Come on, MM, at least try. Maybe you’ll convince me.
Indeed. I suppose you’re right. Unfortunately, I’m simply no longer motivated to participate in this discussion.
You asked me to “point you to where he does this”. I have done so. Any further development of understanding on your part would seem to be your own responsibility.
I have clearly stated my position here, many times, and refined it so as to be as precise as possible. I have also now given you a basis for where you might find those ideas of Hume’s which I am examining, as you asked me to do. Really, what else is there, than for you to just make some actual arguments here? Have you even bothered to contribute a single thing other than “I don’t think you know what you’re talking about”…? If so, I must have missed it.
Then I will assume there was indeed no substance behind your claims that I have misunderstood Hume. You cannot offer any ideas of Hume’s nor your own interpretations or arguments about what Hume said or meant. One wonders what you were even doing here in the first place.
You missed it.
And if you’re seriously asking me to order a book from the library, get it in a week, read it, copy something from it here and wait for your answer… then you really don’t understand how honest conversations on forums like this work.
Hi! The charge of hume being an idiot need not be answered in terms of what Hume actually thought or the internal workings of his mind to see how he arrived there. The arguable effects one of which has admittedly awoken Kant from his dogmatic slumbers,
Can be argued in terms of necessary and contingent truths. Necessary truths are logically tight with no contingent propositions in a reducible argument. The is ought is exactly that, a claim or reduciability inherent between the is/ought. The point is., and this in is I agree that Hume is inadequate in his claims of the total contingency. Why? Because within a necessary set of arguments, there may be excluded elements the arguer is not aware of, thereby seemingly breaking chains of validation, yet the reality of those reasons may not be apparent to the reasoner.
That may not necessarily mean that those reasons are not there, they may have always been un assumed by sheer absence or un learning, and assumptions made, and since those may be missing, there is a break in the chain of necessity in reasoning.
That is why I agree with you that Hume’s claim was inadequate, albeit perhaps in very specific uses, where in Hume’s time, and in Kant’s they were not yet available. I hope this clarified it a little more. If you still feel that I can not explain it more adequately, I will do as you suggest. Thanks.
When you say this is a discussion about Hume’s ideas and specific consequences, you can argue
From either end, and the thing with specific consequences have changed the course of thought. It’s exactly that the categorical imperative left such a moral vacuum, that Hume’s notions may imply inadequacies on his part, and the postivist’s carried this confusion over to present time. The confusion can only be examined from the point of view of criticisms brought against Ryle and others, because in his time, his views made perfect sense, as Wttgenstein would word it later on.
Fishing, of course.
Treatise is freely available to read online. I am surprised you didn’t even bother to look. Let me know if you need a link.
I did review your contributions thus far, and yes I did forget some of them. I see now they are as irrelevant as I had assumed them to be. You haven’t actually disproven anything I’ve said, you have merely stated that I am saying something which Hume is not saying. Yet for you to claim this, it is strange for you to write, “I’m saying that Hume says you can’t rationally determine an ought from an is”, as this is exactly what I have been saying as well.
I suppose the error is probably located in how you and I think about rationality differently. For me, it is quite rational to derive an ought from an is – one IS a particular sort of thing with particular needs and character, and from this one DETERMINES that which one “ought” to do, i.e. one values and acts upon values. Hume claims that moral ideas/claims come from moral feelings, from sentiments. You seem to understand this is what Hume is saying, so I am again confused why you act now as if Hume is not saying this, or that you are unaware of where he wrote about it.
Further anon, the fact that you would demand I pull out a book and reference you to it, then you balk when I actually do so and point you to what you asked for, claiming you don’t have time to “go to the library”, says a lot about you, and none of it good.
So where is this schism between is and ought, for Hume?
I’ve elaborated on that many times already. I am tired of entertaining you.
You just described a lack of schism.
Oh well, have a nice day.
You agree with me that Hume is saying ought cannot be determined from is, then you say I am wrong for claiming this is what Hume says; then you ask me where Hume writes about this, and then when I show you you protest “I can’t be bothered to go to a library” and claim that “forums don’t work that way”, despite you just having asked me to do the exact same thing, namely to reproduce something that Hume actually wrote.
You cannot even be bothered to read the very writings that you asked me to reference you to. Just let that sink in.
And then, if that weren’t enough, you act as if I have not even shown where the “schism” between is and ought is, for Hume, after I have already written exactly this many times, and in fact YOU have actually agreed with me on that.
The amount of dishonesty is staggering. I can only conclude you to be some form of troll. Please do not post in my topics again.
MM: anon’s request is not unreasonable, and your answer was vague, referring to a book rather than a quote. You can by all means refer to your profound understand of Hume by what he doesn’t say, of course, but when you additionally state that you are under no obligation to prove your further understanding, I hope you can understand that it takes on an appearance completely indistinguishable from hot air and bluff. Whether that bothers you or not is, of course, up to you. But it won’t encourage people to heed you in the future.
He asked for me to point him in the right direction, he didn’t ask for a quote.
Why are you compelled to defend him? Is that your role here?
Not my problem if you or anyone else can’t even bother to engage the subject, in which case I have to ask, why are you here?
I’ve made my argument numerous times here. It is strange no one wants to take it on. Well maybe not that strange, actually.
And repeating “You don’t know what you’re talking about” is not a valid form of argument, by the way. A moderator ought to know that.
Perhaps it was presumptuous of me to assume anyone here has actually read Hume.
I, for one, have read a great deal of Hume, and much of it with some care.
Have you considered the possibility that, considering your unimpressive foregoing display, none of us simply want to bother?
As a matter of fact, I have all of the relevant passages which I need to show you your misapprehension of this fine philosopher in front of me right now. But then why would I want to point out all of the details to you when I sincerely doubt that you even want them?
Yeah, you can’t be bothered, exactly.
Is this even philosophy? What the fuck is this forum, anyway?
Put up or shut up. Give me your demonstration of Hume’s thought, if you can. I’m calling your bluff.
I’ll consider it. Can you at least do half of what I recommended earlier?
Actually no, my presumption was to act as if anyone here is interested in philosophy.
You don’t get to fucking dictate to me. I’ve already given that, plenty of times. You aren’t interested, you can’t produce shit and you can get the fuck off my thread.