His philosophy is peak /r/atheism, however, he does repeatedly make racist comments about Arabs and Jews. Does that exempt him from being drawn as a basedjak?
>>24747287>His philosophy is peak /r/atheismIs he wrong?
>In that essay, especially in the later editions, Hume inserted a footnote suggesting that “Negroes” were naturally inferior to whitesOh no no no...
He has a whole chapter in Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding where he's like "my anonymous friend wrote this cool story" and it's a fictional story about the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus being accused by the Athenians for impiety but it's painfully obvious he's actually talking about the affairs of Hume's day and Christianity. It's like 2 layers of trying to distance himself to avoid flak and it still wasn't enough. He lost two university appointments over public outrage about his writings.
>>24747287>atheismHe was a deist, dipshit.
>>24747388Lotta people think he was a closet atheist, with good reason.
>>24747395Regardless none of his work advocates atheism, or even logically leads to atheism. Only a fragile, dogmatic retard like OP would take offense to it.
>>24747388You see what I'm talking about? This was essentially the peak "atheism" considered permissible at that time and Hume was skirting the edge with many of his takes.It's not good praxis generally to ascribe modern labels to figures from past eras, but with Hume I don't think there's even a 1% chance that he wouldn't be an atheist if he had been alive today.
>>24747294Yes but it’s complicated. Read pic related. Natural/supernatural is a false dichotomy.
>>24747287>He was an atheist...but he also had flaws?
>>24747294>Assume empiricism as absolute and unchallengeable.>Demonstrate that from this it follows that causality is mere hollow correlation, induction is unjustified, deduction never tells you anything you don't already know, and morality is nothing but irrational sentiment.>It also follows that "good" reasoning, "good" evidence, "good" argument, etc. is just whatever results in effects in line with our feels, resulting in total misology, and pretty much the exact description of wholly instrumental reason as "demonic" one finds in Dante, the Desert Fathers, etc.>Assume the univocity of being >Show that God is unknowable and only pure fideism remains>Define miracles in terms of the dominant empiricist naturalism >Demonstrate they are impossibleI am convinced that Hume was actually a crypto-traditionalist Catholic who wanted to show how the Enlightenment and Post-Reformation theology bottomed out in incoherent sophistry, skepticism, and nihilism. He kept trolling expecting people to finally get the joke and realize their error and they just kept doubling down on it.It's not that surprising. If you flip through the big ideas of early modern thought you will find pretty much every position Plato BTFO as sophistical absurdity (e.g. contract theories of justice) getting reasserted seriously. I assume at least some of them were trolling and were just publishing these same shitty ideas in pamphlets for the lulz. Unfortunately, they ended up dooming us to this cursed timeline.
>>24747388Western atheism is just deism but you pretend the deity doesn’t exist.
>>24747479>Assume empiricism as absolute and unchallengeable.It isn't?
Not enough Kant tards talk about just how monumental Hume was to Kant. Kant borderline dedicates the Critique of PR to him in the Prolegomena, and defends him against retards like Reed that thought "Heh, but causality is intuitive and like necessary". He treats Hume as somebody respectable to solve. In my opinion, the best philosophy's are almost always a direct response or critique "DIRECT". Btw
>>24747479>If you flip through the big ideas of early modern thought you will find pretty much every position Plato BTFO as sophistical absurdityWhat? Its always weird to me how much people hold onto plato. People seemingly never talk about how dudes like Hume and Kant rendered Plato completely retarded, with his high mighty ideals and attempt to escape appearances by simply making up a world where things are perfect, and how every criticism of christianity is a retroactive criticism of Plato, as early Christianity was 100% based on readings of Plato.People want to hold onto Plato so bad its insane.
>>24747294About moral psychology, no. About revealed faith, yes.
>>24747480You know most Scientists are actually theists right? Christianity is too fundamental to the retardation of western thought.
