Conclusion: it's not possible for us to gain or obtain knowledge about anything that goes beyond our senses, memory and testimony. — Humelover
But here it may be proper to remark, that though our conclusions from experience carry us beyond our memory and senses, and assure us of matters of fact which happened in the most distant places and most remote ages, yet [...]
In a word, if we proceed not upon some fact, present to the memory or senses, our reasonings would be merely hypothetical; and however the particular links might be connected with each other, the whole chain of inferences :wink: would have nothing to support it, nor could we ever, by its means, arrive at the knowledge of any real existence. — Hume, Enquiry, section 37
Had not the presence of an object, instantly excited the idea of those objects, commonly conjoined with it, all our knowledge must have been limited to the narrow sphere of our memory and senses; — 44
Hence likewise the benefit of that experience, acquired by long life and a variety of business and company, in order to instruct us in the principles of human nature, and regulate our future conduct, as well as speculation. By means of this guide, we mount up to the knowledge of men’s inclinations and motives, from their actions, expressions, and even gestures; and again descend to the interpretation of their actions from our knowledge of their motives and inclinations. — 65
What do you think? — Humelover
1. You don't get knowledge of the empirical unobserved by reason or by observation. For example, I cannot tell that the sun will rise tomorrow by thinking about it, and by looking at it. — Humelover
2. Causal inference will be the only way which will give you this knowledge. — Humelover
3. To gain knowledge with the use of causal inference, we have to know causal relations. — Humelover
4. Causal relations could not be known by observation and reason. — Humelover
5. You can't get knowledge of things that are empirical unobserved — Humelover
You don't get knowledge of the empirical unobserved by reason or by observation — Humelover
Hume's skepticism is about how certain knowledge is impossible but we can, in that case, run with tentative knowledge. — TheMadFool
What do you think? Is his sceptical argument valid? And is it sound? — Humelover
“The first proposition he [Hume] advances is that all our ideas,
or weak perceptions, are derivedfrom our impressions, or strong perceptions, and that we
can never think of anythingwhich we have not seen without us, or felt in our own minds.
This proposition seems tobe equivalent to that which Mr. Locke has taken such pains to
establish, viz. that no ideasare innate”. (Cursive by Hume)
“By all that has been said the reader will easily perceive that the philosophy contained in
this book is very sceptical, and tends to give us a notion of the imperfections and narrow
limits of human understanding. Almost all reasoning is there reduced to experience; and
the belief, which attends experience, is explained to be nothing but a peculiar sentiment,
or lively conception produced by habit. Nor is this all; when we believe anything of exter
nal existence, or suppose an object to exist a moment after it is no longer perceived, this
belief is nothing but a sentiment of the same kind. Our author insists upon several other
sceptical topics; and upon the whole concludes that we assent to our faculties, and employ
our reason, only because we cannot help it. Philosophy would render us entirely Pyrrho-
nian, were not nature too strong for it”. — Hume's Abstract, #6 y #27
What do you think? Is his sceptical argument valid? And is it sound? — [b][/b]Humelover
This was my understanding too. Essentially Hume is stating that it is impossible to know what the future will bring. So any knowledge that asserts with certainty of anything beyond the present cannot be true. The only way we could know with certainty, is if we saw the result in the future. Of course, we can't function at all if we don't have some belief that things are repeatable, or that certain rules and laws will remain as such in the future. The lesson is we should always be aware that knowledge is a tentative grasp, and that we can never escape needing some induction about the future in our lives. — Philosophim
Are you, by any chance, referring to the problem of induction? — TheMadFool
But not Hume. Hume's philosophy is an understanding and lack of appreciation for Galilean-Newtonian science. Instead, he starts with modern Aristotle and winds up with Platonic skepticism even of well-justified opinion.Hume himself admits that his theory would be as sceptical as Pyrrho of Elis, the model of all scepticism, if it were not for the fact that nature comes to the rescue of knowledge. How?
Because when you have a rational and universally shared belief it would be absurd to do without it. This is a very simple principle, but it seems to be quite solid. At heart, all science is based on it. — David Mo
Yes. And you are completely correct — Philosophim
knowledge is a tentative — Philosophim
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.