I think Hume has convinced me on empiricism. What is your take? What should I read to disprove/prove hume?

>I think Hume has convinced me on empiricism.
I, too, remember being 16.

You're equating biological reactions with knowledge. Do you think that sodium has knowledge of how to react with chlorine? If it forgets how to react will salt no longer be formed when chlorine gas meets sodium metal?

Okay, what's your counterargument then?

Accept Jesus Christ into your life kid.

Knowledge does not to be able to be forgotten to qualify as knowledge. Sodium has no consciousness, and thus needs an external force acting on it to perform its actions.

JUST BELIEVE!!!!! OMFG YOU DON'T??? WELL UR PRETTY STOOPID, HAHA CHEKMAET ATHEISTS

Attached: 1568660749966.jpg (567x649, 47K)

Prove consciousness exists.

Not an argument.

>Sodium has no consciousness
yes
>and thus needs an external force acting on it to perform its actions
Fuck no, sodium reacts with other things due to the properties of its composition, for fuck's sake man. Someone should drag Aristotelianism's rotting half-dead body into an alley and put it out of its misery already.

I recommend reading Incomplete Nature by Terrence Deacon for a good insight into how consciousness can emerge from inanimate matter.

No solution. You'll grow out of empiricism in a few months, maybe a few weeks. Empiricism is a tool and nothing more.

>sodium reacts all by itself
Brianlet

Empiricism is a tool with some pretty strong implications for everything else, since it seems to be the only one that actually works.

no u.

Knowledge of how to breathe was learned by ancient ancestors and passed down genetically to us. It didn't come from anything external.

The claim that all knowledge comes from sense experience can not be justified in terms of sense experience.

We have no organs for parsing any other terms.

Who are you quoting, faggot?

Human senses, language and knowledge are all inherently limited and parochial, if you're looking for some all-encompassing theory of knowledge, you won't find any.

Read Kant and you will see that empiricism is a very flawed theory of knowledge.

>since it seems to be the only one that actually works.
Rationalism is the basis of mathematics, physics, etc. Without those, all of your gay little empirical experiments would be fruitless. Empiricism as a tool is probably most fruitful in medicine, but without math you can't properly do medicine. If you think somehow empiricism is a complete tool, which can accomplish its own goals alone, then you're a fool. One could say that empiricism is the only source of knowledge that has practical goals as its end, which makes it the gayest of all forms of knowledge acquisition.

What did Kant have to say?

The human self isn't the unifying principle.

Guess who riffed on Kant?

Attached: WTP530.jpg (633x1839, 1.04M)

>Rationalism is the basis of mathematics, physics, etc.
You mean, rationalism as in deriving things from first principles, or something else? In the first case, it's clearly bad - the only sin there is against science is to put theory above reality.
Also, math is a human construct - humans set its axioms, from which we then discover the ramifications of. It's also a tool, not some Platonic eternal and perfect thing.

The human self is the only referent we have, sorry.

neetchee?

>Also, math is a human construct
With those words I know you're a fucking idiot. lmao

Yeah it is. What do you think it is, a Platonic eternal and ideal thing?

Yeah

Attached: WTP555-560.jpg (437x1412, 582K)

Yeah, there is a reason they call it the Holohoax.

Two Dogmas of Empiricism, W. V. O. Quine

Attached: 1562248498129.jpg (640x470, 23K)

That rationalism and empiricism are both transcendental methods for attaining knowledge of the phenomenal world.

John Vervaeke

Enquiry

You're wrong. Empiricism is the basis of all knowledge, including math. You can't reason in the abstract without first having observed concrete relations to abstract upon.

You learn maths through experience just like everything else although some biological instinct must be involved in acepting general statements

Based and evolutionpilled

The blinking man refutes Hume on causation.

>According to Hume, our behaviour presupposing causation is due to the repetition of associated presentational experiences. ...

>Let us apply this explanation to reflect action: in the dark, the electric light is suddenly turned on and the man's eyes blink. There is a simple physiological explanation of this trifling incident....

