Did Kant really manage to refute this fat Scottish fuck with his system of transcendental idealism, or does Hume's skeptical empiricism remain undefeated, foiling any attempt to logically ground ethics and epistemology?
>>25231589Kant was a retard. Hume won.
>>25231589A great test to see if someone has actually *understood* any ancient, medieval, or non-Western philosophy is how they respond to Hume. If they take Hume's conclusions as essentially presuppositionless, true regardless of one's assumptions—as something all past traditions simply were too blind to see—then they haven't really groked anything outside the modern mindset. If they see that Hume's conclusions are basically assumed in his assumptions about metaphysics, epistemology, and psychology, but that these assumptions are by no means universal, then they've gathered something from contexts outside those they were raised and formed in.Hume is very good at following out the assumptions of Enlightenment empiricism and post-Reformation assumptions about what reason is and how any "good reasoning" or "scientific" thought looks. Whether these assumptions are actually good (most come out of early modern Western theology, and I'd argue only seem "obvious" to us because we are raised with them from birth) is, IMHO, quite debatable. Certain assumptions like the univocity of being, reason as primarily or wholly discursive, cosmic homogeneity, etc. seem particularly questionable. Originally, the justification for them was "God made reality this way so that it is easy to understand." Fair enough, but somehow this became "secularized" so that these assumptions are how said to be "scientific," although they seem neither necessary nor sufficient for doing science or developing technology, nor particularly obvious (indeed, most traditions historically didn't accept them).But the elephant in the room here is that people conflate the technological advances of modernity as an endorsement of its metaphysics and epistemology. I think this is only partially fair.
I accept every philosophical argument blindly. I see no contradiction between empiricism and rationalism, or any other idealism, they complement each other.>dude, experience is important!Like yeah, it is.>b-but he undermines his entire system by limiting our knowledge to two categories!Okay, and? See?
>>25231589I think yes if you think about it yeah cause you don’t „learn“ math, you’re knowledge of math is the very condition for experience, because math is basically logic. And logic is not learned. So if the brain is just a meat that somehow manages to experience, it also needs to understand this experience, which of course cannot be experience itself! That wouldn’t make any sense. Not sure it Kant says this but it’s what i have against hume.
>>25231589Hume teaches us that no matter how many times you drop a stone and it falls to the floor, you never know what'll happen the next time you drop it. It might fall to the floor, but then again it might float to the ceiling. Past experience never proves the future.
>>25231852How does he know his faculties of knowing will work in the same way in the future as they have before?
>>25231869You can't doubt reason using reason because you just can't, you fucking tankie chud retard.
>>25231589kant was absolutely catastrophic for western philosophy and set it back 500 years. The major damage was confined to the continent but nobody was sparedHe used a platonic appeal to math to introduce a syllogistic dualism that was ultimately superfluous but lethal
>>25231873How is doubting what Hume says about reason "doubting reason" itself? Per his own epistemology, he cannot know all the things he says are true about psychology and reason because they simply do not follow from constant conjunction.
>>25231873>You cannot doubt reason >Also the causes of anything are wholly unknowable so reason is useless for knowing much of anything.>Also, the causes of all ideas are sense impressions.>But you cannot know causes.>But I know the causes of ideas and thought.>But don't worry if you cannot live according to this knowledge, our nature will keep us keeping on.>But also there are no such thing as natures, just conglomerations of sense impressions.
>>25231589Hume's system is a bit too simplistic
>>25231869He doesn’t assume that. There is no ‘I’ and he refutes that there is as well. >>25232066lol STFU >>25231589Kant doesn’t refute Hume he understands Hume and accepts it and tries to make the world make sense given Hume is correct.Is he successful? Everyone thought so, generally speaking, until Einstein’s relatively showed that space is not Euclidean which undermines the Anschsuung about physical space that underpins the transcendental idealism and makes the whole thing ‘tick’ logically. There was a brief revival in the ‘neo-kantian’ movement but as it stands today there isn’t much brain power behind any of this as most academics are post modernists and don’t really think or understand Hume or Kant or Einstein or any of the relevance. That is to say, it’s currently out of style and nobody is working in the area in a way that’s influential.
>>25231901kant was right to tear apart the proofs that God exists and wrong to ignore the fact that God exists. thomas should of wrote about the flaws as well as recording the arguments, but he wrote the article on the existence of God tendentiously, the way he wrote about the pope. being a papist is thomas' biggest theological mistake, and papists to this day claim that it is possible to prove that God exists from pseudomath instead of in accordance with Rom 1> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:what is understood by the things that are made is not understood by math. we know that God exists from things made, specifically, from the Bible existing. it is written by God. therefore God exists
>>25232235yeah the whole 'i have no assumptions' thing falls apart when the assumption is found
LOL at the cope ITT
>>25232235here lemme post a pascals wager, what is assumed without question is worshiped, people who worship the God of Charity are nice, therefore theres a categorical imperative to believe in God
>>25231589Also the difficulty not often mention’d of sourcing an episteme in an arche or sourcing an arche in an episteme
>>25231589Kant has no explanation for why the categories aren't contingent. So he failed in refuting Hume.
>>25231764>I think this is only partially fair.You don't think going from Galileo dropping rocks from a tower to modern scientists splitting the atom in the span of 400-ish years, which is to say a fraction of a fraction of the time that manking has inhabited the earth, is extremely impressive?
>>25231764LLM slop
>>25231589Kant actually had to cut a part from exterior experience and make it a priori... namely space and time... that is what it needs for synthetic judgements to work...now I think that he came away with that gaga stuff is the biggest scandal in metaphysics...space and time are needed for matter to exist and move...if you take kant serious he is one of if not the biggest idealist of all time...HE FAILED MISERABLYbut him coming up with the problem of synthetic judgements a priori in general is true genius and made every attempt of metaphysics after him just failso Kant was a genius but also retarded if he actually believed in his transcendental idealism... and I seriously doubt he did...so he was a scientific genius and some kind of artist and not a retard
>>25231764Trvke>>25234182Impressive in what domain? You're assuming a universal context (probably just your own preferences). >IT JUST IS!!!!!Growing up is realizing you have no privileged access to objective reality or universal perspective.
>>25232534You misunderstood the argument
