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

Yes, I agree that he has points in his claims. Hume's writing style is clear to follow, but he definitely says different things on the same point in different parts of his books, which can give impression perhaps he was trying to be elusive in what his definite position is on being labeled as an extreme sceptic, academic sceptic or just speculative armchair philosopher. Or maybe he wanted to be all three.

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

Here is a youtuber (He has a PhD in Philosophy of Science.), who claims there is no actual world in this video. I have been saying exactly the same things as his arguments somewhere in this thread.

I thought the video interesting in coming across the same arguments laid out by this youtuber philosopher. Just goes to show how the topic can be philosophically rich, deep, diverse and has many aspects of perspectives.

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

Isn't it a case that we went to invoke the antinomies of pure reason due to your queries - "how that even came to be a question?"

The statement "The world exist." should it not be dissected for the legitimacy and rationality ?
If it is even irrational or illogical to utter the statement, then belief in the existence will be proven to have no ground either.

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

Not me, but Kant seem to have had the idea. I was just a messenger.

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

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.

You will see how Husserl had totally different his own concepts of the world, and existence from Kant's in his Phenomenology.

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

Sure. Fair enough. If you say,

1. This is what you said.
2. But this is the evidence(s) which prove(s) against what you said.
3. Here is the list of the counter evidence(s) E1, E2, E3 ...En, or the supporting quotes (from Hume, Kant or whoever titles of the works, year of the publishing, page of the quotes etc).
4. Therefore your conclusion, claim or point is wrong.
5. And this is what I claim to be the case, truth, point and proofs.

And when I go through all the points submitted in the counter proofs and evidences with close investigations, and were thought to be correct and logically agreeable, then of course, I would be happy to agree with, and concede the counter arguments and proofs as the case, truths or reasonable. I fully welcome, and do appreciate the counter arguments in that form.

But if the counter arguments are in the form of mindless and groundless nonsenses forwarded by folks such as , then I could only interpret them as their meaningless and futile efforts for wasting time. :)

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. But I am sure he describes the way our belief in the unperceived existence of external world generates. I will update on it with the relevant quotes from his Treatise in due course.

Ehhhh, maybe. I’ll have to back check that. But there’s a more exact exposition of why not. See A592/B620 for the groundwork, if you’re so inclined. — Mww

I was reading B446/A420 and B448/A421 in CPR for the part, where Kant says that the World is totality of all appearances in the universe, therefore it is beyond the grasp of Reason. The topic of the World is, therefore subject of Cosmology.

I have edited and updated my answer on the Cartesian proof to be more complete. — Lionino

Thank you. :cool: :pray:

So we are now talking about the ‘existence’ of fictional and hypothetical worlds?

No thanks. I am out.

Only so many liberties we can take with words before gibberish takes over. — I like sushi

No, it is about how our mind and belief works, and how even Science use our belief in non-existing existence and observations as a methodology at times for finding and exploring the universe.

Your rushed and senseless judgement on the point seems to be based on misunderstanding and ignorance on the topic. All the best.

You might be interested in Descartes proof of the outside world, from the MM:

I will conclude that, if the objective reality of any of my ideas is such that I clearly recognize that it is neither formally nor eminently in me and that, consequently, I cannot myself be the cause of it, it necessarily follows that I do not exist alone in the world, but that there is still something that exists and that is the cause of this idea; whereas, if such an idea is not found in me, I will have no argument that can convince me and assure me of the existence of anything other than myself; for I have searched them all carefully and have not, until now, found any. — Lionino

Good point. :up: Thank you for your post, and welcome to TPF.

Can I ask if it would make any sense to believe otherwise? Then if it matters at all if we believe in such an ‘existence’ extraneous to our general sensory interaction as part-of the world (rather than as some disembodied entity). — I like sushi

The belief in the existence of the hypothetical planet Vulcun comes to mind. Sometimes even the Scientist believe in the non-existence of the contiguous external objects when not perceived.

Our belief in the external world and causation are habitual based on the experienced reliable presence of objects and invariance of objects and the observed constant conjunction of events.

What do you think he says? — Janus

You have not even understood the question. The question was not about the external world, but was about the CONTINUAL existence of the external world (when not perceived).

