Some Solid Ideas

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Now
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Some Solid Ideas

Post by Philosophy Now » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:08 am

Bharatwaj Iyer examines substance with the help of Hume & Vedantic philosophy.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Some_Solid_Ideas

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by A_Seagull » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:12 am

Philosophy Now wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:08 am
Bharatwaj Iyer examines substance with the help of Hume & Vedantic philosophy.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Some_Solid_Ideas
Bharatwaj states: " But here Hume begs the question, by assuming that everything that exists must be perceivable to sense experience. "

Just wondering if the author has a reference for this? Or how does the author infer that Hume assumed this?

I am just dubious that such a careful thinker as Hume would make an assumption like this.

Impenitent
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by Impenitent » Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:29 pm

Hume was an empiricist

-Imp

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by A_Seagull » Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:35 pm

Impenitent wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:29 pm
Hume was an empiricist

-Imp
Is that supposed to be an explanation?

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by RCSaunders » Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:08 am

Philosophy Now wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:08 am
Bharatwaj Iyer examines substance with the help of Hume & Vedantic philosophy.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Some_Solid_Ideas
Plato, Hume, and Kant thrust more wrong ideas into the corpus of philosophy than any others. The world of philosophy still suffers from the infection of Platonic realism.

Anything that exists is what it is because it has the attributes (qualities, characteristics) it has. A things attributes do not make a thing what it is, its attributes are what it is. The attributes of existents do not exist independently of the existents they are the attributes of.

There is no mystical, "substance," to which attributes are applied, impressed on, or adhere in.

Impenitent
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by Impenitent » Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:09 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:35 pm
Impenitent wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:29 pm
Hume was an empiricist

-Imp
Is that supposed to be an explanation?
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html

-Imp

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by A_Seagull » Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:50 am

Impenitent wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:09 am
A_Seagull wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:35 pm
Impenitent wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:29 pm
Hume was an empiricist

-Imp
Is that supposed to be an explanation?
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html

-Imp
I'll take that as a 'no'.

PeteJ
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by PeteJ » Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:02 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:50 am
Impenitent wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:09 am
A_Seagull wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:35 pm


Is that supposed to be an explanation?
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html

-Imp
I'll take that as a 'no'.

Surely noting that Hume was an empiricist does in fact explain his view of what exists. What exists is what can be observed empirically, where empiricism means a reliance on sensory data.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by A_Seagull » Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:41 am

PeteJ wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:02 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:50 am
I'll take that as a 'no'.

Surely noting that Hume was an empiricist does in fact explain his view of what exists. What exists is what can be observed empirically, where empiricism means a reliance on sensory data.
Here is more of the quote from the article: " But here Hume begs the question, by assuming that everything that exists must be perceivable to sense experience. Why must it? Nor will it do to concede to its existence but deny knowledge of it. For if you concede the existence of something that you cannot perceive, you must also concede that you have knowledge of it in some way other than perception."

I conclude that Hume does not 'beg the question'. And the author is incorrect in stating : " For if you concede the existence of something that you cannot perceive, you must also concede that you have knowledge of it in some way other than perception." for it is perfectly acceptable to make inferences from that which is perceived to that which is not directly perceived. For example if I put a book in a drawer, I can still have confidence of its existence even though I cannot perceive it directly.

Skepdick
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:45 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:41 am
And the author is incorrect in stating : " For if you concede the existence of something that you cannot perceive, you must also concede that you have knowledge of it in some way other than perception." for it is perfectly acceptable to make inferences from that which is perceived to that which is not directly perceived. For example if I put a book in a drawer, I can still have confidence of its existence even though I cannot perceive it directly.
The author is spot on. Obviously you can perceive a book in you drawer - you remember putting it there, and if you doubt your own memory you can always perform the "examine drawer" experiment.
You could even conceive the existence of a shoe in my fridge. Because shoes and fridges are familiar concepts to you.

But you can't conceive of the tilmorg in my drawer.

You may well have confidence in the existence of tilmorg, because I am a trustworthy and wouldn't lie to you, but you have a concept for it.

Impenitent
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by Impenitent » Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:55 am

Seagull, you are correct, Hume does not beg the question...

