| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Feb 2008 04:52:19 PM |
| Object: |
The cause of all conflict. |
The belief in objective reality.
Too simple to be true?
Then ask yourself why are you taking issue with this perception, and
where do such issues originate. Your view, or a result of suggestions,
and how do you distinguish between them?
BOfL
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: The cause of all conflict. |
06 Feb 2008 01:03:02 AM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 2:52 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The belief in objective reality.
Too simple to be true?
Actually David Hume setttled that debate and from then on people have
been struggling for a way to live with Humes conclusion, starting with
Kant who couldn't beat Humes rap.
Hume was the first great philosopher of the modern era to carve out a
thoroughly naturalistic philosophy. This philosophy partly consisted
in the rejection of the historically prevalent conception of human
minds as being miniature versions of the divine mind. This doctrine
was associated with a trust in the powers of human reason and insight
into reality, which possessed God's certification. Hume's scepticism
came in his rejection of this 'insight ideal', and the (usually
rationalistic) confidence derived from it that the world is as we
represent it. Instead, the best we can do is to apply the strongest
explanatory and empirical principles available to the investigation of
human mental phenomena, issuing in a quasi-Newtonian project, Hume's
'Science of Man'....
Hume argues that induction is founded on the persistence of
regularities (sometimes called the Uniformity of Nature) and that we
cannot know nature is uniform through Reason, because reason only
comes in two sorts, and both of these are inadequate. The two sorts
are:
(i) Demonstrative reasoning (effectively, deductive reasoning)
(ii) Probable reasoning (effectively, inductive reasoning)[33]
With regards to (i), Hume argues that we cannot prove a priori that
regularities will continue, as it is "consistent and conceivable" that
the course of nature might change.[34] Coming to (ii), Hume argues
that founding a regularity on the fact that that regularity has always
operated in the past (inductive reasoning) is arguing in a circle,
because induction was the very process we were trying to explain in
the first place. Hence no form of reason will sponsor inductive
inference.
This argument has been criticised in more than one area. For example,
some have maintained that Kantian arguments can establish that nature
is uniform.[35] It has been countered, however, that even if Kantian
arguments can prove a priori that nature is uniform in general, this
does not make inductive inference rational, because there is still the
problem of working out which particular regularities will continue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Then ask yourself why are you taking issue with this perception, and
where do such issues originate. Your view, or a result of suggestions,
and how do you distinguish between them?
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kevirwin" |
|
| Title: Re: The cause of all conflict. |
05 Feb 2008 08:36:43 PM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 5:52=A0pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The belief in objective reality.
Too simple to be true?
Then ask yourself why are you taking issue with this perception, and
where do such issues originate. Your view, or a result of suggestions,
and how do you distinguish between them?
BOfL
I propose an alternative reason, just as simple..
"Life feeds on life" (not mine, from Joseph Campbell). If we don't
kill something and eat it, we die.
just a thought,
K e v
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The cause of all conflict. |
05 Feb 2008 08:53:04 PM |
|
|
On Feb 6, 12:36=A0pm, kevirwin <kevir...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Feb 5, 5:52=A0pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The belief in objective reality.
Too simple to be true?
Then ask yourself why are you taking issue with this perception, and
where do such issues originate. Your view, or a result of suggestions,
and how do you distinguish between them?
BOfL
I propose an alternative reason, just as simple..
"Life feeds on life" (not mine, from Joseph Campbell). If we don't
kill something and eat it, we die.
just a thought,
K e v
Thats only because he was beneficiary of the Campbell's Soup
empire. :-)
A good example of parallel universes once again.
That joke wold have no meaning if it wasnt for the "objective
suggestion world" .
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
