who took my cheese? So passions lead to obesity? Was David’s cheese addiction worthy of a Hogarth cartoon? People need to question their own choices. Thanks David!
These videos are very underestimated. A powerful memory tool.
Thank you! 👍
Basing mathematics on “logic” is like basing mathematics on mathematics. This process is a “language game” in itself. Best wishes!
Yes, language games everywhere we look! Best wishes to you too! 👍
I just realised after 2 mins he was rhyming 🙈
Nicely done. How do you think would he responded to the following counterargument: The thought of existence "I am" is on pre-lexical level. However, conveying the cogito argument to others requires words and language.
Thanks! I daren’t speak for Wittgenstein but my personal response, for whatever it’s worth, would be… Is it right to describe a pre-lexical “I am” as an actual thought? Or would it be more like a feeling? i.e. like what an animal may feel, an awareness of existing rather than an assertion of existence. And it’s unlikely that a pre-lexical mind would come up with the state of doubt and the search for a way out of it that the cogito is a response to - so, if Descartes did feel a pre-lexical “I am”, language would still be required for it to be an actual response to a problem, as opposed to an in-the-moment animal sensation.
ANY THOUGHTS?....................1. Hume surrenders to the understanding that entities are distinct in what they are and by that, that which they are not. A square is distinctively that which it is for its characteristics (squareness) and that which it is not, possessing no characteristics of a circle (circleness). 2. That an entity can be that which it is distinctively and not other things is due to its “distinctive” physical characteristics or physicality. E.g., the billiard ball in his analogous refutation of the deterministic nature of cause and effect is distinctively just that, a billiard ball and not an apple or beach ball or the like. 3. He thus, by definition, accepted that entities are that which they are by the assertion of their form and function (characteristics) into materiality (quantum mechanics validates this unequivocally). Were this not so, he could not have appealed to them that they would be employed in his propositions. 4. He also, by definition, accepted that entities are material, i.e., physical, defined by their physical characteristics (a ball is round and not square, etc.) or they could not be considered at all and could not be participants in his propositions. That he specifically chose billiard balls for the players in his analogy demonstrates his acceptance of this (above) as a recognition. 5. By this he submitted to the understanding that motion for being intangible, could NOT be a characteristic of the billiard ball which is moving but a phenomenon in the context of consideration, it moving toward a stationary billiard ball that it might cause it to move when struck. Motion of the billiard ball in this context is only a phenomenon of concern with the billiard balls physicality or characteristics. 6. Given the above, we know analytically that the motion of the billiard ball had to have been imparted to it by the force of another entity of which it was concerned when it struck the billiard ball. 7. Thus, by that same means by which the motion of the billiard ball was imparted to it by a prior entity also effected by motion, it would be imparted to the stationary billiard ball by the moving billiard ball. 8. We are able then to induce that the stationary billiard ball would in fact move if struck by the first because of the nature of motion as opposed to that of the physicality of the billiard balls for we know analytically that motion cannot be a part or characteristic of the physicality of the billiard balls but only an imparted phenomenon. So if it was imparted to the first billiard ball by it being struck, so too would it be imparted to the second when being struck.
I may be wrong, but I think Hume might still point to the Problem of Induction. However reasonable your observations may be about the rolling of the first ball and the nature of motion as an imparted phenomenon, aren’t we still stuck with the problem that Hume has with regard to us inducing anything? Whatever terms we use to try and explain an event, just because it’s happened every single time we’ve observed it so far, we don’t have actual proof that it will happen again - the best we have is a working assumption.
@@philosoverses First, thanks for responding. I do love these discussions and it’s a way for me to test my notions and if not refuted, improve them. What Hume does is simply appeal to truths to define a position which denies the existence of truth. It’s just another scam of the elites. So, what seems to be hard for everyone to get is this…. 1. Hume accepts by definition that “things” are that which they are for their physical characteristics. Were this not so, he could not have formulated his propositions to begin with. He did specify billiard balls rather than anything else. They are thus physically distinct and make possible the formulation of his analogy, etc. 2. That 1. above is the case, leaves us free to understand what makes the first and second billiard balls what they are and thus, that motion is not and cannot be a characteristic of the balls and is a phenomenon of concern with their physicality. It is after all, intangible but quantifiable and functions in scale with the object of concern. Consider, for ball 1 (the ball moving) to be possessive of sufficient motion to reach ball 2 (stationary), that measure would be evident or the whole proposition could never have been defined to begin with. 3. If then motion is not a characteristic of ball 1 and thus of ball 2 if struck and made to move, it would have to have been imparted by the force of another object whose physicality of which it was also of concern and also not a characteristic. This knowledge is analytic and not a product of induction, not directly at least. 4. The above being the case, it is by definition necessarily so that if ball 1 were to strike ball 2, the motion would be imparted and ball 2 would move as the motion was and had to have been imparted to ball 1. 5. Two things happen when ball 1 strikes ball 2. The first is that ball 1 stops moving and ball 2 starts to move. If the motion of ball 1 is of concern with its physicality and thus is not a characteristic of ball 1 then analytically, that the physicality of ball 1 does not change on its way to ball 2, this motion would also not change and not disappear. Were it to dissipate before hitting ball 2, it would be visible and Hume’s proposition would no longer possess the continuity upon which it depends. If it ceased altogether before striking ball 2, it would end suddenly or in an instant and by that define that sudden stop as an effect of some cause which was responsible for the elimination of the phenomenon of motion. In that it ends with the strike of ball 2 and ball 2 begins to move instead demonstrates the transfer of the motion by virtue of the contact. So to explain away the relationship between the transfer of motion between ball 1 and ball 2, one submits to the cause and effect notion anyway. I suppose if I took the time to explain this better, it would be more convincing but that would take a book or many such exchanges. Anyway, what do you think?