Arguments do not prove anything; they are merely consistent (if valid) with their presupposed premises.
This means that belief in the existence or non-existence of the external world is based on reason, but the premises that reasoning, whether for or against, is based on cannot be certain and are themselves based on abductive speculation (imagination). None of which disagrees with Hume, so it looks to me like it is you who misunderstand Hume. — Janus

Your post sounds like as if you have not read anything on Hume and any messages in this thread with attention.  What does Hume say about  the way our beliefs arise for the continuous existence of the external world?

Ehhhh, maybe. I’ll have to back check that. But there’s a more exact exposition of why not. See A592/B620 for the groundwork, if you’re so inclined. — Mww

Sure, I feel this is one of the interesting points in CPR. Will have read and thoughts, and get back for further discussions and clarifications.

Check this reading group: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13614/reading-group-humes-of-skepticism-with-regard-to-the-senses — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :pray:

What do you want me to do, quote all the places where Hume is wrong? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, doesn't have to be all, but more the merrier of course. But this is good. It gives me good guidance where to look. I am grateful. Thanks.

My take is that the subjective nature of time and space are the cornerstone of the framework. But I don't think he claims that these are 'merely' or 'only' subjective, in the sense of being peculiar to the individual. Rather that they are grounded in the human mind, so, if you like, a kind of 'universal subject' rather than an individual ego. This is where Kant's 'transcendental apperception' is significant ('experience both of the self and its objects rests on acts of synthesis that, because they are the conditions of any experience, are not themselves experienced'). It's an antidote to the kind of hyperbolic objectivity that science is inclined to foster (many argue that it culminates in a kind of hyperbolic subjectivism, although I don't agree with that.)

//ps// and also Hume's scepticism should be mentioned which was principally scepticism of the knowledge of causal relationships. This was the subject of Kant's answer to Hume which is a unit of study in its own right.// — Wayfarer

:up: Interesting points. I am going to go over Kant's view on Scepticism too, after Hume. This post seems giving me insight and guidance where to look in Kant's sea of works. Thanks. I will read your post with attention, and will get back to you if I have any point to add, ask or criticise. :D

You seem to be a master of missing the point. The argument is simply that the existence of the world independently of its being perceived is an inference to the best explanation for our experience. It isn't a proof and doesn't purport to be.

As I read Hume all he was doing was pointing out that inductive and abductive reasoning are not deductively/ logically certain; a move against rationalism. — Janus

I am not sure where you read Hume from, but it doesn't sound as if there is any truth at all in your points.  Therefore I will give it a miss on that. :D

I have a few commentary books on Hume, and all of them have substantial amount of writings on the topic i.e. Hume's scepticism on the External World.  In fact there are a few books devoted to Hume's theory on the External World e.g. by H.H. Price.

Personally I do feel that, Hume's Scepticism on the External World is the most interesting part of his Philosophy, and it has a good amount of arguments and proofs in it. It is not just a 2 line google search results amount as you claim.

Just to give you simple hint or summary of his arguments and proof, his Treatise Hume devotes a full section called "Of the Scepticism with Regards to Senses" to discussion on the Perception of the External World.  He divides his arguments into 2 parts.  One from the Vulgar(Ordinary People)'s point of view, and the Philosopher's point of view for the other.

He argues that the ordinary people believe in the existence of the external world when not perceiving it, and it is based on the idea that the objects have distinct existence from perception. Because objects have distinct existence without perception, the vulgars (ordinary people) believe that the objects have continued existence while not being perceived. And because the objects have continued existence, it is also distinct in existence (i.e. exists without perception)

But in Hume's system for an object to be distinct, it has to be the perception of the object, because all objects are impressions.  Nothing can be perceived without impression, so the distinct object in existence must be an UNOWNED floating impression.   But it is impossible for impressions to be unowned or floating logically.  Hence from Modus tollens,

If CE then DE 
not DE 
therefore not CE

It follows that the vulgars' belief in the existence of the external world is false.

He goes on proving Philosopher's belief in the existence of the external world, and concludes that the belief cannot be based on reason, but imagination.  There are extensive arguments and proofs why this is the case.

