You've not read Nietzsche much at all if ever. — Vaskane

That is a wrong assumption. I did read "The Birth of Tragedy", and some other books. I felt they are more literature than philosophy, so packed them in.

Blind faith is a badly worded concept unfortunately. It sounds anti reason and intelligence and anti understanding which is against the reason, logic and evidence, which are what the traditional philosophy is all about. I cannot accept, blind faith or blind anything can give me any knowledge or concept.

I haven't read Nietzsche for many years, so I would find him alien even to read the titles of his books these days. Nietzsche was a good writer, but his writings don't have logical arguments for what he asserts, hence I am not sure if he qualifies as a rational philosopher.

hmmm I am not sure what freewill of Nietzsche has got to do with what we were talking about. I would have been lost for the relevance rather than translation.

Philosophy is the shaping and creation of human all too human concepts, in which we have a certain blind faith. For example that "I" comes from "It" specifically that a thought comes when it wishes and not when "I" wish, so that it's a falsification of the facts to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." It is merely an assumption, an assertion, in no way an "immediate certainty." — Vaskane

It seems to me that you are asserting that your "I" is coming from "It", and it is not from your "thought", but from the "certain blind faith."
Isn't it what you meant?

I don't have a primary language as such because I do speak a several different languages, and English is just one of them. Are you sure you have written down the sentence clearly?

Who or what makes the certain blind faith that thought wishes to think, but not "you"?

From the pimple of wealth that grew from the Apollonian sprang Dionysian post modernism. — Vaskane

It takes at least 100 years for the schools of philosophy to be formally understood and accepted as the true philosophy.

The new age trends keep get forgotten, and abandoned by the interlocutors and followers, but the true philosophical issues get discussed, and rise repeatedly after the centuries and centuries of time.

If one is into blind faith for something, then there is no point in trying to persuade him to be analytic, rational and objective, because it is not going to be easily accepted or agreed. Blind faith is for religious beliefs, but not for philosophical beliefs or arguments.

Just to explain how our belief works and arises by nature. OK, you can believe in something without reason or ground, but we call it "blind faith", which can be dangerous thing to have.

If not certain or unsure about anything, then don't hesitate to doubt until obtaining the evidence for ye or ne - that is what Hume would say. I think it makes sense, and Hume is a genius.

the skeptic's doubt is the way toward truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :100:

Still curious why anyone needs a reason to believe? Beliefs can be built on faith and thus you don't even have to have any evidence. Simply believe and go from there. — Vaskane

This is a real life example on why I don't believe in the existence of the rusty barbecue rack which has been sitting in the corner of the garden for months anymore.

I put it in the bin, and the bin was emptied by the collection truck a few days ago. Although I have not seen the bin being emptied (because the collection truck comes at 6am in the morning, when I am asleep), I know that's what they do.  And someone brought the bin into the place where it usually sits in the garden.

So, my belief that the rusty barbecue rack doesn't exist anymore is grounded by my imagination and my inductive reasoning that the binman must have emptied the contents of the bin into their truck as they normally do, and took it away to the recycle centre as they normatively do.

Without the ground for the belief, I would still believe, or be unsure about in the existence of the rack, which is not there anymore in reality.

So why would anyone believe in the existence of the rusty barbecue rack or anything in existence blindly or by faith? That doesn't sound right or reasonable at all, and his belief is definitely is groundless and wrong too.

Elon Musk looks he will make a good presidency. He should pack in all the rockets, electric car and twitter X business crap, and run for the next president. Not doing so, would be stupidity.

I suggest you use that fact as a reason to commit them to the flames. — creativesoul

What Hume meant by that would be, do that to the silly comments and words. :nerd:

But the world is not an object; it is merely a euphemism for the totality of possible appearances, from which follows there’s no reason to believe in the existence of it, DUH!!!! because it doesn’t, — Mww

It sounds a signifikant admission. :)

But can the world be the object of a priori knowledge?
— Corvus
I missed that clue, for which there is no excuse. — Mww

Yeah, I was wondering, if the world is not an object, but just a mere concept, then could it be A priori? Because all the livings seem to know their environments pretty well, or get used to it fast for finding food and necessities for their survival as soon as they are born. No one really teach them saying - this is the world for you.

The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’. — I like sushi

You claimed that the point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term "existing". I think this is a substantial and interesting statement. If you could explain why and how it is, and from what evidences and premises that claim has originated, then that would help.
At the present moment, we don't have any of your premises or arguments on your claim. We just have a statement.

