Hume: No Tits from Is

[Veritas Aequitas]

With my OP title I am not surprise the above posts.
Anyone with a serious counter to the OP?

[Atla]

With my OP title I am not surprise the above posts.
Anyone with a serious counter to the OP?

But we already know from the title that Hume was so terribly wrong. Anything that denies Tits is an affront to humanity.

[Iwannaplato]

With my OP title I am not surprise the above posts.
Anyone with a serious counter to the OP?

The OP is pointing out that Hume was against metaphysical realism and moral realism.
Peachy.

[Skepdick]

The OP is pointing out that Hume was against metaphysical realism and moral realism.
Peachy.

Is this an innuendo about breast implants?

[Iwannaplato]

The OP is pointing out that Hume was against metaphysical realism and moral realism.
Peachy.

Is this an innuendo about breast implants?

Yes, despite my clear position that the nature/culture dichotomy is artificial, I find myself against implants.

[Atla]

Peachy.

Is this an innuendo about breast implants?

So big and round and soft, and you just want to grab them, those peaches..

[Atla]

Fun fact, Kant originally called it the 'dong an sich' but his editor protested..

LOL. that sounds like something he should have said to a physician.

or was it ding dong an sich? I just remembered this historical footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALUUa-1zUzA

[Iwannaplato]

So, we have a sentence like the following from the OP:

For Hume whatever is real and empirical matter-of-fact is confined to whatever is experienced.

Which should really read, I think: For

Hume whatever is real and empirical matter-of-fact is confined to whatever is experience.

Why do I make the change?
[the following is presuming the idealist/anti-realist stance VA has]
Well, if you use the participle 'experienced' it implies there is a thing that is then experienced, by an experiencer. Some separate thing that gets experienced. But actually, this position entails that there are no separate things. We don't experience things. What we call things are reified out of our experience. We call a portion of our experience a thing, something.

There are no real things. There is just experience. Or experiencing. It may be useful to talk about things, but this is a stopgap trick. Really there are no things that are experienced. There is just experience.

And this would be true of morals. There are not morals, out there, that we can demonstrate to be real. There are patterns of experiencing and even that's reifying.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Within human nature, there is 'experience' 'experiencing' and 'experienced' [retained in memory].

Re this OP in reference to Hume's philosophy,
the default is, there are no absolutely independent things-in-themselves,
thus "whatever is experienced" do not refer to things-in-themselves but rather FSK conditioned things.

It is not necessary to be too pedantic on this matter, but applying a bit of the Principle of Charity would assist in the proper understanding of the writer's intention.

[Iwannaplato]

Within human nature, there is 'experience' 'experiencing' and 'experienced' [retained in memory].

Re this OP in reference to Hume's philosophy,
the default is, there are no absolutely independent things-in-themselves,
thus "whatever is experienced" do not refer to things-in-themselves but rather FSK conditioned things.

It is not necessary to be too pedantic on this matter, but applying a bit of the Principle of Charity would assist in the proper understanding of the writer's intention.

The principle of charity could have noted that 1) my post was not insulting. 2) I did not claim that your position was wrong. 3) it was exploratory. I took the position presented in the OP seriously and tried to see what that would lead to. One can always improve language. Language includes habits based on common sense philosophical positions. Or we could call it folk philosophy. I focused on what the word 'experienced' implies (and not merely possibly). It implies the realist perceiver via perception ----> exeriencing an object. I think a metaphysical antirealism and idealism do not accept the implications of those terms. So, I presented my opinion on better usage.

Somehow this was seen as going against the principle of charity.

As part of the response we have...

"whatever is experienced" do not refer to things-in-themselves but rather FSK conditioned things

Which is more language that implies a subject object split and a realist model of perception. Yes, it's hard to write about these things in language that generally has been made by realists. If I had mocked you, I would have understood your raising the issue of charity. But I didn't.

Perhaps you disagree and there never any point in seeing if there are better ways to word things so that what you would call evolutionary default positions are not muddying the communication. Fine. Ignore the suggestion.

Me, I think it can be useful to see if there are better ways to express things - positions I agree with, positions I don't - because this reduces communication problems. I also think it can make it clearer to all parties what is meant.

In the antirealist/idealist position I have seen there is, in a sense, only experiencing. Or ONLY an empirical reality. There is no nonempirical, unexperienced reality. Reality doesn't GET experienced, which implies it is there, and then someone comes along and experiences it. There is only experience and nothing else. Or experiencing might be a better word since it sounds like a process instead of a noun.

And if one reads my previous response you can see that the entire point of my post was to find a better way to express 'the writer's intention,' which I understood and tried to find words to better express.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above last few posts are mere discussions and exchange of views, no accusations were intended.