Therefore your post seems to have been based on false information of you readings or your misunderstanding on Hume.

is it logically correct in saying "The world exists."?
— Corvus

Might be interesting how that even came to be a question. — Mww

Kant says that the World is totality all appearances in the universe (CPR, Antinomy of Reason), therefore it belongs to the subject of Cosmology. It is illogical to say "the World exists." Because pure reason cannot grasp totality of all appearance in the universe.

it's safer to think that what you won't know can still kill you.
But hey, you won't find any purely deductive disproof of solipsism either. — jorndoe

Sure, I find Hume's argument interesting, which I am going to read further. Whether he was denying the world or not, is not really important for me at all.

It is also interesting to look into more on the concept of "the world" and "existence" and dissect them further. Questions such as, is it logically correct in saying "The world exists."? What does the predicate "exist" entail? What is the definition of the world?, arise as the secondary issues.

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

Ok, thanks for your explanation.

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

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)
He doesn't ask you directly, but he raised the issue, and even if he says "'tis vain to ask", he keeps on analysing the issue extensivey.

What Hume did argue, is that we could not perceive causal relations between events. But that's a different matter. — Wayfarer

Yes, that is a different topic, but similar in the principles.

It's not my premise, and it is unfounded. — Patterner

Ok, fair enough :ok:

And I believe Charles Darwin's theory provides the answer. — Wayfarer

Hume doesn't think reason does it, and he concludes that human instinct and nature, namely imagination forces us to believe in the things while not perceiving them. He seems to think its psychology rather than reasoning make us to believe in the world when not perceiving it.

What would be Darwin's explanation?

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

Yes, this is the point. When you close your eyes, you still believe the things exist. You are even touching them with your hands, claiming, wow these things exist, you are not even seeing them.
Hume is asking you what make you to believe in the existence of the things that you are not seeing.

If nothing exists behind me, how does my turning my head bring things into existence? — Patterner

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.

What about, for starters, the seeming object permanence (of things)? That seems to suggest, at least, that there is an external world. — Bob Ross

Object permanence sounds like a psychological term. I must admit I am not familiar with the concept.  Could you perhaps elaborate on it?

My intention of the OP run was, to investigate more on Hume's account of his skepticism on the External World, and then go to Kant, and see what Kant has to say about skepticism from his Ti,  TD and TII. 

Then looking at Husserl and Phenomenology accounts of the world view. The final part was going to look at the Epistemic account of the world with the digitally extended perception under Embodied Cognition.  That was the plan.  Not sure how well it will progress now, but whatever the case, it was all for self learning, while exchanging views and ideas with the others. :)

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

Yes, I am. I am in the world. Sometimes the world is in my mind, when I am imagining it.

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?

:chin: :roll: :ok:

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

See? You are avoiding / hiding away from the issue. It was the 1st message you posted gave the impression, and then it snowballed into what sounded like a series of emotional explosion. If you had genuine point on the topic, I would presume you could give a good substantial exposition, which clearly you seem lacking.

"I am sorry for having disturbed your (dogmatic?) slumber. I will let you get back to your ideas now."
~The World — 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.

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

What is that got to do with the reason that you believe in the existence of the world? Could you elaborate please?

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

OK, to me this is not a big deal. We are only communicating with language, and language cannot reveal everything in the situation. I saw your out of the blue message (which is not even addressed to me) quoting the posters who showed negativity to this topic previously, and with your surreptitious comments which seemed not related to the topic gave me impression that you had other motive than engaging in the topic in positive manner.

I notice that it was your 1st post in the thread, and it would have been better if you kindly explained what your points in your 1st post was about. I mean those quotes you did, was it necessary? I am still not sure how the quotes are relevant apart from smirk sounding about something I don't understand. What would Austin say about your message?

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

I don't claim to understand Austin. Austin is still in my reading list.

I feel your writing style is not clear, and definitely not proper. Please bear in mind the fact that your quoting randomly the posters in the thread, who has shown their negativity on this topic previously , and making obscure remarks which is not relevant to the discussion appeared unclear in your motive.
I have never come across poster like that before.

This initial post of yours gave me no idea what you were trying to say.

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

How does this relates to the OP?

How is anything I said emotional? — 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.

Because that I said you are never not perceiving the world? — Pantagruel

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.
I don't think you had a least manner or proper arguments on the topic from your postings to be fair.

Think about what this says. "Prove that there is a world". Whatever doubts exist with respect to the existence of the world likewise exist with respect to any proofs which you might append to that. As to believing in the world when not perceiving it, you are always perceiving something. So just because you don't continue to see the back of something when you move to the front is no warrant to believe the back disappeared. If you are completely unconscious, having no cognitions of any kind, it is just as likely that you have ceased to exist as has the world. In fact, the former seems more likely. — Pantagruel

Not sure if this poster has read even single book on Philosophy in his whole life. Sounds like just making random statements on nothing.

I see. I just don’t see how one could definitively prove there is a world—it is just the best explanation of what one is experiencing. — Bob Ross

I agree. We are trying to see the arguments either to prove, disprove or the question is illogical itself. The conclusions will only be evident from good arguments. But still I felt bringing experience to the argument sounded too solipsistic.

And the main topic OP is not to prove the existence of the World. But trying to see the arguments on the reasons for believing in the existence of the world when not perceiving it.

This is an impossible task, because all the direct knowledge we have of anything is a part of that personal experience that you mentioned: you are asking for that which is impossible to attain. — Bob Ross

Science seeks objective knowledge, so does Philosophy too. For the course of achieving the possible objective truths, they apply reasoning, observations, critical analysis on the data and issues. It is not total impossibility although challenging at times.

Hume displays a slightly faulty way of understanding sensation. He thought that we sense the world to be in a specific condition (like a state of existence) at one time, then we sense another condition at a later time, — Metaphysician Undercover

Hume takes the reverse perspective, assuming that we sense the sameness (when we really sense activity), and then he argues that change to the world must be justified by the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good point and interesting analysis. Any relevant quotes from Hume?

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

Sounds like another case of projection defence mechanism. :smirk:

Obviously. But observation is not limited to science alone. The quality of the observations or the focus of observation, or how they're gone about is what defines whether it's scientific or not — Benj96

Obviously, but not necessarily. Bear in mind that some of the greatest scientific discoveries were from random, accidental and leisurely observations too.

Newton's discovery of gravity by watching the apples dropping from the trees, and Flemings discovery of the Penicillin from a mouldy Petri dish come to mind.

This is exactly my point: you can’t claim you are experiencing if there isn’t something which you are experiencing. Whether or not ‘I’ or everyone exists in that world which you experience is, at this stage of the argument, irrelevant. Perhaps I misunderstood your OP, but I thought you were arguing that you don’t believe in any world at all: is that incorrect? — Bob Ross

I am not so sure if having experience is strong evidence for the existence of a world or the world. Because experience is an abscure concept, which is a private mental event.

You may claim that you have experience of something, but how do I know that something was not your fantasy, imagination or dreams?

The OP does not deny the existence of the world, but it is asking for the reasons for believing in the world's existence.  This is a classic philosophical topic which has been discussed since the ancient Greek era.  But OP is most intimately related to Hume's argument and possibly to Kant's Thing-in-Itself as well. (There have been debates on TII whether it is noumena which is unknowable, or is it possible phenomena which is unknowable but conceivable).

So it is not some meaningless topic created by an ailing guy needing a cure like  claimed in his post. 

 The main aim of the OP is how different reasonings are between the traditional philosophers and currently living people in terms of scepticism regarding the existence of the world, and how some individuals perspectives can be different from the others, and trying to learn more about the scepticism in line with Epistemology and Metaphysics topics.

Of course we cannot derive from logic that we need something to experience to experience in the first place: but that is true of virtually everything since logic only pertains to the form of the argument. — Bob Ross

You are correct. Logic doesn't tell you anything. But we apply logical thinkings into these abcure issues trying to come to more certain conclusions. Until we apply the logical thinking with the contents, Logic is not a Logic. ( You might recall that I have been claiming that in the other threads i.e. Logic needs contents to operate as a Logic.)

Epistemically, I think that experience itself presupposed that which is being experienced. — Bob Ross

I think experience is too abscure, and private mental events to qualify as the objective ground for the existence of the world or a world. We are looking for more objective reasons than personal experience for the evidence i.e. you may claim that you have experienced something therefore that something must exit, but why should I trust that claim? The claim is lacking objectivity.

ps: abscure = abstract and obscure

It's more than that. It's actually a philosophical nuance of realism. — L'éléphant

Suppose Camus and Sartre wrote great novels for expressing their philosophical ideas in them.