>The sequence of percepts, in the mode of presentational immediacy, are flash of light, feeling of eye-closure, instant of darkness. The three are practically simultaneous; though the flash maintains its priority over the other two, and these two latter percepts are indistinguishable as to priority. According to the philosophy of organism, the man also experiences another percept in the mode of causal efficacy. He feels that the experiences of the eye in the matter of the flash are causal of the blink. The man himself will have no doubt of it. In fact, it is the feeling of causality which enables the man to distinguish the priority of the flash; and the inversion of the argument, whereby the temporal sequence 'flash to blink' is made the premise for the 'causality' belief, has its origin in pure theory.

>The man will explain his experience by saying, 'The flash made me blink'; and if his statement be doubted, he will reply, 'I know it, because I felt it.'

>The philosophy of organism accepts the man's statement, that the flash made him blink. But Hume intervenes with another explanation. He first points out that in the mode of presentational immediacy there is no percept of the flash making the man blink. In this mode there are merely the two percepts -- the flash and the blink -- combining the two latter of the three percepts under the one term 'blink.'

>Hume refuses to admit the man's protestation, that the compulsion to blink is just what he did feel. The refusal is based on the dogma, that all percepts are in the mode of presentational immediacy -- a dogma not to be upset by a mere appeal to direct experience.

>Besides Hume has another interpretation of the man's experience: what the man really felt was his habit of blinking after flashes. The word 'association' explains it all, according to Hume.

>But how can a 'habit' be felt, when a 'cause' cannot be felt? Is there any presentational immediacy in the feeling of a 'habit'?

>Hume by a sleight of hand confuses a 'habit of feeling blinks after flashes' with a 'feeling of the habit of feeling blinks after flashes.'

>We have here a perfect example of the practice of applying the test of presentational immediacy to procure the critical rejection of some doctrines, and of allowing other doctrines to slip out by a back door, so as to evade the test. The notion of causation arose because mankind lives amid experiences in the mode of causal efficacy.

-Alfred North Whitehead, "Cause Is More Than Regular Association"
radicalacademy.org/adiphiloessay280.html

>What should I read to disprove hume
Kant.

If anything scepticism is a argument for faith

It actually is, can you prove otherwise? so is space and time faggot. If you are an empiricist most of your knowledge is sifted through Kant anyways.

This.

Also the Scottish enlightenment thinkers go off Hume's basic concepts but interpret them in a different more optimistic way.

Maybe, but it also means you don't have the right to force it on anyone else so wyd.

>took 5 replies to get the right answer
>had to include obligatory Yea Forums autism like "learn German"
yikes

How do people worship philosophers for writing this tautological shit

my n word Ralphie

Attached: 9780521479189.jpg (266x400, 9K)

how are you even GOING to appreciate the Kantian transcendental autism in its purest and most sublime form if you don't learn german?

I assume (from my understanding of Wittgenstein) that denotation itself is too subjective for it to matter.

hume? more like HOOOOOOOOOM

stop making up words to seem smart you fucktard. just so you know im a girl btw

>Idiots don't know anything about synthetic a priori knowledge
We live in a society...

How does this deny God exactly? I can just as easily say that God transcends knowledge.
>but you have to read the bible and that's knowledge
I can see a tree spreading its roots and then write a book about it. The tree did still spread its roots without my involvement. In the end the processes lie outside the material realm.

strawpoll.me/18683303

Synthetic a priori is such an obvious cope. Kant realizes that no knowledge can be a priori since experience is always required. Instead of admitting that the distinction is untenable, he attempts to salvage it (to support his idealism) by tacking on the 'synthetic' conditional.

It is enough note that certain truths are apodictic. All knowledge is obtained via the conduit of empiricism; there is no need to ham-fistedly assert a special class of knowledge unless you're trying to force an idealism or mysticism which there is no logical indication for.

Bump

bump part 2