I am starting this thread with the intention of performing a dissection on David Hume - life, philosophy and other peoples thoughts and interpretation on his philosophy.
I want to start by dissecting some items taken from Wikipedia as it is a source of information that many people turn to these days. In particular the part I would think of as the introduction - the bit above the contents.
Taken from the first paragraph in the article. Radical seems extreme, but why? It could be that the author of the article is just saying that he turned philosophy on its head or maybe radical just means excellent or just that Hume departed from tradition with his philosophy. I would say Hume departed from tradition.
Contained within the second paragraph. Is it possible that maybe passion and reason governs human behaviour?
Beginning of the third paragraph. Why not Mr Hume?
Toward the end of the fourth paragraph. A bundle of sensations - interesting - causally-connected perceptions - I think he was on to something here though.
From the second last paragraph. So passion is a driver then.
Last Paragraph in the section. I still find myself being influenced by Hume.
Given that I have not performed a proper dissection here, it is fair to say that this post is a conversation starter. From this point I will not draw material from Wikipedia but from the writings of Hume instead and any other historical texts and philosophy that might overlap with Hume’s. I am particularly interested in what Hume calls impressions and ideas.
Yes, obviously he is making such a distinction. But is the rationale that he proposed valid?
I think not.
Hume tends to naively fall into the fallacy of “if I can’t envision it not being true, then it must be true”.
I suspect that he is trying to say that simple intuitive notions (“impressions”) can be represented by cognitive concepts (ideas) and vsvrsa. It is a common thought that all ideas, concepts, and thoughts spring forth from instinctive and intuitive sensations. Such a thought leads to the over generalized notion that material reality dictates thought. The truth of that situation is more complicated.
Ah yes James S Saint, I have always found you to be a worthy interlocutor.
Whoops . . . you are indeed correct.
I am inclined to agree - I did read something similar that indicates what you are saying - my fresh perspective is going to require some revision here.
Indeed “The truth of that situation is more complicated” and the rest of this closing paragraph will give rise to consideration on my part, of what you have stated here for the next couple of days. My only hope is I come back with something significant enough for you to respond to.
Either way thank you for getting my train of thought really started in this.
