On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

As I was reading down your O.P., I started thinking "who's that EvC member who's got the Jack London quote about metaphysics as a signature", because what you were saying fitted it so well.So it was funny to scroll down and see the first reply, and then your comment quoted above.I'm afraid I can't offer any debate, because I don't disagree with either you or Jaderis, and I love the Jack London quote as well. Especially the last line:

quote:

---

You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration.

---

I think we see a lot of evidence of "phenomena of mental aberration" here on EvC, and I hope one of London's "mad cosmos makers" will turn up to argue against your points and make this an interesting thread. Good O.P.

Hume wasn't making an assumption. He was speaking with evidence behind him. From his early 18th century viewpoint, he could see very well that the observations and calculations of people like Copernicus, Galileo and Newton had greatly advanced knowledge, and that truths could be arrived at by means of science.Then he could look around him and see that the philosopher/theologicans had come up with no truths about the universe at all. (If you disagree with that, do list some truths that they had discovered).

His statement is based on the empirical evidence that truths are discovered by science. So it is not contradictory. Hume was not a philosopher who wanted to do away with all philosophy. What he wanted to throw into the fire was philosophy that did not have any respect for empirical evidence. Stuff that people just made up in their heads. He wanted to do away with the 18th century equivalent of the kind of mumbo-jumbo that your friend Ravi comes out with, which is why Ravi doesn't like him.How would Ravi make a living if he had to present evidence for his waffle?I repeat, Hume was basing that statement on very, very strong evidence.

You could just use the dictionary. What Hume is pointing out, and what you seem to find so difficult to understand, is that there is no reason to claim truth without evidence. He isn't exempt from it. And he isn't claiming to be. Without evidence, it's meaningless, is what he's saying. And in answer to your question of whether or not he had evidence for that statement, I've already explained that he did. Empiricism works. The local witch doctor can make something up, and tell others that it's true. Hume suggests that you should ask him for evidence.As your personal philosophy seems to be that if you have faith in something, then it becomes an objective truth, it's not surprising that you don't like Hume's suggestion. Or is that your personal philosophy? Your hero, Ravi, states that there is empirical evidence for your beliefs. Would you like to start a thread about this? Where and when? Hume is talking about philosophy that claims to have truths about the universe. If you think that stating that Mohamed was speaking the word of God, without evidence, is useful philosophy, then you disagree with him. He requires evidence for such claims, and so do I.

Why doesn't someone answer your question? Perhaps it's because we know what the word means, so we're too busy laughing.

Your first question or the new one? Why don't you think them through first? G. W. Bush would say "no" to the second. That's a clue for you.

Whatever gave you the idea that words were defined by numbers?The quote is from "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding."David Hume Human Understanding » Internet Infidels

quote:

---

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.

---

Hume's volume contains both "abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number" and "experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence". It would only have to contain one or the other to fit his criteria. He is not saying that all "volumes of divinity or school metaphysics" are useless. Only those which have neither of those criteria.Therefore, Ravi's claim of contradiction is plain wrong. There's plenty of evidence for love. Hume does not claim otherwise. Neither does he claim that words and expressions are meaningless. "Volume" is a meaningful word. It doesn't mean extract.

You can reason in words about quantity or number, certainly.Your question in relation to Hume should be: Can "abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number" be done in words? Yes, it can, and Hume does it in his volume.Can you use words to express "experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence"? Yes you can, and Hume does it in his volume.He is claiming that volumes on metaphysics that contain neither of these are useless. Whether you agree with him or not, he's not contradicting himself, because his volumes do contain them. And: To clarify, the word "volume" does not mean "extract" or "statement".That extract from Hume is not a stand alone statement, but part of a lengthy work.Presumably, Ravi is hoping that his audience will not notice that Hume does not say that statements of any kind should be thrown into the fire, but certain volumes.Either that or he (Ravi) has problems with English comprehension.Incidentally, you could easily write a book on human love that contained "experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence". You don't have to quantify it or use numbers. It would be fine by Hume. Note that it's only when the answer is no to both his questions that he makes the "commit it to the flames" suggestion.Write something on "Why Allah created the universe" when you don't know whether he created it, let alone why, or even if he exists, then it may as well be used to warm poor 18th century Scottish students in the winter.Edited by bluegenes, : minor clarification!

Certainly. A question that Hume would've approved of. What he seems to have been against was the type of metaphysics that tried to deal with meaning (as in the meaning of the universe, rather than its nature).Quetzal's probably trying to say the same thing, but his wording could be better. His B.S. comment is about philosophy that concerns itself with "purpose", not all philosophy, but at other times his phrases seem to imply that such philosophy is all that there is, hence the apparent contradiction, as he is appreciating and using other types of philosophy at the same time.I'm sure he'd agree that it's better to read Hume on the subject, as he had thought it out more carefully, and wasn't just putting together an EvC O.P.!!Good O.P. to provoke discussion, though, and I'm happy to defend Hume against charges of contradictions, although Nemesis is the only one making them so far. I'd do the same for Quetzal if his meaning was slightly clearer.

This does appear to be logical, and would even be interesting in relation to the O.P. if Quetzal had said "All philosophical questions are B.S."The trouble is, he doesn't. Perhaps philosophical strawmen are B.S.He cries bullshit on certain types of philosophical questions, and claims that the answers given to these via philosophy can only be subjective. So he's really on your suggested new thesis: "Some philosophies are bullshit but mine is not" anyway.However, he can't use subjective philosophy to prove his point because: So can the "truth" of the uselessness of "meaning of life" type philosophy be proved scientifically, I wonder?

Where? where? (Not a philosophical question, really).

It's an interesting question. Any answer would automatically suggest a question like "how do you know you have the correct answer", which, if answered, would lead to another "How do you know" question, and so on and on and on and on....Please don't ask me how I know that.Does Quetzal actually say that anything should be "taboo"?If not, do you think that the following question is worth asking?'Is bringing the word "taboo" into the topic a bit of linguistic sophistry on your part?'And if you say no, how do you know you're right?And how do you know you're reading this? You could be dreaming.And if you think that you know that you're not, how do you know that you know that you think that you know you're not dreaming?Are such questions worth asking every time you stub your toe on a rock, or is once in a lifetime perhaps sufficient?