@@philosoverses no thoughts? i would welcome them. Thanks
I do have thoughts, @jamestagge3429, but to be honest, I’m not sure how useful they are. Apologies if I’m going round in circles, but… Could it be that Hume would take issue with the idea that it’s an absolute, analytical necessity that, from ball to ball, ‘motion MUST be imparted’? To which one might respond, “if not imparted from Ball 1, where else could Ball 2’s new motion come from?”. And, just my guess, but maybe Hume would say: “Oh yes, of course, we do all seem to think it’s come from the first ball. However, any so-called ‘law’ of motion is ultimately an assumption inferred from past instances. It is not something we can rationally prove will always be the case in the future.” Such questioning of Causation may seem absurdly pedantic, but to be fair to Hume he does acknowledge that to live in total scepticism without broadly believing in causation would be a mistake. That’s why he advocates ‘a mitigated scepticism’, an awareness that life does indeed seem to follow certain laws, but every now and then may surprise us when it doesn’t - which is probably no bad thing to have in our armoury. I don’t think he’s being deliberately awkward, I think he’s just stumbled across something most people accept as universally true and, as philosophers often do, raised an inquisitive eyebrow.
@@philosoverses Thanks again for responding. Love this stuff. Anyway, it’s not to be considered first that ball 2 would be imparted motion by ball 1 striking. That is a secondary consideration. It is that motion which is possessed by ball 1 is NOT and cannot be a characteristic of its “ballness” yet ball 1 possess motion. That fact is analytical and cannot be denied. IF IT WERE it would be a complete negation of Hume’s analogy and this discussion then would be irrelevant and in fact, impossible, yet we are having it. Consider… 1. Hume accepted that objects of which we are aware are objective and defined by their characteristics. If one would claim that he did not, he could not have defined his analogy to begin with. What did he do? He chose distinct objects to employ in his analogy, i.e., billiard balls as opposed to crochet balls or the like. Why? Precisely for their distinct characteristics. 2. Hume knew (or he wasn’t very intelligent) that motion could not be and was not a characteristic of billiard ball 1. Motion is “of concern” of the physical characteristics of ball 1 effecting in its physical context (there can be no motion without its object-it does not and cannot exist in and of itself). Motion is intangible and thus had to have been imparted to ball 1 (which was then possessive of it as a process-effected by it) by the force of some other entity of which that motion also could not have been a characteristic but was of concern with its physicality. This is necessarily so and analytically understood. 3. So, motion is imparted to ball 1 by the force of another entity which is the only means by which it could possess it as a process. Given that, that motion of ball 1 had to have been imparted by the force of another entity which is itself, cause and effect. 4. Given 3. above, it is necessarily so that ball 1 would impart its motion to ball 2 when ball 2 was struck by ball 1. We see then that even though the context of consideration of this analogy defines the conclusion sought as a product of induction, we do know unequivocally that ball 2 would move if struck by ball 1. Once again, once Hume defined his analogy in specific terms and employed specific relationships of the entities involved, he surrendered to the deterministic nature of the effects of their relations. This is that by which the necessity of the consequences of their interactions defined by his analogy would yield deterministic conclusions. He was wrong. What do you think?
Analytic philosophy in verse, how ridiculous. I love it.
Cheers!! 👍
If cause is an only correlation So why in statistics there is calculation to make a difference between cause and correlation
Could it be because, whatever logical problems Hume points out with regard to induction, we still live our lives believing in causation? As Hume observed, it makes sense for us to carry on as if Cause does exist, even if we can’t 100% predict the future based on past events. So long as we are aware of the Problem of Induction, cause is a more powerful link between events than mere correlation, so it’s definitely helpful for a distinction to be made.
because Hume was full of it.
Bravo
👍!!
6:31 * *QUINE JOINS THE CHAT* *
Persia was the first empire where history starts as a state founded on ideas of Zoroaster, there only empire was free and next ancient Greece where many free and system of government mutuality agreed upon.
But perhaps Hegel was of the opinion that China and India were both outside evolution Geist through dialectics spanning centuries because of their stationary history owing to India's cast system and China's traditions of ancestor worship and strong family ties
Of course Hume's Fork doesn't apply to itself as it cannot be directly observed or proven rationally.
In general, german philosophy is false. Only Buchner was good.
Cool
👍!
Lovely, and clear. Thanks.
Cheers. Glad it was helpful! 👍
Brilliant! And so straightforward. Particularly enjoyed the rhyming of "rhythm" and "with 'em"
Cheers! 👍
Pettifoggery
Putting Hume’s theory into poetry shows how stupid it was. Understanding, interpreting, is an ongoing process. The divisions are logical not experiential. Don’t let language confuse your experience. And that so many people agonized over it shows how prone to follow nutcases people are.
Totalitarian politicians! Karl Marx turned Hegelianism into a religion. The Marxists and later communists just didn’t see that. The opiate of the intellectuals.
There is no such thing as “pure rationality.” That’s why life is the way it is. Our will connects the is to the ought. Generally, we use “is to ought” statements to tell other people what we think they should do. Perhaps, that is why Hume was so wary about it.