Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 35 of 307 (430736)
10-26-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
10-25-2007 11:55 PM


Re: Assumption?
David Hume writes:
"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
To which
NJ writes:
This statement is completely contradictory because it is exactly what he said we should avoid, committing such sophistry to the flames. His statement was neither mathematical, scientific, or empirical. What should we do with such abstract reasoning?-- toss it then to the flames for it is but sophistry and illusion.
The very sword he wields to deny philosophy is the very weapon that decapitates him, because you can't deny it without asserting it, and you can't assert it without denying it. IOW, he failed his own test, and fell in to his own trap.
I haven't thought about this in depth and i am not much of a philosopher but suppose we built a bonfire containing all the works of divinity and metaphysics and lit it with the scrap of paper that Hume's argument was written on.
Would that satisfy you? It probably would have satisfied David Hume!
The next question, if this was done in what way would humanity be significantly diminished? as compared to burning Newton's Principia Mathematica and all related works.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-25-2007 11:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 43 of 307 (430938)
10-28-2007 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2007 12:31 AM


Re: Assumption?
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
Hume, in the process of saying this proved his own test for reasoning wrong by the very rules he ascribed to it. He couldn't even pass his own test. So since his statement was neither mathematical nor scientific, what empirical evidence do you possess to know that he was correct in his assertion?
Good lord man that is quite obvious!
Compare the success of science/empiricism to divinity and metaphysics!
quote:
Knowledge in most scientific domains is now doubling about every five years. How fast is it growing in religion? - Sam Harris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2007 12:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 50 of 307 (431236)
10-30-2007 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Archer Opteryx
10-29-2007 12:43 PM


Hume's Dilemma
Archer writes:
It's a fatal self-contradiction..... Death by suicide
Yeah but is it a suicide bomb? That is, if the statement is false does it take the rest of metaphysical machinations with it.
Reexamining Hume's statement
Hume writes:
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
He is clearly using hyperbole for effect. I don't think he meant it as some clear cut axiom, but more of a general principle.
For the Christian antagonist here, when Christ says "If you desire to be perfect go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have wealth in Heaven". You do not find many Christians following that axiom to the letter.
Also Hume is a bit more concise and specifies "divinity or school metaphysics". The term "philosophy" is somewhat nebulous and I found no less than 8 different connotations in the definition. Therefore i don't believe references to Philosophy of Science really apply to this discussion.
All this talk reminds me of a movie i recently watch with my wife on Father Damien and his work with lepers. My wife was quite impressed with this man's life and dedication. However when they mentioned that he thanked God very much for letting him die of the disease I realized that he was wallowing in the suffering for suffering sake. What I took from this story is that the true 'saints' where the men and women who discovered the cure to Leprosy using empirical methods and eliminated unimaginable suffering rendering faith-based workers unnecessary.
This contrasts the usefulness of 'divinity' and the 'school metaphysics' to that of the empirical accretion of knowledge and understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-29-2007 12:43 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-30-2007 7:56 AM iceage has replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 72 of 307 (431415)
10-30-2007 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Archer Opteryx
10-30-2007 7:56 AM


Re: Hume's Dilemma
Archer writes:
That's a big shift in focus. You are saying that philosophy in general is not suspect at all (as we were told in the OP). The culprit is just 'divinity' or 'school metaphysics.'
Ok maybe that was a bait and switch. It was late and i did not read all the prerequisite posts.
Recently I heard someone describe Philosophers as intellectual plumbers that patch leaks in scientific reasoning, logic and assumptions. I can go with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-30-2007 7:56 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-31-2007 12:24 AM iceage has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024