Posted on 02/06/2007 7:35:30 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher well known for his attack on the principle of causality - the principle that nothing can happen or exist without a cause.
1.) He believed that although one event (set of impressions) always preceded another this did not prove that the first event caused the second. The constant conjunction of two events, he said, built up the expectation that the second event would take place after the first. But this was nothing more than a strong belief or habit of mind taught by experience. One could never prove that were causal connections among impressions.
2.)
A.) How did he come to believe that although one event (set of impressions) always preceded another this did not prove that the first event caused the second?
B.) How did he come to believe that the constant conjunction of two events built up the expectation in him that the second event would take place after the first?
C.) How did he come to believe that the constant conjunction of two events built up in him the expectation that the second event would take place after the first and was nothing more than a strong belief or habit of mind?
D.) How did he come to believe that one could never prove there were causal connections among impressions?
Before we explore that, it must be noted that Hume believed that all knowledge came from experience and all experience existed only in the mind as individual units of experience. Whatever a person directly experienced was nothing more than the contents of his own consciousness, or mind.
3.) Building on the aforementioned
A-D was knowledge that came from his own experience. This experience existed in his mind only as individual units of experience. Whatever he directly experienced was nothing more than the contents of his own consciousness or mind.
3.) effectively undermines 1.) How?
A-D was knowledge that came from his own experience, and this experience existed in his mind only as individual units of experience. Whatever he directly experienced was nothing more than the contents of his own consciousness or mind.
What say you?
I think Mr. Hume can rest comfortably.
As in math, all arguments are based on axioms and postulates, none of which are listed.
The bottom line of this refutation is that since individual consciousness and experience of humans beings is not identically the same, a gazillion different realities are possible, and no absolutes exist.
Sounds like a "point-of-a-pin" foundation for the justification of perversions, in a fancy dress.
think later
Describing how Hume might have come to believe his account of causation does not suffice to refute his account of causation.
I believe that you are attempting to paint this with a broad brushstroke. A hasty generalization indeed.
Just because this is a refutation of Hume's attack on the principle of causality does not necessarily mean that one can extrapolate from this and come up with what you said.
This refutation serves only to bring about mutual destruction of both. If Hume's attack undermines the principle of causality, then this refutation undermines his attack.
Point of a pin? A mischaracterization.
And no, I'm not laying a foundation for the justification of perversions in a fancy dress.
Ad Hominem......
Look again at 1.) Re-read it.
Read the rest then - Look at 1, 2 and 3.
He can't prove 1.) when 3.) (his own ideas/beliefs) come into play to negate it.
Better yet...
Scroll down to where you find D.)
Everything after that (which includes some of Hume's other thought/ideas) effectively negates 1.)
If every challenge of a silly idea or concept is characterized as ad hominem, we are in really big trouble.
Might as well throw racist and homophobic into the mix, and elevate it to its purest intellectual form.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.