Hume's notion of existence and subsequent perception is only in the moment...

new moment, new existence

-Imp

(There is far more to Hume's philosophy than Bharatwaj's argument presents)

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by A_Seagull » Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:03 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:45 am
A_Seagull wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:41 am
And the author is incorrect in stating : " For if you concede the existence of something that you cannot perceive, you must also concede that you have knowledge of it in some way other than perception." for it is perfectly acceptable to make inferences from that which is perceived to that which is not directly perceived. For example if I put a book in a drawer, I can still have confidence of its existence even though I cannot perceive it directly.
The author is spot on. Obviously you can perceive a book in you drawer - you remember putting it there, and if you doubt your own memory you can always perform the "examine drawer" experiment.
You could even conceive the existence of a shoe in my fridge. Because shoes and fridges are familiar concepts to you.

But you can't conceive of the tilmorg in my drawer.

You may well have confidence in the existence of tilmorg, because I am a trustworthy and wouldn't lie to you, but you have a concept for it.
What makes you believe that there is a 'tilmorg' in your drawer?

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by A_Seagull » Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:32 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:03 am
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:45 am
A_Seagull wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:41 am
And the author is incorrect in stating : " For if you concede the existence of something that you cannot perceive, you must also concede that you have knowledge of it in some way other than perception." for it is perfectly acceptable to make inferences from that which is perceived to that which is not directly perceived. For example if I put a book in a drawer, I can still have confidence of its existence even though I cannot perceive it directly.
The author is spot on. Obviously you can perceive a book in you drawer - you remember putting it there, and if you doubt your own memory you can always perform the "examine drawer" experiment.
You could even conceive the existence of a shoe in my fridge. Because shoes and fridges are familiar concepts to you.

But you can't conceive of the tilmorg in my drawer.

You may well have confidence in the existence of tilmorg, because I am a trustworthy and wouldn't lie to you, but you have a concept for it.
What makes you believe that there is a 'tilmorg' in your drawer?

And if you think that Hume is 'begging the question'.. then what question is he begging and how?

Skepdick
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:31 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:03 am
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:45 am
A_Seagull wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:41 am
And the author is incorrect in stating : " For if you concede the existence of something that you cannot perceive, you must also concede that you have knowledge of it in some way other than perception." for it is perfectly acceptable to make inferences from that which is perceived to that which is not directly perceived. For example if I put a book in a drawer, I can still have confidence of its existence even though I cannot perceive it directly.
The author is spot on. Obviously you can perceive a book in you drawer - you remember putting it there, and if you doubt your own memory you can always perform the "examine drawer" experiment.
You could even conceive the existence of a shoe in my fridge. Because shoes and fridges are familiar concepts to you.

But you can't conceive of the tilmorg in my drawer.

You may well have confidence in the existence of tilmorg, because I am a trustworthy and wouldn't lie to you, but you have a concept for it.
What makes you believe that there is a 'tilmorg' in your drawer?
I put it there.
A_Seagull wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:32 am
And if you think that Hume is 'begging the question'.. then what question is he begging and how?
Exactly the same question I am begging of you right now. Do you have confidence in the existence of tilmorg even though you cannot perceive or conceive it?

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Some Solid Ideas

Post by A_Seagull » Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:16 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:31 am
A_Seagull wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:03 am
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:45 am

The author is spot on. Obviously you can perceive a book in you drawer - you remember putting it there, and if you doubt your own memory you can always perform the "examine drawer" experiment.
You could even conceive the existence of a shoe in my fridge. Because shoes and fridges are familiar concepts to you.

But you can't conceive of the tilmorg in my drawer.

You may well have confidence in the existence of tilmorg, because I am a trustworthy and wouldn't lie to you, but you have a concept for it.
What makes you believe that there is a 'tilmorg' in your drawer?
I put it there.
A_Seagull wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:32 am
And if you think that Hume is 'begging the question'.. then what question is he begging and how?
Exactly the same question I am begging of you right now. Do you have confidence in the existence of tilmorg even though you cannot perceive or conceive it?
Of course not!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests