PHILOSOPHY - David Hume

Exactly what you would expect from one of these philosophers. Everything else was too hard so all he could do was act like an intellectual and make edgy arguments parroted by Reddit incels to this day.

Practical genius.

Was he from Missouri?

Hume was a funny guy. He argued that people don't go by the reason instead they go by feelings. But then he denies the existence of God based on the ground of a lack of rational reason. Why did he need a reason to deny God?

He criticises logic and reason, while using logic and reason.
And it is still beautiful.

Thiện nghiệp❤❤❤❤❤

Sounds like the art of persuasion aka propaganda aka mind control. No interest in passions that lead to hysteria. Too noisy

FILOSOFRED PASSANDO TRABALHO 😭

"Agnosticism" does not mean "I'm not sure". A philosophy channel ought to know T H Huxley better than that.

Scotland’s very own Socrates.

Hume was a dolt. Feelings are what we have for our love one's. For art. For music. But we use our rationality to make all of our successful decisions in life.

He was concerned about taking reason too far. He was most supportive of educated reasoning but said we should never forget our basic senses and what we can experience.

Hume is a parent I wish I had

Hume is overrated.

The picture of his hose in Saint Andrew’s Square is wrong. It was/is not a separate building but part of a row of limestone town houses.

That's sweet what he said about his best friend 🥲

Unfortunately, too many of us are an imbalanced product of passion and reason. I've seen so many people I know make giant misjudgements, buy into clear lies and allow their passions override their ability to make basic conclusions that the facts present. I'm afraid it's how demagogues come to power.

Love this guy actually

Hume is for people who hate self discipline.

Many of Hume's objections to the cosmological and teleological argument can be refuted.
Objection (1) :"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a
city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues)
Responses:

"And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with
polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same
natural laws .
If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some
explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing
the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a
new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of
order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate
one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the
simplest conceivable such—I urge—is God. And, further, the power
of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as
great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible
for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic
marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the
universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the
different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square
of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in
another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square
law—without the difference being explicable in terms of a more
general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")

"If the
physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than
being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only
one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad
reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the
absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced
with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more
than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the
creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than
one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for
preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the
universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and
uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the
product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single
designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been
expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural
individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

Objection (2) :"[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an
animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle
of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a
continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest
sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part
or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of
the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles
more a human body than it does the works of human art and
contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one
precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a
stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues)
Response:

"Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical
universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or
other artefact. The claim is unconvincing.
In its manifest workings,
the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds
that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by
the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of
sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical
universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable
machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less
regular and predictable animal or vegetable. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

Objection (3) :"But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain." (Dialogues)
Responses:

"From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot
reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and
rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong
to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will
happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron,
the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the
surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence,
that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about
such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the
universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have
knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach
conclusions about the origin and development of the human race
(because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind).
The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the
original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")

"By tracing the origin of
the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology
places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the
physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds
that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as
grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the
physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things
which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations. "
(David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

"Second, Hume seems to assume that the universe is unique and conclusions cannot be reached about
unique objects by analogy. But this is false as well. Astronomers reach conclusions all the time about
the origin of the universe and this is unique. Furthermore, all events are unique in some sense, but no
one would want to say that arguments by analogy do not apply to any objects whatever. The fact that
the universe or some other object is unique does not rule out the possibility that it has properties in
common with some other object, including some of its parts. For example, there may be only one
object which satisfies the description "the tallest man in Maryland," but one could still compare this
object with other objects and make judgments about the origination of the object. If one accepted Hume's principle it would seem to rule out the possibility of discovering a new culture and inferring
that an utterly new and unique object in that culture was designed. But such an inference seems to be
quite possible. "
(J.P Moreland "Scaling The Secular City")

Hume -> Descartes. Who defines what is rational?

I am pretty much like Hume in most ways. I think we are just a bunch of perceptions about ourselves. Which can hold us back too

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

I'll take Ayn Rand, thank you.

He's right and wrong. There are those of us who figure out at an early age that the happiest we can be derives from ascertaining reality, comporting with it, and cultivating favorable emotions to rational choices. That's not 100% true, but neither is it true that happiness comes from the whims of emotions. I think he is mostly incorrect for many of us. An interesting field to consider is evolutionary psychology which explains the innate reasons as the origins of our emotions. So in many ways, Hume is exactly wrong. The analysis and understanding of emotions require reason. Not too smart.

A summary of David Hume's philosophy with no mention of his epistemology. Shame.

Hume was spot-on.

But you can be moral without being sensitive to anyone's suffering, as long as you are not one who caused it.

Thanks!

-THIỆN TAI, MÔ PHẬT, THIỆN TAI G.O.D ƠI.❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

-MÔ PHẬT, THIỆN TAI, MÔ PHẬT, THIỆN TAI CÁC CHÍ THỦ, MÔ PHẬT, NAM MÔ A DI DDAFF PHẬT, MÔ PHẬT, THIỆN TAI THÍ CHỦ, MÔ PHẬT.

-MÔ PHẬT, THIỆN TAI, NAM MÔ A DI ĐÀ PHẬT..❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤, NAM MÔ A DI ĐÀ PHẬT.

If only they taught this in schools

I’m very conflicted on Hume. For the most part I don’t think we’re in accordance, but there are some good things one can learn from him.

Look look, I know Hume is said to be an atheist, but what if he was Jesus tho ?

I'm laughing my butt off! I've been saying this since I was a teenager! Living it too! Let's hear it for the common philosophy!

Do you think I care? Try and think for yourself. Please. Rarely did you. Free thinking for free thinkers wouldn’t want who me to hurt himself in other dialects of English.

"Growing up religious, David Hume was the bad guy, but now I realize he was the intellectual good guy all along."

What a 🐐.

I think of the radical leftists who won't talk with anyone who supports President Trump. Be a Democrat, but be a person!

Both Descartes and Hume have a point. I think Descartes was right when he told the world that you have to be truly rational to make good decisions. The problem, however, is that just about no one can achieve such a goal. David Hume was more down-to-earth in that sense. The conclusion from these two philosophers should be: if you can't throw away your emotions, learn to adapt to them.

So basically Hume DIDN'T destroy people with facts and logic?

He is like an anti elitist, humanist nietzsche.

Maybe in England it is optional to be emotional, Hume forgot Descartes is French.

Saludos desde argentina

The U.S. educational system has almost wholly eradicated philosophy, its training and jobs. We are woefully lacking in all of the humanities in society overall. In that, I'm envious of past societies (some).

Poem is philoospical i n its nature.