...it is about how our mind and belief works... — Corvus
That's an 'interesting' thing to say, given the fact that Hume himself clearly admitted having no clue about belief...
...and he was right. He didn't. — creativesoul
Hume's writing can be deceptive in Treatise, and it can be tricky to pinpoint what he was actually trying to say. — Corvus
Nah. He said it plainly. He said he had no idea and you say otherwise about him...
I'll take his word over yours. — creativesoul
is it logically correct in saying "The world exists."?
— Corvus
Might be interesting how that even came to be a question. — Mww
All well and good, but why would you invoke the antinomies of pure reason, especially with respect to cosmological ideas, when the question was only ever to do with believing something? — Mww
Not me, but Kant seem to have had the idea. I was just a messenger.You’ve went and done made the World a cosmological idea for which there is no possibility of any experience, but it started out as a mere totality of possible appearances, any one of which may be a experience. — Mww
This was just Kant's idea. Doesn't mean he has the final words. It was just something to put aside along with the main query to bear in mind how the concepts involved in the topic could be diverse in the directions.So what….we’re just moving here? We’ve left the original query and it’s offspring aside? Fine by me, but you outta warn whoever’s left. — Mww
It seems evident, that men are carried, by a natural instinct or prepossession, to repose faith in their senses; and that, without any reasoning, or even almost before the use of reason, we always suppose an external universe, which depends not on our perception, but would exist, though we and every sensible creature were absent or annihilated. Even the animal creation are governed by a like opinion, and preserve this belief of external objects, in all their thoughts, designs, and actions.
E 12.24, SBN 161-2
There is, indeed, a more mitigated scepticism or academical philosophy, which may be both durable and useful, and which may, in part, be the result of this Pyrrhonism, or excessive scepticism, when its undistinguished doubts are, in some measure, corrected by common sense and reflection.
Hume's writing can be deceptive in Treatise….. — Corvus
The statement "The world exist." should it not be dissected for the legitimacy and rationality ? — Corvus
If it is even irrational or illogical to utter the statement, then belief in the existence will be proven to have no ground either. — Corvus
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 some fact must always be present to the senses or memory, from which we may first proceed in drawing these conclusions. A man, who should find in a desert country the remains of pompous buildings, would conclude, that the country had, in ancient times, been cultivated by civilized inhabitants; but did nothing of this nature occur to him, he could never form such an inference. We learn the events of former ages from history; but then we must peruse the volumes, in which this instruction is contained, and thence carry up our inferences from one testimony to another, till we arrive at the eye-witnesses and spectators of these distant events. 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 would have nothing to support it, nor could we ever, by its means, arrive at the knowledge of any real existence. If I ask, why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.
I think ↪creativesoul got this right. For my part, I don’t think his writing deceptive, as much as just disagreeing with the way he uses his conceptions, which follows from how other philosophers use the same ones.
In the case of the dilemma of existence, on the other hand, which he names as such in T.H.N., it isn’t the dilemma itself that’s disagreeable, but rather, it is the principle he claims as ground for it, insofar as if the principle is inappropriate or misconceived, the dilemma disappears and with it the disagreement. Or, maybe, which is usually what happens, the dilemma just changes its clothes. — Mww
So it is that once World as you use the term is understood as a cosmological idea, it becomes just as illegitimate to believe in its existence, as it is legitimate for Everydayman to believe in the existence of the plain ol’ world of appearances. Kantian dualism run amok, n’est ce pas? — Mww
Hume's own words below. Granted, they are not the admission I was looking for, but they are spot on regarding the OP, and a difference between your report/dependency of/on Hume and Hume. I found that curious... — creativesoul
More Hume pertaining to the OP...
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 some fact must always be present to the senses or memory, from which we may first proceed in drawing these conclusions. — creativesoul
You will see how Husserl had totally different his own concepts of the world, and existence from Kant's in his Phenomenology. — Corvus
Sure, Husserl has totally different concept on the world. He is a Phenomenologist of course. It is interesting to explore how the concepts of the world are different from the individual thinkers. That's the whole point.Husserl ian phenomenology is not at all concerned with what does or doesn’t exist.
Kant basically laid out a distinction of phenomenon and noumenon. Phenomenon are and noumenon are of negative use only, not positive. — I like sushi
This sounds too pre-judgemental and dismissive without relevant through arguments or evidences. Why should anyone take this point seriously?None of this has anything much to do with scientists speculating on actual perceived data. A discrepancy in our understanding leads to conjecture and some are better/luckier than others when it comes to getting more accurate interpretations of said data. — I like sushi
Again it sounds lacking logical thinking and objective evidences on the claim. Please watch the Youtube video above, if you haven't done so already. Please bear in mind that this thread is exploratory rather than declarative.It is likely an obsession with the idea of pure knowledge that has led you down this cul-de-sac. Finite abstractions (such as in mathematics) are items of such pure knowledge. Do they map onto the world we perceive 1 to 1? Impossible to say. Does that mean the world does not exist. — I like sushi
That is another interesting concept I am going to explore in this thread.Also, what do you ‘actually’ mean by ‘exist’? — I like sushi
Sounds like a case of Immaterial idealism. Could it be a Berkelean?The world definitely exists at least as a projection (of what at least appears physical sensations) from one's own mind. The world may have never existed physically. It may be the case that when you close your eyes everything that you were "seeing" ceases to exist until you open your eyes again.