Was the answer to your question clearly stated in those quotes? If not, if not, then what's the point of qouting the question? Why answer like that? Normally when one quotes a question, they offer an answer. — creativesoul

I added some explanations for the quotes, because different people might interpret the original quotes differently. You asked the question, and I offered the answers with the quotes and added explanations. If you read any academic papers or commentaries, that's what the authors do. They don't simply copy and past the quotes, and assert the quotes says it all. They always add their interpretations. You could have agreed or disagreed with the interpretations.

I certainly know that the universe existed long before me. I also know that there is no good reason to doubt by thinking that there will no longer be one after I cease to exist. If there are some words written by someone that - after reading them - cause you to doubt any of that, I suggest you use that fact as a reason to commit them to the flames. — creativesoul

Hume didn't just doubt, but offered the arguments on why people believe in the existence of unperceived objects or worlds. If you certainly know the universe existed long before you and, and also you know that there is no good reason to doubt by thinking that there will be no longer after you cease to exist, then Hume was explaining how your beliefs arise in your mind. I think Hume is one of the greatest Philosophers in history.

How is the existence of an outside world a silly question? It is quite the recurrent question in the history of philosophy. — Lionino

:clap: :100:

So, you've said a lot since I last posted. I wonder if you saw Hume's answer to the question you've posed? — creativesoul

I posted 2x quotes from Treatise of Hume, and also added some explanations to them on how the belief arises on the existence of the External Word / Bodies.

According to Hume, either our perception of fact and/or our memory thereof are reason to believe that the world exists even when we're not perceiving it. — creativesoul

I agree with you points, although personally I feel also our memory and inductive reasonings in some degree play part working with imagination for invoking beliefs in the existence of unperceived existence.

Paul Russell seems to suggest the above part of Hume's Scepticism links to Hume's theory of Religion i.e. The proof in existence of God later in Treatise. (The Riddle of Hume's Treatise, 2008 OUP, pp.168, Paul Russell)

It seems like special pleading to believe in the existence of your brain but not in the existence of a cup that you cannot see. It is reasonable to believe in either the existence of both or the non-existence of both. So I think you need to either accept materialism or commit fully to idealism. — Michael

Great points :up: I will think it over, and will get back to you for any points or questions. Thanks. :pray:

it’s defined well enough as a concept, but I’d agree it’s not well-defined as an object. — Mww

How do you define objects separate from concepts?

but there is reason to believe in the totality of possible appearances the conception “world” represents. — Mww

What is the reason? :)

My belief on the existence and working of the brain, which I have never seen is based on the information I have read from the books and Biology classes in the school.
This is a belief in different type, nature and form on its foundation.

The cup that I am not seeing, but believing in its existence or not, is based purely on the visual perception, when seeing. When not seeing, it is based on the other beliefs and reasonings.

They are different type of cases.

Yes, I do accept the brain is the biological organ where all the mental events happens. But at the same time, brain is the blackbox i.e. we don't know how it is connected to our perceiving the cup, or the details of its workings for the perception.

Yes, I do agree we are seeing the cup, when there is a cup in front of us.
But the question was what is your belief in the existence of the cup when not seeing it i.e. if you have gone away for a few hours or even days, but you think about the cup (maybe the cup was gold plated on the handle with some messages from your friend which was a present), do you have reasons to believe the cup is still existing as it was when not seeing it? If you do, what makes that belief justifiable?

Do you actually mean that there is no reason or do you just mean that the reasons given are inadequate? — Michael

The latter was the answer. But there would be the cases where the extreme inadequacy is similar or identical to nothing.

Of course. If I didn't, I couldn't interact with it. I would be in a coma. Even if you are sleeping or under drugs or hallucinating you interact with the world: a simple noise can affect your dreaming or what you are thinking. — Alkis Piskas

What I meant was, if you believe in what you are perceiving is the world, but the world is actually including all the celestial objects, microbiological molecules as well as all the countries on the earths, the planets .... etc etc, then are you not in some sort of illusion that you are perceiving the world, when what you are thinking of the world is, perhaps your rooms, kitchen, a patch of sky outside your house, some roads and streets, which are perhaps less than trillionth of a dust in size compared to the actual world?

This is too vague a question. It has to be put in some context because the world --even as philosophic subject-- can have different meanings. And it's a question for a topic of its own.
But for the sake of the current discussion, I believe that we must restrict the meanings of the term to be the physical universe, also called the physical world. — Alkis Piskas

Exactly and absolutely ! Hence I asked you the previous question, which you appeared to have answered with confidence i.e. when you are conscious, you obviously perceive the world. Are you really perceiving the world? Or have you been perceiving less than a trillionth of a dust in the size of the world?

