actually hume's arguments against miracles are rather intricate. they are not aimed at producing evidence for the claim that there have not been and will not be any miracles. what he does is to argue that what is taken to be evidence for the existence of miracles is too flimsy to constitute genuine evidence. (and an appeal to authority can have a place in such an argument. if smart people were to detect miracles under strict observation conditions and everyone reported this event in the same way in detail, then we should have have higher confidence in the testimony of these observers. if only ignorant people who are easily fooled to believe that they are experiencing an event of religious significance report miracles, we should not trust their testimony with the same confidence.) hume also tries to explain why there is such an illusion of evidence. if what we have taken to be the best evidence in miracles is actually too weak for us to rationally believe in miracles, then it is not reasonable to believe that there have been any. this does not entail that there have been no miracles. hume was not out to prove that there could not be miracles, he was out to show that the actual historical claims (in christianity and other religions) have been unreasonable. it is another matter, of course, if he has hit his target.
What's Your Philosophical Background?
- Thread starter derbeder
- Start date
JColtrane
Member
Hume's perception of human observation, however, has two flaws:
(1) That someone who is more intelligent is less likely to change what actually happened.
(2) That any human being is "of such good sense" (78) that his sense perception cannot be tricked.
In the first case, I think that someone of a high amount of intelligence is just as (or more!) likely to change what they see. It is the highly active brain that bends things into its own scheme, and geniuses are never the best commentators. The movie "A Beautiful Mind" is a great example of how someone who is absolutely brilliant can live in a world all his own.
In the second case, Hume creates a scale of people where only some are good enough to observe events correctly-but this "some" is actually none! No human being would ever be good enough to convince Hume that something contrary to nature happened, because at the very beginning he presupposes that the laws of nature are more rigid than the human consciousness.
This is the raw truth: whatever evidence Hume was given that a miracle had occured, he would reject it, and fault how it was observed. And it is here where the ad hominem is most readily apparent.
(1) That someone who is more intelligent is less likely to change what actually happened.
(2) That any human being is "of such good sense" (78) that his sense perception cannot be tricked.
In the first case, I think that someone of a high amount of intelligence is just as (or more!) likely to change what they see. It is the highly active brain that bends things into its own scheme, and geniuses are never the best commentators. The movie "A Beautiful Mind" is a great example of how someone who is absolutely brilliant can live in a world all his own.
In the second case, Hume creates a scale of people where only some are good enough to observe events correctly-but this "some" is actually none! No human being would ever be good enough to convince Hume that something contrary to nature happened, because at the very beginning he presupposes that the laws of nature are more rigid than the human consciousness.
This is the raw truth: whatever evidence Hume was given that a miracle had occured, he would reject it, and fault how it was observed. And it is here where the ad hominem is most readily apparent.
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Areas? Um, everything. I don't see how philosophy can even be viewed based on credentials/background; that is completely adverse the the nature of philosophy, somewhat like how modern university sees philosophy. I know what I know about "philosophy" from thinking, from experiencing & pondering upon the experience, etc. I've read books by Nietzsche and others, but basing one's philosophical views on books is not philosophy - it is ideological plaigarism. One's life experiences, thoughts, and ideas are what bring wisdom, not anything that brings credentials - not university, books, or whatever. Classifying philosophy, cutting it up and systemizing it, makes it pointless, makes it a science, and not a gay science.
My philosophical "background" is 17 years of life - that is all.
My philosophical "background" is 17 years of life - that is all.
Demiurge
This user has no title
I like to build things, and murder morons. Does that help?
"Murder" implies that it's unjustified.
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Define justified. "Justice" is an (idiotic) dogmatic system of judgement created by society, so unjustified would simply mean that the majority disagrees with what you're doing. And seeing as the majority of people on the planet are utterly fucktarded, I'm thinking they would consider a desire to kill them "unjustified."
Έρεβος;6153835 said:
They also would consider it "evil." So much for their reasoning.
Proof is in the eyes of the beholder, thinks the beholder, but the real proof is what happens. History is a good indicator of what happens with similar, repeated actions.
Most people will never acknowledge this, and that's why I'd murder or enslave them before allowing them to terminate the human species.
If the majority of people on the planet weren't 'fucktarded', they'd consider a desire to kill them justified? Slot me in the fucktard camp please!
Ah, I wouldnt put too much stock into their opinions--all bark, no bite sensationalism.
Demiurge
This user has no title
Έρεβος;6153835 said:
I should think that he would use a value-neutral term like 'kill' instead of 'murder' because the latter implies that the action is morally infelicitous.
I love to hear other peoples opinions and see how their minds work in comparison to my own. I love discussion and (mostly)can listen unbiased to what people think
Since most of them are fucktards, and should be eliminated, if they had whole logic they would realize this is for the best.
Instead, they think selfishly... utilitarian-ly.
Either way, their absence increases the livability of society for smart people, so is a good thing. Total death!
Either way, their absence increases the livability of society for smart people, so is a good thing. Total death!
The crowd has interfered with education to the point where it is a political degree first, and secondarily, a discipline taught. Consequently countries with less pretense surge ahead in accomplishment.
I think this question is more complex than it seems!
::sigh::
but I shall try to answer.
I'm more of a literary theorist than anything else, but that means I study both philosophy and English lit. My background is in Foucault, Derrida, Barthes, Kristeva, etc. i.e philosophers who focused on literary theory.
That doesn't mean I don't have opinions on ontology, semiotics, or ethics...just that my passion lies in studying books (or other texts) and our response to them.
Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Derrida all had the same basic idea...that somehow language makes up who we are. Say you had no language of any sort. And I'm not just talking about the spoken word, but about gestures, and all forms of communication. You couldn't, in fact, even communicate with yourself. And if your brain is completely inactive, you're technically dead. So...language is life.
(simplified the fuck out of it but you get the idea)
::sigh::
but I shall try to answer.
I'm more of a literary theorist than anything else, but that means I study both philosophy and English lit. My background is in Foucault, Derrida, Barthes, Kristeva, etc. i.e philosophers who focused on literary theory.
That doesn't mean I don't have opinions on ontology, semiotics, or ethics...just that my passion lies in studying books (or other texts) and our response to them.
Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Derrida all had the same basic idea...that somehow language makes up who we are. Say you had no language of any sort. And I'm not just talking about the spoken word, but about gestures, and all forms of communication. You couldn't, in fact, even communicate with yourself. And if your brain is completely inactive, you're technically dead. So...language is life.
(simplified the fuck out of it but you get the idea)
Justin S.
Member
It's customary to welcome new members, but unfortunately you praise CoB which automatically rules out any politeness.