8 hours ago — PL Olcott
Please watch the Youtube video above, if you haven't done so already.[/]
I have. Hence the point about people using and interpreting data.
— Corvus
This is another interesting concept I am going to explore. — Corvus
Yes, everyone knows Kant's phenomenon and noumenon. — Corvus
Again it sounds lacking logical thinking and objective evidences on the claim. — Corvus
The concept "exist" is not a simple term. One can write a PhD thesis with it.I simply asked what you mean by ‘exist’. — I like sushi
You still fail to see the point. The video about the planet Vulcan was to show you how Hume's account on human belief in unperceived objects could be applied as an alternative methodological basis by the Scientist. It was not about Science, and it was not about data, it was not about the world. It was about the Humean account of belief.I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the existence of a planet if certain pieces of data point to its existence. That some believed ‘observed’ such phenomenon needs verification … that failed and the idea was dismissed. — I like sushi
There are Kantian scholars in both far end of the poles on the interpretations i.e. the traditionalists vs. revolutionist. Obviously you are asserting the one sided view only, as if it is the only fact or reality while totally ignoring and being oblivious of the other end of the interpretations.They do not. Many think he meant noumenon as some ‘other world’. — I like sushi
Well, you seem to try to assert some points in your messages, but they don't seem to have flow, or supporting arguments or evidence in logical and reasonable manner, form or writeup. They sound like some personal opinion type of statements lacking informational depth or points.Again it sounds lacking logical thinking and objective evidences on the claim.
— Corvus
Why? How? — I like sushi
Since it is the very point of your thread, the word "existence" even being in the title, I would think it's fairly necessary for you to explain what the word means, at least as it applies to your thread, whether or not it's a simple task.I simply asked what you mean by ‘exist’.
— I like sushi
The concept "exist" is not a simple term. One can write a PhD thesis with it.
Not sure if it is meaningful to ask simply, and answer simply on it. — Corvus
Sure, that was in my plan anyway. I will do some related readings on the concepts. I was looking at the book by Colin McGinn called "Logical Properties", and he is discussing about "Existence" in a whole chapter dedicated to the topic. It looked interesting.Since it is the very point of your thread, the word "existence" even being in the title, I would think it's fairly necessary for you to explain what the word means, at least as it applies to your thread, whether or not it's a simple task. — Patterner
There are Kantian scholars in both far end of the poles on the interpretations i.e. the traditionalists vs. revolutionist. Obviously you are asserting the one sided view only, as if it is the only fact or reality while totally ignoring and being oblivious of the other end of the interpretations. — Corvus
The world definitely exists at least as a projection (of what at least appears physical sensations) from one's own mind. The world may have never existed physically. It may be the case that when you close your eyes everything that you were "seeing" ceases to exist until you open your eyes again.
8 hours ago
— PL Olcott
Sounds like a case of Immaterial idealism. Could it be a Berkelean? — Corvus
How can you not perceive the world if you are conscious?when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world. — Corvus
The question should be rather posed the other way around: Is there a reason why not to believe in the existence of the cup anymore? It may have been stolen in the meantime, but why would that be more probable than still existing? But even if it is stolen, wouldn't it still exist?I do believe in the existence of the cup when I am perceiving it, but when I am not perceiving it, I no longer have a ground, warrant or reason to believe in the existence of it. — Corvus
The question should be rather posed the other way around: Is there a reason why not to believe in the existence of the cup anymore? — Alkis Piskas
Any supporting quotes from CPR for these points?He literally states only in the negative sense. He was trying to be very, very precise which (in various other areas) did cause rise to differing interpretations. — I like sushi
It sounds interesting. But need more elaboration and explanation.The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’. — I like sushi
No one claimed that existing objects are non experienceable. But a suggestion was that experience alone is not enough ground for belief in the existence of the unperceived world. Would you agree?In simplistic terms what exists is open to experience. It is a mind-numbingly obvious thing Kant stated really. That which cannot be known ever is not even a ‘that’ we can refer to in the first place. — I like sushi
Could you please clarify this statement with elaboration? Thanks.The term noumenon is (somewhat ironically) a grasping at the impossible (of ‘negative use’ only NOT something that positively contributes as it is no ‘it’ or ‘that’ … and so on …). — I like sushi
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.