If you loose your sense, never had past experiences of your reality but maintain your own awareness does reality still exist? — SteveMinjares

From the OP

It would be memories of reality, not reality itself.

Freud was a psychologist?

I like W.T. Jones, a five-volume set. He's more modern and readable. Also, he understands his task is not to make a philosopher of you, but to introduce you to philosophers and their thought from the pre-Socratics through the 20th century. In my opinion you can leave modern philosophy strictly alone. In any case to make any headway there you will have to have some grounding in what came before them.

This set, maybe with a good dictionary of philosophical terms, isn't so much to be studied like a bible, but rather read as quickly as possible, with return as necessary. Unfortunately, there is no good history that is free enough of error in itself to be reliable. — tim wood

It seems difficult to get hold of the WT Jones 5 volume set. It is also very expensive.
How about Anthony Kenny's 4 volume History of Western Philosophy?

To me, beauty is just my feeling about something. The feeling, like all other emotions, vacillates through time and circumstances changes.

Meaning doesn't exist in the world anyway. Meaning or meaningless is just one's private mental state about something.

The Red Books by C. G. Jung.

Under that supposition, even ceasing the pursuit of earthly achievements would be meaningless.

Some irrationality is rational. For example, fear of death.

One is not dead yet, so it would be irrational to be fearful of death.
But one will eventually be dead one day, so it is rational to be fearful of upcoming death.

This type of irrationality is a human condition as temporal being.

I feel that NDE is not enough evidence to support claims of life after death. I have not read much about NDE as such, but it sound to me some sort of illusory effect of mind. Anyhow, we never hear about any life returning to this world after their death. It only once supposed to have happened and recorded in the Bible, but it is just writings about it. No body has seen or heard returned Jesus in this world.

Yes, I was able to download and view the PDF link. It seems a wonderful book. Thank you.

I can see your point, and fully agree with you about the Newtonian methods and Humean approach.
It woke me up from a slumber in that regard in Hume studies. Thanks.

So what is the actual Newtonian Method that Hume have adopted to study human nature?
How could principles of natural science be applied for study of mental workings of human nature?

Are there some examples of the actual methods being applied in the discourse of the Treatise and Enquiries?

Sorry but the link wouldn't let me download the document because my ipad had no MS Word.

Wow great debate on Hume.

I read someone in the previous posts said that Hume opposed to Newtonian Science? Is that justified comment? Because I also read from a book that Hume's whole purpose of writing the Treatise was studying and finding about human nature using Newtonian Scientific methods.

I think suffering is negative experience for life. It could destroy the soul of the sufferer, and it is not pleasant to have any type of suffering.

Good life is about having longest and most possible comfort and joy. Hence I would say suffering is harmful and inherently meaningless.

Hume is unique among philosophers in being more understandable himself than through any of his commentators. Just read Hume. Not that there's any shortage of folks discussing him.

And here's a little sideshow. — unenlightened

That's great resource links for David Hume studies. Thank you.

This might be helpful. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, that's great information too. Thanks.

Yes, Kaufman seems good readability. The other copy with Tillie's translation was in archaic English like that of antique Bible.

Maybe I will need commentaries too? Even Kaufman sounds very poetic rather than Philosophic.

Can word Existence apply to God? Existence only applies to things with spatial property. Isn't God supposed to be a transcendental being outside the realm of existence, reason and perception?

In that case, the question is invalid?

Well, and this is definitely not Spinoza's position, if you thought you could prove that the Abrahamic God exists exactly as described in the Torah and New Testaments, then the answer to the question "How should one live?" would be answered by appealing to the laws handed down directly from that god to human beings via Moses. So that would be one possible link between the questions "Is there a God?" and "How should one live?". Spinoza had a different conception of what God was, but he seems to think also that certain ways of living are to be preferred over others because they align more with the nature of the God that he supposed he had proved the existence of. I cannot possibly do justice to Spinoza's Ethics in a mere philosophy forum, and ultimately you'll have to answer for yourself the question "What, if any, moral implications follow from particular metaphysical systems?" — jkg20

How should we live = Doesn't this also trigger problem of Free will? Are we supposed to have freewill? Does Christian God allow us freewill? Or which God allows us freewill? Isn't everything mapped out for us?

Before talking about whether God exists, one must define what God is?

Another thing is that you don't know if death and aftermath might be worse than living.

Woke Kantians understand that the thing-in-itself is just another name for God. — Thorongil

Does he think that it should be worshiped?

I'm not sure why Spinoza chose the title "The Ethics" for his work, but it is above all a work of metaphysics. As far as I understand him, though, he believes that his metaphysical system actually entails ethical conclusions, and I think he was of the Socratic position that all philosophy was ultimately aimed at answering one question: how ought one to live? — jkg20

How one should live? and if God exists? What's the relation?

a variation of the Ontological Argument in The Ethics

Ethics deals with Right and Wrong usually. Why are the ontological arguments related to Ethics?

Who would you recommend? I am interested in both and all sides of arguments.

In fact, I was even wondering if I had to learn Greek too, because recently I was reading Iamblicus, and in that book, the author was using a lot of Greek words in Greek alphabet. I couldn't read them, and felt very limited and frustrated at the time.

Hegel's

Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion vol.1

To me, pessimism is a type of realism.

The point in this question is not the Moon, but the word ËXIST".

If no one is looking at the Moon, the word ËXIST' has no meaning. Hence the Moon has no meaning either in that case.

Thank you. Kind regards :)

Because you have not managed to forgot some of your past. If you did, you can't.

The word ëxist"only exists, if we did exist. So with none of us, no one could have asked that question.

Consciousness could access all parts of mental activity and state, not just memory but also imagination, various emotions and inference for the future events too.

Usually WHY, HOW and WHAT is such and such?? = would be philosophical questions.