>>24747479Is this Esoteric Humeanism?Essential Esoteric Humeanism reading: Friedrich Jacobi
>>24747666Esoteric Humeanism is something few rarely stumble upon and it's probably an undiscovered goldmine for esotericism in all honesty. Most likely don't bother since he tends to be overlooked.>politics is esoteric to HumeHe publicly advocated for moderation and a stable state. Multiple theories are out there he personally thought all of this was garbage.>history is esoteric to HumeIf you go through some of really obscure stuff you will find a similarity between how him and the interlocuter interact. Hume usually rejects a flattening or linearity in historical dialogue from others but will frequently accept fully fleshed positions.>economics is esoteric to HumeHe famously advocated for the Quantity theory but there are multiple theories he just never trusted governments and thought it was trash in secret.>Aristotle for a time when Aristotle was too controversial?I've seen some pretty compelling arguments that Hume was Aristotelian but this wasn't publicly tolerated so he had to really modify his public views in order to avoid too much censure.>Hume didn't view math as esoteric but thought it had significant limits.Theories are out there but most are just nonsense, I've seen some good ones though like Hume vs The Geometers was a trial run of something similar to Hegel's there can be only one.
>>24747703Is this some really elaborate troll
>>24747715No.
>>24747479I agree
Managed to finish the enquiry tonight. So his point the entire time was to stop with all the speculative metaphysical bs and go touch grass?
>>24747287hes pretty agnostic from what I remember of him. and he fully admits that there are things beyond our knowledge and we often have to simply act by custom. He doesnt even think causation is objectively real. His whole project was that we can only be roughly certain about shit to a relitive degree via repeated correlation and that absolute truth can not be achieved through pure logic.Its a very humble position.
>>24747287Hume is so far beyond /r/atheism it’s not funny. As if they understand him at all outside of some cherry picked quotes
>>24747646Hume and Kant are both retards and time is proving them as such. Just look out of your window.
>>24747964>Just look out of your window.what?also why couldnt they presumably look out their window to realize whatever you're trying to imply, whats so different about your imagination of whats outside my window?
>>24747951What's there to get? He just preached epistemic humility and harped on against dogmatic religion.
>>24747475I liked that book. I still think Milbank is the gold standard for that sort of genealogy, but he isn't very accessible and the fact that he's fairly polemical probably muted the original reach of the treatment. Taylor is pretty middle of the road, but even his treatment gets dismissed because he is shoehorned into the "communitarian camp." I would hope that Harrison's openness and employment of some of the more "Continental" anti-realist literature would help spread the important genealogical work that's been done here.It's sort of a mystery to me why this kind of investigation isn't more popular in the broadly "continental" and "post-modern" spaces from what I've seen. My suspicion is that so much has tended to hang on projecting the flaws of Enlightenment and analytic thought back onto the whole of philosophy, or at least Western philosophy, that acknowledging that many of the problems in focus are distinctively modern will be painful, since it removes the argument by dichotomy. Plus, a number of the heros of that area of thought, particularly Nietzsche and Heidegger, just give bad genealogical treatments here. Nietzsche in particular is pretty much creative fiction with no real research to back it up.
>>24747593>Is an epistemology that tends towards global skepticism potentially bad?Just consider that empiricism has motivated:>The idea that there are no facts about what is good or bad, e.g., Mackie's queerness argument and emotivism, the idea that "x is good" means merely "hoorah for x," and "child molestation is evil," just means "bohoo for molesting " Note that this applies for "good reasoning" to and the idea that truth is "better" than falsity.>Arguments to the effect that words can never, ever refer to anything (Quine) and have no meaning only behavioral utility (later interpreters of Wittgenstein)>It's also been used to argue for cognitive relativism, which is basically solipsism since everyone lives in their own world>Radical deflations of truth, e.g., Rorty that truth is just "whatever people let us get away with saying," and that "x is true" just means "hoorah for affirming x.">The claim that we can never know which arithmetic operations we are carrying out or if we have ever done addition (Kripke's Wittgenstein)>Causes don't exist (basically Hume, but explicit in Russell)>Eliminativism, consciousness doesn't exist because it isn't "publicly" observable. Talk of people being "conscious" is akin to talk of ghosts and spirits, to be eliminated from discourse. >Selves don't exist.>Scientific anti-realism that claims that scientific beliefs are just what social pressures lead us to affirm>Various similar arguments from underdetermination that only work because of how empiricism says justification MUST work by fiat.>Cats and trees do not exist. There are only sense data configurations we find useful to call such.If your epistemology cannot secure any of your bedrock beliefs, it is probably garbage.
