If you have anything constructive to add to the topic, I would advise you to read at least on Hume or Kant, and bring your own arguments on the points rather than emotionally lashing out to people, please. That would help.Because that I said you are never not perceiving the world? — Pantagruel
No one would agree with you, if you insist that you were interested in this topic and tried to ask or bring your arguments for the thread going on, when you were quoting those posters who are evidently not interested in this topic, and making smirk comments which aren't directly related to this topic. It wasn't helpful, and was clearly unnecessary. That was my impression. If I was wrong or misunderstood you, I do aplogise.How is anything I said emotional? — Pantagruel
No one would agree with you — Corvus
there aren't any compelling grounds to doubt the existence of world.
— 180 Proof
Just so.
Frankly this thread is a manifestation of ↪Ciceronianus's question concerning affectation.
— Banno
That's funny. I said the same thing with respect to the thread on empirical normativity. Which goes to show you that consensus forms an integral component of cognition. — Pantagruel
Given this, there is no way that you will be able to understand Austin. You've just got the perception stuff far too embedded in your thinking. It's a bit sad that you have been so mislead, but them's the breaks. — Pantagruel
That was a reply to some observations made by some other people. It was contextually relevant to their posts and alluded to an interaction on another thread, which isn't uncommon. And yes, I concur with 180 Proof that there isn't any reason to doubt the existence of the world - certainly not more than there would be to doubt your own reasons for doubting it, at any rate.
That clear things up? — Pantagruel
That's funny. I said the same thing with respect to the thread on empirical normativity. Which goes to show you that consensus forms an integral component of cognition. — Pantagruel
As I said, it was a sidebar on a second thread, in which I referred in the same way to a third thread. Anyway... — Pantagruel
This type of message only make the writer sounding like a vulgar who claims reading 1000s of books but with his hands not with the brain in Hume's term."I am sorry for having disturbed your (dogmatic?) slumber. I will let you get back to your ideas now."
~The World — Pantagruel
I would say that, in terms of just evidence for the existence of the world, doesn't it at least seem like you are in an external world? — Bob Ross
What about, for starters, the seeming object permanence (of things)? That seems to suggest, at least, that there is an external world. — Bob Ross
But Hume would say, no mate, when you close your eyes, you don't see the world.
Do you still believe that the world exists? If yes, what is the reason that you believe in it when you are not perceiving it? — Corvus
If nothing exists behind me, how does my turning my head bring things into existence? — Patterner
Because no matter how many times I do the experiment things are always there when I open my eyes again just as I left them when I closed my eyes. If I have something in front of me, I can close my eyes, yet still feel it when I touch it. — Janus
And I believe Charles Darwin's theory provides the answer. — Wayfarer
It's not my premise, and it is unfounded.I think Hume would say, things do exist, but when you are not seeing them, why do you believe them to exist? What is the ground for the belief that they exist when they are not perceived.
So your premise "If nothing exists behind me," sounds unfounded. — Corvus
Hume is asking you what make you to believe in the existence of the things that you are not seeing. — Corvus
Ok, thanks for your explanation.You'll notice I deleted my answer which was made on a whim, although now you've responded I will explain what I meant, which was simply that survival dictates that you better believe there are unseen objects, else you run into them and remove yourself from the gene pool. — Wayfarer
Hume is asking you what make you to believe in the existence of the things that you are not seeing.
— Corvus
I did a term paper on Hume, way back in the day. If you could provide a reference to where he says this I'd be interested, because I don't recall anything like that. — Wayfarer
"we may well ask, what causes us to believe in the existence of body? But 'tis vain to ask, whether there be body or not? That is a point, which we must take for granted in all our reasonings." (Treatise 1978: p.187)I did a term paper on Hume, way back in the day. If you could provide a reference to where he says this I'd be interested, because I don't recall anything like that. — Wayfarer
Yes, that is a different topic, but similar in the principles.What Hume did argue, is that we could not perceive causal relations between events. But that's a different matter. — Wayfarer
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.