Some Solid Ideas
-
- Posts: 1207
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am
Some Solid Ideas
Bharatwaj Iyer examines substance with the help of Hume & Vedantic philosophy.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Some_Solid_Ideas
https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/Some_Solid_Ideas
Re: Some Solid Ideas
Bharatwaj states: " But here Hume begs the question, by assuming that everything that exists must be perceivable to sense experience. "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
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.
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Some Solid Ideas
Hume was an empiricist
-Imp
-Imp
Re: Some Solid Ideas
Is that supposed to be an explanation?
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: 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.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
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.
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Some Solid Ideas
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html
-Imp
Re: Some Solid Ideas
I'll take that as a 'no'.Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:09 amhttps://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html
-Imp
Re: Some Solid Ideas
A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:50 amI'll take that as a 'no'.Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:09 amhttps://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html
-Imp
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.
Re: Some Solid Ideas
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."PeteJ wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:02 pmA_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:50 amI'll take that as a 'no'.Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:09 am
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html
-Imp
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.
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.
Re: Some Solid Ideas
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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Some Solid Ideas
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)
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)
Re: Some Solid Ideas
What makes you believe that there is a 'tilmorg' in your drawer?Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:45 amThe 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.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.
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.
Re: Some Solid Ideas
A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:03 amWhat makes you believe that there is a 'tilmorg' in your drawer?Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:45 amThe 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.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.
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.
And if you think that Hume is 'begging the question'.. then what question is he begging and how?
Re: Some Solid Ideas
I put it there.A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:03 amWhat makes you believe that there is a 'tilmorg' in your drawer?Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:45 amThe 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.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.
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.
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?
Re: Some Solid Ideas
Of course not!Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:31 amI put it there.A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:03 amWhat makes you believe that there is a 'tilmorg' in your drawer?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.
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?