Of course it has. I commented on your saying "when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world". Isn't perceiving directly connected with consiousness? Can I perceive without being conscious? And vice versa: isn't consiousness a state and ability to perceive? — Alkis Piskas

I don't see how being conscious is enough to perceive all the objects around you. Being conscious could mean simply being awake without particularly perceiving, feeling or thinking about anything. For perceiving something, of course you must be conscious, but you also need to apply your intentionality to the object you perceive.

At this point, I'm just wondering it by "you" you mean "we" or "everyone". That is, questioning the existence of the world if no one perceives it, that the words exists in our minds only, etc. These are of course classic questions that divide whole systems and schools of philosophy. — Alkis Piskas

You are saying that you believe in the existence of the unperceived object, but still not giving any reason or ground for the belief.

This is what you are asking since tjhat start of your description of the topic. And, for one more time, I countered it with the question: "What are your reasons for not believing in the cup inexistence anymore?". One has just to think which of the two is more reasonable. — Alkis Piskas

If you are totally open minded about all the possibilities that can happen to the unperceived existence, be it a tree, or a cup you have seen before, then you don't have reason (or you have less reason - depending on the situations) to believe it is still existing while not perceiving it.

Think of a case that a long time (a few years) has passed since you perceived the object, then you might not even be sure if you actually saw the cup or tree or not. Your memory will fade away, and you have every reason to doubt the credibility of your own memory too. So it would be rational to have the doubt on the existence of the unperceived object or world.

Anyway, since I see that this can go on for ever, I believe it is better to end it here. I hope you agree. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

But you have not answered any of the questions from the agreed point of view. Most of your answers seem to have been based on the subjective concept of the world. Therefore we have not moved much forward from where we started. :)

Which did you know first, the video or Kant’s cosmological idea?

I’ve adjusted my response: you are correct in that there is no reason to believe in the existence of the world when not perceived, under two conditions. First, iff perception is taken as Hume intended, and second, iff the world is taken as a transcendental idea.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks along those lines these days. Doesn’t make you any less correct, or the dialectic any less interesting, but perhaps does question the relevance. — Mww

I only came across the video a day or so ago. I thought it was an interesting video, because the presenter has Phd in Philosophy of Science, but rejects the existence of the actual world, and he talks about why there is no actual world. The argument is reasonable, which is similar to one I had.

This thread has become not just Hume or Kant's views and arguments on the topic i.e. the world, existence and beliefs, but also general survey of these concepts. So, yes we were discussing Kant and Hume when someone raised the issue with them, I was responding to them while exploring the concepts and also the title "What are your reasons and grounds for believing in the existence of the unperceived world / object?"

There is a clear difference between "the world" and "the external objects" too such as cups or trees. The world is still undefined concept. And trying to have some sort of agreed object concept of the world would be ideal for the discussions too. Some folks seem to think they are all the same, but I feel they are all different, but I have been trying interact with the same level of perspectives rather than rejecting their points on the basis of being irrelevant.

What do you think of this video? Any thoughts?

"The world" is simply every direct experience of what appears to be any physical sensation from any sense organ. This is opposed to and contrast with purely analytical knowledge held within the mind. — PL Olcott

But isn't that a case of solipsism? Does it mean that someone who lost sensibility in his sense organ has no world? Therefore he doesn't have the world, but also without the world, he doesn't exist anymore in the world?

Isn't objectivity one of the properties of the world? There is no point talking about someone's closed private world as the actual objective world, is there?

How can you not perceive the world if you are conscious?
And, if you are not conscious (sleeping or unconscious in any way), then no question can be is raised as to whether you believe anything or not. — Alkis Piskas

Are you sure what you are perceiving is the world? What is the world?
The point is not to do with being conscious or not. The point is, what is your ground / reason for believing in the existence of unperceived world / object.

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? — Alkis Piskas

For not to believe in the existence of the cup anymore, if you have a likely reason for the cup's non existence, it it natural to doubt on its existence of course. But here the point is that, you are not given that reason. The only given situation is that the cup is not perceived because you are not seeing it, or you cannot see it.

So, as I see the thing is that you do have reasons --in fact, a lot-- to believe that the cup still exists. — Alkis Piskas

What are your reasons believing in the cup still keep existing as the cup, when you are not seeing it anymore?

Of every category that can possibly be there are no categories where the world does not exist. — PL Olcott

Can you define your concept of the world? For instance, what colour is the world?

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

Any supporting quotes from CPR for these points?

The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’. — I like sushi

It sounds interesting. But need more elaboration and explanation.

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

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?

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

Could you please clarify this statement with elaboration? Thanks.

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

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.

I am also interested in further analysing the concept of "The World" and "Belief" too. Along with "Existence", there seem to be good amount of philosophical discussions on the concepts which will help in understanding the topic "Reasons to believe in the existence of the unperceived world" in purely exploratory attempts, rather than declaration or presumption on anything.

Again it sounds lacking logical thinking and objective evidences on the claim.
— Corvus

Why? How? — 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.

They do not. Many think he meant noumenon as some ‘other world’. — 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.

When one is like that, I have serious doubts on the fact, that if he would even know what he is asserting to know on his side that he has been asserting to be the case.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

Yes, everyone knows Kant's phenomenon and noumenon. Depending on the commentators of Kant, the interpretations are different. Bring some relevant quotes with arguments, if you want make your own points.

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

This sounds too pre-judgemental and dismissive without relevant through arguments or evidences. Why should anyone take this point seriously?

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

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.

Also, what do you ‘actually’ mean by ‘exist’? — I like sushi

That is another interesting concept I am going to explore in this thread.

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

Ok, here is Hume's account of the way our belief generates for the existence of continuous existence of the external world (bodies).

In Treatise, Hume clearly says that the belief in the contiguous existence of bodies emanates from the faculty of imagination, not by the senses or reason. The faculty of imagination triggers the belief by the properties of our impressions namely, constancy and coherence.

Constancy of impression in the perception of the tree is, that which gives the impressions of the tree resembling as constant shapes in each of the perceived impression. The perception of the tree comes into the mind as the same constant shape of the tree, never in the shape of a table or chair or cup.

"I survey the furniture of my chamber; I shut my eyes, and afterwards open them; and find the new perceptions to resemble perfectly those, which formerly struck my senses. This resemblance is observed in a thousand instances, and naturally connects together our ideas of these interrupted perceptions by the strongest relation, and conveys the mind with an easy transition from one to another. An easy transition or passage of the imagination, along the ideas of these different and interrupted perceptions, is almost the same disposition of mind with that in which we consider one constant and uninterrupted perception. It is therefore very natural for us to mistake the one for the other.[5]" (T. 1.4.2.35 / pp.204)


Coherence of impression are the continuous impression of the same object, when not perceived, but due to the resemblance and temporal connectivity of the impressions, the perceiver can invoke his belief that the object was the same object that he perceived even after extended time of not perceiving it.

"Bodies often change their position and qualities, and after a little absence or interruption may become hardly knowable. But here it is observable, that even in these changes they preserve a coherence, and have a regular dependence on each other; which is the foundation of a kind of reasoning from causation, and produces the opinion of their continued existence. When I return to my chamber after an hour's absence, I find not my fire in the same situation, in which I left it: But then I am accustomed in other instances to see a like alteration produced in a like time, whether I am present or absent, near or remote. This coherence, therefore, in their changes is one of the characteristics of external objects, as well as their constancy." (T. 1.4.2.19 / pp.195)

When Hume sees the fire burning in his chamber, he receives the impression of
ABCDEFGH
But when he makes trip to outside and come back to the chamber, and see the fire, he gets
XXXXXIJKLM ..Z

X = unperceived impressions
A - Z (except X) = perceived impressions

XXXXX is the impressions unobserved while Hume was out the chamber.  For Hume they are the  beliefs in the existence of the contiguous unperceived fire stimulated by the impression H, the last impression he perceived before leaving the chamber.  The impression H invokes the idea of coherence in Hume's impression from the temporal relation which gives the ground for belief that I is the consecutive impression of the fire.

This explicatory idea is from Hume on Knowledge by Harold W. Noonan, and I was trying to reiterate from my own understanding of his explanation. I hope it makes sense.

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

I read that Enquiries had been written after his Treatise to give his mitigated opinion on his scepticism propounded in Treatise. I recall that was what some of the later commentators such as H.H. Price says of Hume's scepticism.

Price points out that Hume reduced the amount of writings on his skepticism in Enquires, and it is regrettable that Hume had done that i.e. Hume could have added more details and depths into his arguments on this theory of Scepticism regarding Senses and External World. If he had done that, he could have firmly established himself as a great philosopher in Theory of Knowledge, Scepticism and even in Phenomenology.

What I read in Treaise gives the impression of Hume sounding sceptical, but even in Treatise, he keeps writing in the tone of undecided manner in siding between scepticism or common sense philosophy. He even says "this vain to ask whether there is a body or not in the external world."

I find his individual sentences in the writings of Treatise and Enquiry clear and in accurate for his points, but the way he put down, as if he is agreeing with the extreme scepticism in one part of the books, and then would deny what he said previously sounding mitigated sceptic, and in some other parts he sounds like there is not point even asking the question on the belief in the existence of external world. That is difficult to grasp, and challenging if not deceptive to find out or pinpoint. Maybe it was his intention to be not fully committed to one way or the other, appearing to be remaining elusive on taking sides on either scepticism or common sensical philosophy.