>>24748080You had me open minded till Wittgenstein was included in that criticism. No philosopher I've ever read has been more correct than Wittgenstein, and every day his Philosophical Investigations is proven more and more right for me everyday. Likely because the internet is the absolute pinnacle of exposing the arbitrariness of language.But not only that. But Wittgenstein is also one of the few philosophers that actually SUCCEEDS in his intended goal of "offering relief to people who suffer with questions like these". I am still working my mind everyday to try and escape Wittgenstein's conclusions and to try and find meaning SOMEHOW SOMEWHERE beyond social utility. But just because I disagree with the truth (or rather wish it were not true) doesn't mean I can reasonably reject and disbelieve it.I'm not as convinced about the other guys you mentioned. Moral Realism just sounds impossible, as an extension of how language proves how meaning void human beings are, and just the general hurdles a Moral Realism would have to overcome, but honestly I'm open to a compelling argument for it. I need my motherfucking meaning man. I just have not seen any compelling ones yet. I'm technically still young so time will tell.
>>24748080>>Cats and trees do not exist. There are only sense data configurations we find useful to call such.This isnt really necessarily Empiricist. It's not even necessarily Humean, since youre basically identifying that all of Analytic philosophy essentially stems from Hume, whether youre aware of it or not. Kant is really the one who puts the forward. All Hume does, is doubt that our senses and faculties of reason can really arrive us at truth. Its Kant that formulates that into how our senses do that, and identifies the necessary essential quality of the mind that presupposes "sense data configurations" (Ironic that Kant, for all his reputation as hard to read, has always been easier for me to understand than the whole "sense data" concept I first encountered in Russell personally, not saying he invented it, idk)
>>24747703I wrote an essay on the second point regarding some inconsistencies of his on history
>>24748135I didn't include Wittgenstein, I specifically said Kripke's Wittgenstein, which is widely considered to be a sort of abomination often called Kripkenstein. By later interpreters, I mean his post-modern "followers" who claim that he argued for an extreme relativism in OC.I think Wittgenstein himself is too vague to attribute any position to, as evidenced by the fact that people call on him to advance all sorts of contradictory theories. Saint Augustine has a better theory of language as use though, and it's a shame that Witt doesn't seem to have made it past the opening pages of the Confessions and never read any older philosophy because it probably would have helped him out.OC is circling around the same problem as the Posterior Analytics but he is so much bound by his narrow analytic frame that he cannot even consider the other options developed there.
>>24748080You don't even need to list all of those. Empiricism can only arbitrarily escape solipsism by fiat. It should be obvious that if you start with an isolated observer and "sense experience" (i.e., mere appearances) and posit no metaphysical relationship between reality and appearances, it follows that it is impossible to ever know that one actually knows anything. It terminates right into epistemic nihilism, and all the debates about redefining truth, etc. are just ways to cope with this. The funny thing is, the original ancient Empiricists explicitly realized this. They were skeptics. They wanted to be skeptics. They thought that convincing yourself that you had no warrant to believe anything would help you achieve apathy and so avoid the passions and suffering. Hume was a rare thinker who was quite aware of the historical origins here and so the hypothesis here >>24747479is not as wild as it first seems. I mean, I doubt he was a crypto anything, but he was probably trolling.
>>24748296>I didn't include Wittgenstein, I specifically said Kripke's WittgensteinI didnt respond to your shit on Kripke anywhere, I didnt even notice you mentioned him till you pointed this out.>By later interpreters, I mean his post-modern "followers" who claim that he argued for an extreme relativism in OC....what? The fuck is "OC"????>I think Wittgenstein himself is too vague to attribute any position toHes not vague. His point is incredibly clear. Hes just unsatisfying because he poses questions or shows the problems of something more than offer conclusions and answers.>as evidenced by the fact that people call on him to advance all sorts of contradictory theories.what? what contrarictory theories? >Saint Augustine has a better theory of language as use though, and it's a shame that Witt doesn't seem to have made it past the opening pages of the Confessions and never read any older philosophy because it probably would have helped him out.I dont understand this midwit narrative ive seen in response to Wittgenstein lately. It must be some weird religious thing, because only religious people are so fucking retarded that they cant understand and engage with any philosophy that doesnt validate their unsubstantiated preconceptions and biases about objectivity and whatever social structure theyre attached to.Wtf are you talking about you fucking retard? Augustines theory isnt truly about use, nor does it offer anything even close to how language games accounts for percieved "inconsistencies" in language (that would suggest some sort of "true" meaning)Fucking retard, I was already suspicious you never read Wittgenstein, now im certain you havent. If only /lit/ wasnt so blatantly a confirmation biasing board and anybody on here read Wittgenstein, theyd realize and back me up on how right I am and how wrong you are.
