Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

David Hume an epic troll in the history of philosophy?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by theestevearnold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...