Railroad Man Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Hume went out of his way to be ridiculously skeptical, but he did a good job of making it sound feasible; after all, he did fool philosophers for centuries, and he took skepticism to the big time. But throughout his work, he's making noises like "This seems nonsensical", etc. At the end of his work, he says, "Nevermind, there is no way anyone could live according to my philosophy." My question is, why didn't he throw it in the trash? If he knows his philosophy is bs before he has even finished his book, and he puts that in the book as well, did he just say "**** it" and publish it anyway? Seems like a hard conclusion not to reach, and its tragic because he was obviously hugely influential on the course of philosophy; after Hume, the holy grail of philosophy was to answer him, and we would not have had Kant without him. But Hume openly admitted his philosophy was bunk, so I think Hume might have just been an epic troll who threw a big turd in the punchbowl of Western philosophy, and led to centuries of irrationalism which culminated in the totalitarian bloodbath of the 20th century, and today's cultural collapse. How about a big middle finger for Hume? **** that guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Some citations and some argumentation would be welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railroad Man Posted November 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Some citations and some argumentation would be welcome. Your smarminess would not be welcome in person; I'm a blue collar Objectivist, and where I come from, men are still held *directly* responsible for the way they speak to one another. I'm the perpetual stranger in a strange land, surrounded by mostly unphilosophical men on the RR and, from what I've seen of other Objectivists thus far, too many smarmy, effeminately sarcastic, limp-wristed, scholastic sissyboys on this side. But this is the internet, so I am fortunate to be in no physical danger lol. If I did make an error, maybe it was in assuming that people on an Objectivist website would not require the history of philosophy, and Hume's crucial impact upon it, to be broken down Barney-style; my post was largely colloquial, an informal way of looking at someone who was hugely influential on Kant and the rest of the empiricist tradition (and not for the better). In my estimation, Hume did not deserve to be, both by his own premises regarding his own philosophy (i.e., by the fact that Hume ends his philosophy by saying, in effect, "Nevermind") and by the epistemic belligerence of his philosophy, which should be generally understood in a community of Objectivists. I characterize Hume as "throwing a turd in the punchbowl of Western philosophy" because he's belligerently obtuse and irrational (and he openly admits it); I characterize Hume as "an epic troll in the history of philosophy" because he admits that his philosophy is complete bs, then publishes it anyway. The real point was to establish a conversation as to whether Hume was trolling us; I can't take seriously anyone who ends his philosophy with "whatever, nevermind", and I have trouble understanding why so many philosophers *did* take him as gospel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Railroad Man, if your real point was to establish a conversation I'd suggest not being a jerk to people who are trying to help you do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Objectivists thus far, too many smarmy, effeminately sarcastic, limp-wristed, scholastic sissyboys on this side. But this is the internet, so I am fortunate to be in no physical danger lol.Good thing, too, because I know some pretty burly "sissyboys." StrictlyLogical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Your smarminess would not be welcome in person; I'm a blue collar Objectivist, and where I come from, men are still held *directly* responsible for the way they speak to one another. I'm the perpetual stranger in a strange land, surrounded by mostly unphilosophical men on the RR and, from what I've seen of other Objectivists thus far, too many smarmy, effeminately sarcastic, limp-wristed, scholastic sissyboys on this side. But this is the internet, so I am fortunate to be in no physical danger lol. You need to go re-read the forum rules, and then seriously reevaluate your posting style. If all that you wish to do is hurl insults at people that disagree with you, or even ask you for references(!), this forum is not the place for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 If not Hume, someone else would have. Kant wanted to defend religion from skepticism, not just defeat skepticism. But religion is a glass house, an inviting target to throw rocks at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Stick to railroading. I don't see you as an academic. Your contempt for gay people is surprising in light of your stated desire to fuck David Hume. He's all yours - too old for my tastes and, to judge from portraits, not particularly pretty. mdegges 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 I think Hume started all that 'how do you justify induction' approach to induction. Presumably he discovered that induction is just circular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Architect Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 Asking for Citations is what now? Really? If I wanted to degrade to my youth I'd climb back in the truck. At least those brawls were honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Architect Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 I think Hume started all that 'how do you justify induction' approach to induction. Presumably he discovered that induction is just circular. Yea, he invented (or at least popularized) the so-called "Problem with Induction" (I use quotes since I do not think that is exact but it's close to the point, it's been a looooooooong time). But there is none, simply his thought argument that has been given more air-time then it is worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylab72 Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Awww, come on guys. This kind of discussion goes with the turf in philosophical circles. Witness: If Hegel had written the whole of his logic and then said, in the preface or some other place, that it was merely an experiment in thought in which he had even begged the question in many places, then he would certainly have been the greatest thinker who had ever lived. As it is, he is merely comic. — Søren Kierkegaard, (Journals, 1844) How is that for a 'citation'... BTW RailRoad Man, does this quote give you another way to view Hume? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) I'm a blue collar Objectivist I'm an independent contractor who does work for Union Pacific Railroad. I'm an Objectivist without an adjective. If "blue-collar" was meant to imply that you're physically tougher, and more aware of day-to-day reality, than "white-collar" Objectivists, you're a snob. There are many of us on this site who are non-"limp-wristed," but since we're ACTUAL bad-asses, we don't denigrate other men in the prejudicial manner that you did. The fact that Hume aknowledged he was wrong wasn't the equivalent of creating a correct philosophy. Troll, maybe. Epic, never--except to the fools who want him to be. Edited February 13, 2014 by theestevearnold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regi F. Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 Hume went out of his way to be ridiculously skeptical, but he did a good job of making it sound feasible; after all, he did fool philosophers for centuries, and he took skepticism to the big time. But throughout his work, he's making noises like "This seems nonsensical", etc. At the end of his work, he says, "Nevermind, there is no way anyone could live according to my philosophy." My question is, why didn't he throw it in the trash? It seems, Railraod Man, you have fallen into a nest of thin-skinned prigs incapable of discerning or appreciating a little acerbic rhetoric. The easily offended often mistake their sensitivities for dignity or propriety, but it is only vanity, but harmless enough. You are absolutely right about Hume. I would not quite use your style of colorful description, but he certainly did nearly destroy all future philosophy. He was the ultimate sophist. Like all good sophists, Hume's arguments are not for anything in particular, but plausible questions of the nature, "you may believe in an objective reality, but if there is one, how can you know the one you perceive is it?" This is the style of Hume's argument (not his actual one), by which he denies reality itself. The specific denials include: —A denial of an objective external world, or at least, being able to know it. —A denial of abstract ideas or principles, supposedly based on empiricism. —A denial of "causation," mistakenly called "cause and effect." —A denial of the identity of existents in terms of their characteristics (by denying his version of induction). —A denial of the individual conscious self. —A denial of volition (wrongly called "free will"). —A denial of ethical values (his so-called "is/ought" problem). Anyone familiar with Western philosophy will not need references to know these are fair representations of Hume's pseudo-philosophy. But for those unable or unwilling to do their own homework, they are fully supported by Hume's Of the Academical Or Sceptical Philosophy and An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals which are fully discussed and referenced in four articles I wrote some years ago: "Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism" Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. I doubt if any of those who demand "references" will bother with the links, but you might find them interesting, Railraod Man, and could always use them the next time someone demands references. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Spot-on with the end product, Railroad man, but I doubt he did it for kicks (as "troll" implies). One doesn't spend that much time and effort on an idle whim. It's clear he was capable of critical thinking and he actually gave a wonderful refutation of the "watchmaker argument"; his most frequent errors seem to stem from a failure to generalize from obvious facts (I wonder why), so I don't think he was attempting to deliberately teach people poison. It seems far more likely to me that he wanted to prove himself to be special or worthwhile intellectually, but was unwilling to see the objective ramifications of his own insights. Why else blow up everyone else's theories, only to stop and mutter "never mind; there's no alternative"? Which, incidentally, was the key to his massive success. It wasn't anything he innovated or exposed; it was that he couldn't think of any viable answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 To be famous, not for anything you did or could do, but for what you couldn't; famous for your failure. I'd call that poetic justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.