>>24748323>Wtf are you talking about you fucking retard?i ASSUME he's saying that because of neoplatonism, but i can't say for sure because no tradcath ever quotes augustine when arguing this point>captcha: VGH
>>24748335>i ASSUME he's saying that because of neoplatonismIve been starting to despise platonism lately. For some reason everyone seems to have a different understanding of platonism and takes it literally that when Socrates essentially said "Theres a deeper understanding of Justice that is arrived at through deep thought, and that deeper idea is just the true form of justice" I didnt think people LITERALLY thought that he meant that LITERAL perfect versions of concepts and ideas as they appear to us exist somewhere up above in the clouds. Its so weird too, because atleast based on my reading, plato never uses the cave analogy and idea of forms for anything thats a "literal" or empirical concept, but for abstract concepts, which to me should make it obvious that he doesnt mean this shit literally.But it doesnt really matter, because listening to a lecture in my freetime on the history of philosophy, apparently the early authorities of christianity and judaism, read Plato, and they took his "high and mighty ideas" too literally, and its led us to retards like this, where God is where the true forms of things are contained, in his mind or whatever, and then he tells us his little secrets because he just feels like it. And it leads to this sort of dogmatic objectivity that would reject truth EVEN if truth were to be "subjective". Thats how dogmatic it is.Its the only way I can explain the kind of stupidity I encounter from the "read the greeks" types that also conveniently tend to love Augustine. Confirmation bias is so amazing isnt it.>but i can't say for sure because no tradcath ever quotes augustine when arguing this pointHonestly this seems to be the case with a lot of Philosophy here, ive seen it most commonly with Nietzsche. Even Schopenhauer has fans thatll actually greentext entire paragraphs from his books.Its made me think that Philosophy is too close to religion.
>>24747287> repeatedly make racist comments about Arabs and JewsEveryone did this until about 100 years ago
I haven't read half the philosophy that you guys read but at a glance it seems sort of interesting that the greatest pre-kantian enlightenment philosopher, Hume, basically critiques moral whiggism and epistemological positivism in ways that people will not do so again until about the Nietzsche era. He comes off like a refutation of enlightenment optimism and whiggism that arrived decades before the thesis it was meant to refute.
Hume thought that physical fitness was not a virtue. This is enough to discount his position on virtue and cast doubt on his whole philosophical position.
>>24748543>in ways that people will not do so again until about the Nietzsche era.never give Nietzsche any credit ever again (i dont mean this as harshly against you as it sounds) once you read up a bit more on the history of philosophy you realize and learn that Nietzsche is just a repeated response of what Platos whole philosophy was a response to: Aka the sophists.The only reason Nietzsche gets any credit is because:1. Hes German2. Schopenhauer's disciple3. And most importantly NIGGA WAS LOUD. Nietzsche was the equivalent to Loud streamers/influencers in the modern day who cannot shut the fuck up and think theyre input on everything matters, and he also just has a rebellious tone.Of course it helps that he was actually educated so hes read enough to sound important and larger than life. But yea fuck Nietzsche
>>24747480No, atheists use abstraction forces like nature that don't have personhood and agency, so they aren't deities.
>>24748720>personhood and agencySemantics, no?
>>24748738No, a deity has personhood and personal agency while nature does not, it is just the sum total of natural forces like the tendency of mass to attract mass, not because it chooses but because physical force compels motion.
>>24748752What compels choice?
