On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

Evidently you didn't understand the quote. As bluegenes noted, Hume was pointing out that there have been few if any valid statements about the world derived from philosophy. Democritus' atomic theory of matter, Popper's epistemology, and a few others spring to mind, but most of it is impractical to say the least. Since you seem to be contending that LindaLou has a valid point when she said (from the OP): "...philosophy and religion, which examine the nature of life and existence...", perhaps you'd care to name a valid statement about the actual world we actually inhabit derived from any one of your favorite philosophers? Surely if philosophy provides such "great conclusions" as you claim, you should be able to come up with something that isn't either sophistry or completely subjective, n'est-ce pas? Or religious figures?I think this would accomplish two things. First, it would refocus your, erm, "discussion" onto the topic, to wit: does philosophy/religion provide a valid way of knowing about the world? Secondly, it would get you off of this insistence that a short quotation from Hume somehow is the key point of the debate (in other words, derailment of the topic). After all, I've already stated that I concur with you that it is somewhat ironic to use a philosopher to comment on philosophy (although now that I think on it, who else would one use?).

Hi subbie,I appreciate your reply. Unfortunately, I don't see how I can add anything to what Jaderis has said (see especially post 27). Jaderis actually articulates my position better than I do. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you or your replies. Of course I agree with your first point here. But just who were those philosophers? Locke, Hume, Leibniz, etc, who provided the foundation for the Intellectual Revolution - based more or less on realism or empiricism. They all more or less rejected the esoterica of previous philosophers, and tried to envision a practical approach to knowledge. That is from where the ideals of the Enlightenment and subsequent advent of science were derived.As to your second point,

quote:

---

Perhaps the ideas of liberty and equality are now in the process of becoming universally accepted.

---

One can but hope, because I (as I think you do) believe that such ideals are the best hope for mankind. However, and this may be a topic for another thread, I would suggest that we can only deduce the existence of Liberty and Equality as ideals because of their apparent lack anywhere in the world. In other words, they are philosophical concepts which (by the nature of philosophy that I have stated) don't actually exist in the real world. This is of course why I purposely used the term "semi-egalitarian" to which you seemed to take exception. "Well, except for the gunfire, it was quite enjoyable, thank you."

What is truth, bluegenes? Give me scientific and/or mathematical meanings on truth. How are you certain that, whatever it might be, is made up in their heads, but that Hume is exempt from this? Ah, right... Mumbo Jumbo... Well, Mr. Zacharias' mumbo jumbo was effective enough to tear down a supposed rationalist stronghold by simply removing one, tiny little stone from the castle. Call it mumbo jumbo or by any other name, but I'd say its a little more than significant. The only waffling I'm seeing is coming from your end of the spectrum being that its more than evident, at this conjuncture, that both Hume's and Quetzal's assertions cannot stand up to its own scrutiny.

---

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

SO, WE DIG A BIG HOLE, look into the stars; get some loads of information. Get ourselves one of them fancy there theories; back it up with a boatload of evidence.Great! Now we know that all creatures on Earth are descendant from a single common ancestor.
What do we do now?ALSO, I want someone to answer my question in the subject title of my last post: do you think murder should be illegal?Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

To which 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.

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.

Just answer it. No harm.Should it be illegal
to take the life
of another human?Jon

At times.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

quote:

---

What is truth, bluegenes? Give me scientific and/or mathematical meanings on truth.

---

Which also is neither mathematical nor scientific, which only illustrates the point further that his statement is fundamentally flawed.I can appreciate the fact that things that cannot be quantified in to precise measurements would be viewed with more suspicion than that which can. But it will only take you so far. The mind doesn't yearn for stale statistics. It reaches for something much more grand. And studying the entrails of the gopher will never bring you to that point. I understood it. Its a false pretense. Some things cannot be verified by test. If you told me that you loved your son or daughter, and I asked you for evidence, you could not prove that to me. Nothing you type to me could persuade me empirically. But does that mean that you don't actually love your children just because you can't prove that to me in the same way you could prove the Pythagorean Theorem? Love, sir, is not meaningless. Words and expression are not meaningless, sir. So Mr. Hume, quite simply, is wrong. There is no greater evidence that he is transparently wrong than his own description which failed his own test for validity.This does not mean that Hume was not brilliant. This does not mean that Hume was not influential. This does not mean anything other than he was wrong in this instance. What does that have to do with the grandeur of what he postulated? So you believe in objective truths? Do you believe that absolutely? Will your answer be given empirically? Since this very dialogue, according to Hume's reasoning, is non-scientific, can we even trust it? ... What have we been discussing now in a number of exchanges? There is no need to be coy about it. 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?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul,
distorts the heavens from pole to pole,
and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

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.

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

---

Hume! You even quoted it again.

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.

---

Do [words] contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Then its sophistry. Get rid of it, even though I'm using measurements that run completely against my own premise. Then neither would anything else other than those two, is the point! You couldn't possibly believe that and still remain honest. Not according to what Hume outlines. Read it again. Love is totally subjective and there is NO WAY to quantify something like love. Yet, as you freely admit, it obviously exists. I don't doubt that Hume believed in love either. What I am saying is his declaration is incompatible with reality, or at the very least, his test for uncovering truth claims is incomplete. You'd be surprised how many people believe that they are, all the while responding to the very phrase, "Are words meaningless?" Well, if they were meaningless, then we wouldn't understand each other now would we? Words or alphabetical characters are contrived by the human mind, sure. But so are number characters. I don't understand what you mean here.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

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!