Hume: No Tits from Is

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just as Hume's 'No Oughts from Is' Hume also argued,
there are 'No Tits from Is' i.e.
no things-in-themselves [tits] from is.

For Hume whatever is real and empirical matter-of-fact is confined to whatever is experienced.
Whatever is 'ought to' and things-in-themselves [thing-in-itself, noumenon] are rationalized from impressions and sensations via the memory and imagination. They are no real empirical matter-of-fact.

Those [PH and likes] who claimed their matter-of-facts or fact as a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs, and the like are inferring the existing of things that are beyond the empirical experiences. Such inferences are grounded on an illusion.

Hume central Principle is this;
https://iep.utm.edu/hume/#H2

• All PERCEPTIONS are derived from the following
  
  A. Impressions
  -1. Of sensation (external) - external world, Unknown causes
  -2. Of reflection (internal) – From Ideas [..B] in a certain way
  
  B. Ideas – from Impressions [..A]
  -1. From memory
  -2. From imagination
  ---a. From fancy
  ---b. From Understanding
  -----(1) Involving relations of ideas
  -----(2) Involving matters of fact

Hume's skepticism limits what is "is" strictly to the above and nothing beyond.
As such, Hume's matter-of-fact cannot be,
"matter-of-facts or fact as a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs, and the like" as claimed by PH and philosophical realists.
Hume's Matters of Fact is Unique
posting.php?mode=edit&p=670544

There is no room for Hume's matter-of-fact to be anything else other than the above "is".

Don't even try this 'unknown causes';
-1. Of sensation (external) - external world, Unknown causes

Point is 'sensation' is qualified to the human conditions thus cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions.

"Unknown causes' re Hume is limited to the extent of knowledge during Hume's time [1700s].
Hume stated he will leave it to the "anatomists* and philosophers' to find out what they are.

Now in the modern 2000s, the 'anatomists' referred to are those of the neurosciences and other advanced fields in science.
It is here, were we are still confined to Hume's "is" and enable objective moral facts within the human-based moral FSK with inputs from the modern 'anatomists' from the human-based science-biology FSK.

It is on this basis that there are objective moral facts and moral is objective as conditioned to the human-based moral FSK.

The above is a quick summary of Hume's philosophy, thus no references from Hume's Treatise or Enquiry. Can provide references where necessary.

Discuss?? Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Skepdick]

I think philosophy would benefit from more tits, but that's just me.

[FlashDangerpants]

[Atla]

[Iwannaplato]

Saying that tits are things-in-themselves is objectifying, but it's not just men, for example VA, doing this....

Women are more likely to be picked apart by the brain and seen as parts rather than a whole, according to research published online June 29 in the European Journal of Social Psychology. Men, on the other hand, are processed as a whole rather than the sum of their parts.

"Everyday, ordinary women are being reduced to their sexual body parts," said study author Sarah Gervais, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. "This isn't just something that supermodels or porn stars have to deal with." [6 Gender Myths, Busted]

Objectification hurts
Numerous studies have found that feeling objectified is bad for women. Being ogled can make women do worse on math tests, and self-sexualization, or scrutiny of one's own shape, is linked to body shame, eating disorders and poor mood.

But those findings have all focused on the perception of being sexualized or objectified, Gervais told LiveScience. She and her colleagues wondered about the eye of the beholder: Are people really objectifying women more than men?

To find out, the researchers focused on two types of mental processing, global and local. Global processing is how the brain identifies objects as a whole. It tends to be used when recognizing people, where it's not just important to know the shape of the nose, for example, but also how the nose sits in relation to the eyes and mouth. Local processing focuses more on the individual parts of an object. You might recognize a house by its door alone, for instance, while you're less likely to recognize a person's arm without the benefit of seeing the rest of their body.

If women are sexually objectified, people should process their bodies in a more local way, focusing on individual body parts like breasts. To test the idea, Gervais and her colleagues carried out two nearly identical experiments with a total of 227 undergraduate participants. Each person was shown non-sexualized photographs, each of either a young man or young woman, 48 in total. After seeing each original full-body image, the participants saw two side-by-side photographs. One was the original image, while the other was the original with a slight alteration to the chest or waist (chosen because these are sexualized body parts). Participants had to pick which image they'd seen before.

In some cases, the second set of photos zoomed in on the chest or waist only, asking participants to pick the body part they'd seen previously versus the one that had been altered.

Objectifying women
The results showed a clear schism between the images of men and women. When viewing female images, participants were better at recognizing individual parts than they were matching whole-body photographs to the originals. The opposite was true for male images: People were better at recognizing a guy as a whole than they were his individual parts.

People were also better at discerning women's individual body parts than they were at men's individual body parts, further confirming the local processing, or objectification, that was happening. [Cleavage Countdown: 8 Facts About Breasts]

"It's both men and women doing this to women," Gervais said. "So don't blame the men here."

[Iwannaplato]

Just as Hume's 'No Oughts from Is' Hume also argued,
there are 'No Tits from Is' i.e.
no things-in-themselves [tits] from is

So, he was an antirealist about morals and an antirealist about ding an sich.

Or as I like to describe his position:

Philosophy Encompassing Noumena in Skepticism
or
PENIS
for short.

[MagsJ]

[Skepdick]

Just as Hume's 'No Oughts from Is' Hume also argued,
there are 'No Tits from Is' i.e.
no things-in-themselves [tits] from is

So, he was an antirealist about morals and an antirealist about ding an sich.

Or as I like to describe his position:


or
PENIS
for short.

So we have Things In Themselves juxtaposed with Philosophy Encompassing Noumena in Skepticism ?

[Iwannaplato]

Just as Hume's 'No Oughts from Is' Hume also argued,
there are 'No Tits from Is' i.e.
no things-in-themselves [tits] from is

So, he was an antirealist about morals and an antirealist about ding an sich.

Or as I like to describe his position:


or
PENIS
for short.

So we have Things In Themselves juxtaposed with Philosophy Encompassing Noumena in Skepticism ?

Unfortunately men are more likely to come up with more pretentious terms.

[Atla]

Just as Hume's 'No Oughts from Is' Hume also argued,
there are 'No Tits from Is' i.e.
no things-in-themselves [tits] from is

So, he was an antirealist about morals and an antirealist about ding an sich.

Or as I like to describe his position:

Philosophy Encompassing Noumena in Skepticism
or
PENIS
for short.

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

[Iwannaplato]

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.

[Skepdick]

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

The situation would've been dire if he had T-rex arms.

[Iwannaplato]

T-rex arms.

[Impenitent]

T-rex arms.

I wouldn't recommend banging a gong with your tits

-Imp