>>24748781Choice is a matter of agency, personal agency can be used to choose things that are not physically compelled, so while nature can't choose to stop naturing, gods could choose to stop creating which is the functional rather than purely semantic difference between a personal agent as a universal creator vs an abstract natural synthesizer.
>>24748350filtered by platofiltered by augustineYou should leave philosophy.
>>24748151Hume definitively wiped himself and he even comments in the enquiry that were someone to find a philosophical truth the likes of which could be demonstrated and unrefuted then it would likely be one pointing to the pernicious nature of humans and when faced with this the overwhelming majority would simply silence it and the formal authority of society would bury it due to the enormity of the threat. His epistemology more or less creates an esoteric effect even if Hume himself wasn't intentionally esoteric. By most classifications he isn't considered to be esoteric or conspiratorial, but these views are likely derived by those who never actively took his epistemology into consideration, which is to say at face value Hume would appear to be entirely disinterested in such notions but his epistemic outcomes can provide a complete blank, and often emphasize random chance and one agent's actions. The case for conspiratorial is more difficult to make but even most average readers of Hume will likely agree on esoteric.
>>24748323OC is on Certainty.PI is anything but "clear." Anon is not saying anything remotely uncontroversial about the Wittgenstein literature here. Read any biography like Grayling's and they will point out this aspect of Wittgenstein's legacy, so calling him "incredibly clear" is a red flag that you have a best only a passing familiarity with him.Augustine's corpus is tens of thousands of pages long and you can find all sorts of papers comparing him with Wittgenstein so I think your confidence here is probably pure bluster. Typical kid fandom for a particular thinker, anyone suggesting otherwise is a "retard."
What's with all the schizoposters ITT
>>24748738Only in the sense that everything has a semantic meaning. You're reaching to dislocate here.
>>24748859They missed rapture.
>>24747480Atheism in its "naturalist" form is just a later Prot heresy really. There is a direct evolution, where the athiest norm is just the old theology with God chopped out and man normally elevated to his place.
>>24747287>Hume is peak r/atheismPlease never type a single sentence ever again.
>>24750519He literally says no account of a miracle can ever be trusted because religious people are crooks and/or retards.
>>24747287Only fat people should be allowed to be philosophers. How am I supposed to trust you if you clearly don't have enough calories to fuel your brain?
>>24747479Imagine misunderstanding Hume so aggressively and arrogantly.
>>24747626The continuity of time needs to be accepted in order to make any argument. You never make an argument in a single instant, it takes time, even if only a few seconds, to outline the force of your argument. If you dismiss the continuity of time, you have to always be dismissing the first part of your sentence by the time you reach its end. It's logically absurd and self defeating.
>>24747646>every criticism of christianity is a retroactive criticism of Plato, as early Christianity was 100% based on readings of PlatoChristianity is a lot of people's cope for death anxiety; it represents the idea of a father figure who has power over them and who will take care of them and relieve them of their responsibility to think and act for themselves. It is the ultimate cope, rooted so deeply in the subconscious that any attack on it is seen as a threat of death itself to the individual in question. It's all laughably Freudian, even while such people will almost always hate Freud as well.
>>24747903>stop with all the speculative metaphysical bs and go touch grassMost of /lit/ sorely needs to hear this
>>24747951>>24747992Hume's case against the existence of miracles is unassailable. It is always going to be more likely that you are under a misapprehension rather than an actual miracle took place. I've never heard even the semblance of a rebuttal to this.
>>24748035I was compared to Milbank once
>>24752739You ever think that he simply didn't have intelligence to comprehend miracles and they're only accessible by higher order consciousness?
>>24748080I root the concept of "goodness" and "badness" as a phenomenon within experience. When you feel pleasure, it is a phenomenon, it carries both the character of being desirable (more of that please!) and the experience in and of itself which is pleasure itself, the thing being desired. That phenomenon is as real as anything, and maximizing it while minimizing its opposite is categorically desirable. Morals and ethics flow from this into game theory in which the maximum utility can be created for the maximum people within a system of individuals living together. Further, there is a phenomenon of synergy in which "goodness" can be multiplied under specific circumstances, I.E. if we work together we can both create more pleasure for both of us than either one of us could manage through pure selfish self interest (even though this is actually the motivator for cooperating, there is a kind of paradox of love where if you measure your own benefit, it annihilates the synergistic benefit to yourself and you are worse off, leading to a utilitarian case to suspend utilitarian calculations within inter-personal relationships). A corollary to this is the need for the system to encourage buy in but punish the penny-pincher types.
>>24752218No, he said that human perception is known to experience errors in apprehending reality and this will always be the more likely explanation than that an actual miracle took place.
>>24752753On what basis would anyone be able to justify the claim that they are a "higher order consciousness" rather than, perhaps, being mentally ill and deluded?
>>24752786How could he possibly speak for everyone?
>>24752827Are you suggesting that some people are infallible? How would you be able to tell rather than being under the mistaken impression that they were infallible?
>>24752786Yeah, but he identifies being religious as one of the potential causes of misapprehension. He says if you are religious then you are likely to lie if it forwards your holy cause.
>>24747646Plato never believed that there was a world of forms abstracted from reality. In reality, that idea sounds more like it should be attributed to Descartes. Plato believed in essences/forms in the same way that Aristotle did. There is no theory of forms or any kind of unified account of it, only hypotheses that change in presentation from dialogue to dialogue
>>24753226The same is true for any belief. A strict materialist will weigh natural explanations higher when evaluating a potentially supernatural event.
>he does repeatedly make racist comments about Arabs and JewsThis is a bold lie. A read a lot of Hume's work and I've never see him write something about Jews or Arabs at all. I do not rule out that he makes such comments but the word "repeatedly" is a stretch.You want to put Hume into a category instead to understand his work in his complexity.>. Does that exempt him from being drawn as a basedjak?Hume wrote his work in the years 1720 to 1770. At this time, if somebody cames out as a atheist, this somebody could face death penelty. The usual person at this age tread unbelievers harsh, exclude them from society. Atheist's work would net be published.With other words: When Hume was a atheists, then he would be really edgy with it.In sharp contrast to the 21 century atheists like /r/atheism. In our age, no one treats you with death if you confess as a unbeliever or something. I mean in the west. Obiviously the case is different in the islamic world and even inverted in communistic countries like North Korea.The asstertation that Hume is an atheists is a subject of controversy. When he actually deals with philosophy of religion or faith as such, his statements sound ambiguous. Intentionally ambiguous, given the circumstances of his time.Some claims that Hume was not an atheists but merely a kind of deist, i. e. someone who doesn't preclude the existence of one or more deities and even thinks there must be some creator but deny the wider claims of religion. In most cases, the reason because of them atheists or deitists criques religion is not the impossibility of a God but rather the religios praxis. Like fasting, some aribitery rules and so on.
>>24754078He never says this.
>>24754102He does repeatedly call Arabs barbarous savages essentially, and that's just in the one book I read from him.
Why did it take until the 18th century for people to start smiling on their portraits?
>>24752713>Nooooo! He's a hecking great name!!! He cannot just be a retard engaged in question begging. There is no way a sophist propagandists could become le famous in a era where success as a philosopher was largely about le sales.He is extremely arrogant himself. It doesn't help that he is also retarded. But New Athiest types and Kantards will forever love him because his sophistries play to the biases of the first and because the latter are so deep into their delusional, pathological epistemology that they cannot fathom how anyone who helps support their dogmatic presuppositions could possibly be wrong.
>>24752739Whoa, I guess I must have hallucinated 9/11 because what are the chances that two planes would crash into the WTC in a day. And I guess there must have been mass psychosis when Payton Pritchard drilled a shot from way behind half court when the Celtics were raping the Mavs in the finals the other year.
>>24754150I don't actually mind the interpretation because it implies that pic related is more likely to be a rigged conspiracy then a real miracle. It's literally not possible.
