I have determined, That I am not alive

youngins......

i just turned 35 and shit my pants everyday for one year until that day.....

it fucking happens, it sucks, it is the way it is. i thought there was something magical that was supposed to happen when you're "older"....that is bullshit....period.
 
no is he good?

David Hume was the douchebag who turned modern philosophy on its head. After Decarte's rationalism, and Berkeley's and Locke's empiricism, Hume came along and took them to the extreme, claiming that you can't really trust your senses empirically or believe rationally that you exist simply because you process thoughts. Therefore, how do we know we really exist or that the world is real? Fucking joker!!

Anyway, along came Kant, who saved philosophy from being laughed off the globe due to Hume's clowning around. Or so they say. I don't know how many people take philosophy all that seriously thanks to Hume, Nietzche, etc...

There's an article in an academic journal I just got claiming that Hume can actually be viewed as part of the conservative tradition (WTF???), so that will make for an interesting read whenever I get a chance. I just read another article by an economist on Harding and the Recession of 1920-21, which explains my recent comments on it in another thread...
 
youngins......

i just turned 35 and shit my pants everyday for one year until that day.....

it fucking happens, it sucks, it is the way it is. i thought there was something magical that was supposed to happen when you're "older"....that is bullshit....period.


yes no magic. very sad.
 
David Hume was the douchebag who turned modern philosophy on its head. After Decarte's rationalism, and Berkeley's and Locke's empiricism, Hume came along and took them to the extreme, claiming that you can't really trust your senses empirically or believe rationally that you exist simply because you process thoughts. Therefore, how do we know we really exist or that the world is real? Fucking joker!!

Anyway, along came Kant, who saved philosophy from being laughed off the globe due to Hume's clowning around. Or so they say. I don't know how many people take philosophy all that seriously thanks to Hume, Nietzche, etc...

There's an article in an academic journal I just got claiming that Hume can actually be viewed as part of the conservative tradition (WTF???), so that will make for an interesting read whenever I get a chance. I just read another article by an economist on Harding and the Recession of 1920-21, which explains my recent comments on it in another thread...

I don't think anyone's a straight Kantian or Humian anymore anyway. And Hume is often put in the same category of reason as Locke.

Your criticism of his thought process is an appeal to absurdity; not a logical argument. If something is true its true regardless of how absurd it seems.
 
I don't think anyone's a straight Kantian or Humian anymore anyway. And Hume is often put in the same category of reason as Locke.

Your criticism of his thought process is an appeal to absurdity; not a logical argument. If something is true its true regardless of how absurd it seems.

Hume is considered an empiricist, which places him in the same category as Berkeley and Locke. Decartes began the school of rationalism, which got the empircists going.

What I said about Hume is sort of the take I got on him from my Intro Philosophy class. In my current reading, the guy is talking about Hume's appeal to "right philosophy," which is to say philosophy untarnished by ideology. Like Decartes, he attempted to deconstruct all things that might interfere with arriving at the truth. In the process, he basically deconstructed Decartes, Locke, and Berkeley, as well as most established philosophy.

Basically, he argued that philosophy is a matter of faith, and he pointed out that the Greek philosopers were often fanatical zealots in the fashion of contemporary fanatical religious zealots. He thought that if Christianity could move away from Greek philosophy and the attempt to justify itself through reason, etc., and instead get back to the way it had been before, that it would be vastly better off.

The problem is, what is "right philosophy?" We're back at faith, tradition, etc...
 
all philosophy needs to be tested by Dooyeweerd's concept of Naive Thought....basically, if a philosophy is too complex to be understood readily by the man on the street, it needs to be rejected as worthless......
 
all philosophy needs to be tested by Dooyeweerd's concept of Naive Thought....basically, if a philosophy is too complex to be understood readily by the man on the street, it needs to be rejected as worthless......

I think Hume would be in agreement there. That is probably part of why he criticized the fusing of Greek philosophy with Christianity.
 
all philosophy needs to be tested by Dooyeweerd's concept of Naive Thought....basically, if a philosophy is too complex to be understood readily by the man on the street, it needs to be rejected as worthless......

If a truth is not readily understood by a man on the street, the man on the street needs to be rejected as worthless.
 
Calculus cannot be readily understood by a man on the street. Does this mean we should reject calculus as worthless? The computer you are using and the bridge you drive on to work certainly disagree.

No philosopher has ever been more wrong than that. If truth is complex, then so be it.
 
Calculus cannot be readily understood by a man on the street.
have you been studying the "philosophy" of calculus long, WM?....perhaps you can help me with something that has always puzzled me....what motivates a variable to vary?........how about you spend a couple of months considering the possibilities and get back to us.....
 
Last edited:
I think Hume would be in agreement there. That is probably part of why he criticized the fusing of Greek philosophy with Christianity.

you're missing the practical application of Dooyeweerd's concept....

three philosophers were in a bar having an argument....the existentialist keeps shouting over and over "I think, therefore I am!".....after a while a drunk at the next table stands up and knocks the existentialist unconscious with a single punch.....he stands over him looking for a few moments, then he turns to the other drunks at his table and says "See? He's still here. I told you it wouldn't work. You each owe me five bucks"...........
 
you're missing the practical application of Dooyeweerd's concept....

three philosophers were in a bar having an argument....the existentialist keeps shouting over and over "I think, therefore I am!".....after a while a drunk at the next table stands up and knocks the existentialist unconscious with a single punch.....he stands over him looking for a few moments, then he turns to the other drunks at his table and says "See? He's still here. I told you it wouldn't work. You each owe me five bucks"...........

Yes, because reality can be derived from PMP's jokes, which are only plausibly funny because of how they misunderstand the concept.

"I think, therefore I am" is a Cartesian concept.
 
have you been studying the "philosophy" of calculus long, WM?....perhaps you can help me with something that has always puzzled me....what motivates a variable to vary?........how about you spend a couple of months considering the possibilities and get back to us.....

Calculus is widely used in physics AKA Natural Philosophy.
 
Philosophy as practiced in academic circles is merely meant to entrap sharp minds by endless word redefinition competitions, to distract the most intelligent minds for what their true focus should be, uncoiling the fascist memes and dehumanizing elitist lies of the brotherhood of the snake.
 
Back
Top