>>24747300One footnote in a later edition. And some woke-tards trete it like his philosophy was centred around this shit.>>24747385>where he's like "my anonymous friend wrote this cool story">It's like 2 layers of trying to distance himself to avoid flak and it still wasn't enough. He lost two university appointments over public outrage about his writings.As I said, atheism was really edgy during Hume's days. A typical R3dd1t atheist today is just a dude with internet access. He has no right to feel like an edgelord. However, in the 18th century, stakes were much higher than they are today.Btw, we can learn a lot from the Enlightenment philosophers in terms of how to publish and discuss forbidden ideas in an antagonistic environment.>>24747648>About moral psychology, no.His actual moral philosophy is fine.>>24748080>If your epistemology cannot secure any of your bedrock beliefs, it is probably garbage.Your argument is irrational. You just invoke powerful feelings and feel fine about it, without addressing the key reasons Hume provided to make his view plausible. Hume's arguments about morality stemming from sentience, induction, etc., are some of the most thought-provoking in the history of the West, perhaps only surpassed by the development of non-classical logic.
>>24754119Citate?>>24748624Kek!>>24748738No. If you talk about abstract concepts like deism, atheism, and pantheism, such differences are important.Deism describes the view of a somewhat personal creator, yet, this creator is thought not to reveal themselves via prophets, oracles, and so on. You can infer their existence, so the deist claims, by speculating about nature and understanding that the existence of things and their order requires a creator. This postulated creator doesn't need to be all-knowing or omnipotent, nor did he or she establish a moral code like the Ten Commandments.An atheist, of course, would deny the existence of the creator.A pantheist would claim that God and the world are the same thing.>>24752727>Christianity is a lot of people's cope for death anxietyWhich is true...>of their responsibility to think and act for themselves...which is false.Usually, the Christian or Muslim doesn't stop to think for themselves, they just starts to put their ideas in the mouth of God. We see this shit too often to ignore it.
>>24754134>It doesn't help that he is also retarded.He seems quite smart to me desu.> But New Athiest types and Kantards will forever love him because his sophistries play to the biases of the first and because the latter are so deep into their delusional,Kek.Like, retards like you always cames up with accusitions or offenses. You never ever addresses the logical arguments the initial author provides you.Let assume your point is the following:>If your philosophy conclude in the denial of Causality, your philosophy needs to be falseFine. I can deal with it.Yet, this doesn't say Hume's argumentation is not logical sounding. There is something called a indirect evidence.If p is a sufficient condition for q, then:non-q is the sufficient condition for non-p.So, when Hume use the premisses {A_1,A_2...A_n} -> ...then:At least one of his premisses MUST be false and you can learn something by showing which one.
>>24752727Atheism is just a psychological cope so that people don't have to feel guilty about their sins. It's a sort of narcissism whereby a contingent being claims that no standard exists above itself.
>>24754207This. All those that refuse to follow the Pastafarian Code are going to Spaghetti Hell.
>Man who is morbidly obese while Europe is still experiencing famines thinks Goodness comes down to irrational bodily appetites.Color me shocked.
>>24754211>Thread accusing Hume of being reddit>Redditors begin pouring out of the wood work and start redditing the most reddit reddit all over the thread to defend him.
>>24754222You just say this because you do not accapet the pastafari as you saviour.
>>24754222Enjoy Spaghetti Hell.
>>24754195Per Hume's own standards, how can he *know* his own premises are true and that those of rival philosophers are false?
>>24754262>>24754228>"That's right M-Morty. Plato, Al Farabi, Shankara, Plotinus, t-they didn't know anything Morty. They wasted all that time developing intellectual virtue and contemplating. And you know what really gets you to truth and makes you a free thinker, just adopting the dominant views of the consumerist neoliberal anti-culture you happen to be born in.">"N-now pass me those anti-depressants and the hooch or I'm going to have to make a stop off at the secular humanist suicide pod."
>>24754473It was intellectually excusable holding religious views back then, given just how limited human knowledge was. Holding such views in current year is not excusable.
If we want to argue that evolution is true then we have to believe that natural selection leads towards true beliefs. Otherwise, we would lack any warrant to think our own beliefs about natural selection were true.But secular athiest urbanites are facing total population collapse over the next generations. Therefore their beliefs are not being selected for. Therefore they must be false.
>>24754483kek, it isn't "science" that makes religious beliefs less warranted, but rather empiricism and the skepticism and nihilism that flow from it. Naturalism too. But those thinkers would have seen that these dogmas are self-refuting sophistries.
>>24754488*creates a race of vatborn transhuman gay secular atheist urbanites with unlimited numbers and perfect age bracket distribution*
>>24754328You can't deny your experience.>>24754473>Al Farabi, Shankara, Plotinus, t-they didn't know anything Morty. They wasted all that time developing intellectual virtue and contemplating.I note that all this people, with exception of Morty, has been born long before the development of modern scince, criticl historical inquiries and formal logic.Some of this people lives in circumstances in which atheism or just doesn't follow the majore religion has been criminalized. Most important, they do not know about the theory of evolution.> And you know what really gets you to truth and makes you a free thinker, just adopting the dominant views of the consumerist neoliberal anti-culture you happen to be born in.Which doesn't did Hume.>N-now pass me those anti-depressants and the hooch or I'm going to have to make a stop off at the secular humanist suicide podIf you need to choice your worldview in order to avoide depression, fine go ahead.However, you are an irrationalist, your believes has nothing to do with the real world but with your feelings. Facts, of course, don't care about your feelings.>>24754488>If we want to argue that evolution is true then we have to believe that natural selection leads towards true beliefs.non sequiturEvolution just required a "good enough". The selection is a negativ one. What cannot survives doesn't reproduce. But knowing the truth 100% is not requiered in order to survive untill you reproduce.>But secular athiest urbanites are facing total population collapse over the next generations. Therefore their beliefs are not being selected for. Therefore they must be false.Ex falso quolibet.
>>24754491>kek, it isn't "science" that makes religious beliefs less warranted, but rather empiricism and the skepticism and nihilism that flow from it. Naturalism too.Anon, you claime that empiricism, skepticism and nihilism "flow from science", which means "follow from science", maybe even "can be logical infered from science".If we assum this to be the case, the success of science warrant the falsedom of relgious believes.Yet, I think religious believe and science is, in principle, not inconsistent. It depends of the interpretation of scientific models.>But those thinkers would have seen that these dogmas are self-refuting sophistries.Why?
>>24754033>There is no theory of forms or any kind of unified account of it, only hypotheses that change in presentation from dialogue to dialogueThis is what I have always thought and said. Ive repeated this too many times so im not going to bother, but I dont even understand how "platonism" became a thing because Plato clearly does not have any sort of systemic approach to philosophy. My only explanation and theory is retarded analytics and their desire to systemize, categorize and define everything, just "defined" platonism into some imimpose "coherent" idea. To be fair apparently the medievals were just as retarded and thats where "platonism" came from.When I say "Plato" I dont mean my conception of Plato. but the narratives that have formed around him by professors and academics.
>>24754514Awesome, now you'll have people to fill your pods and eat the bugs while on their Soma (tm) drip! Think of all the utils!
>>24754488>natural selection leads towards true beliefsIt leads towards beliefs that grant better survival and reproduction and it will require hundreds of thousands of years of adjustment to arrive at a consistent result
>>24754150>Tries to defend miracles>Selects things with entirely material explanationsAnon, I know you can do better
>>24754207Any action should be measured by its ability to move you closer or farther away from Eudaimonia, not whether it aligns with some cosmic dictator who is always spoken for by human representatives. This system of "guilt for your sins" is a poorman's framework, again, it offloads the responsibility of thinking and acting ethically and replaces it with slavish obedience to an authority. This is unbecoming to a grown adult, anon.
>>24754488The defining trait of our species is that we reached a level of complexity in intelligence that we can figure things out. When we build a trap or a spear or a wheel, we only survived because our reasoning out of the problem, solution, and implementation worked. Generation after generation lived or died according to whether they reasoned accurately enough or not. Out of this, we gained the tools to reason, and any belief can either accord with reason or violate it. Also, if a religion is true because its adherents reproduce the most, Christianity beings slipping down the list as Muslims, Hindus, and folk religious Chinamen overtake it.
>>24755050China's population will plunge by half this century. Athiesm is a death sentence to a civilization. It's the equivalent of some sort of genetic illness.>There will be more MuslimsNot until almost 2100, but Christians will still grow as a share of total population. Almost 3/4ths of humanity will worship the One True God, albeit many in heretical ways by 2100. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/All the mainline Protestant churches will probably cease to exist though, but Catholicism and Orthodoxy will be fine.
