Damn I must say that this was truly a great video. Perfectly explained, nice graphics, and a very comfy background music that did not disturb but heighten the experience. Good stuff.
If David Hume distinguishes between a priori and a posteriori, then did he really believed *all* knowledge comes from experience, or was he particularly focused in showing all knowledge pertaining to Cause and Effect come from experience? Using Kantian terms, did Empiricists reject both analytic and synthetic a priori knowledge, or just the latter? Nice video but damn, the music sound like the end of the world.
I’m pretty sure Hume only creates such distinctions due to the fact of teleological arguments taking surface, especially during his time. He questions the validity of the teleological arguments by undermining the impression that you can reach god as the conclusion, by obtaining such, in a posteriori way. I don’t think he invested in it quite how you’d think but he only utilises this formula to create a line between what is empirically obtainable in the material world to counteract classical theism at the time. I think Hume doesn’t fully rejects the concepts as in the end he did mention that it’s up to chance of the universes creation, so I would take a gamble myself and argue he takes all components into consideration.
I still believe in the reality (or usefulness) of the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. When I was in graduate school I wrote a paper critiquing Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."
The genesis of logic is perception. That’s why both are necessary, perception is requisite for men to expand its prehensility and dexterity meanwhile logic is requisite for men to avoid circumstances that were perceived at the past to be destructive and to be malice.
Kant started from the assumption that Hume ‘s metaphysics was wrong. Why would you then use Kantian terminology to explain Hume? Especially since modern science has vindicated Hume over Kant?
As im not a philosopher, i may not be qualified in this, but ive never understood the polarity in which people persieve some things. When you asked "Why did Hume create the idea of Matters of Fact when it went cobtrary to his beliefs, "I can honestly say that the question never occured to me. The fact that people think that " because im A, means that B is inherintly wrong, distastful, etc, " has always confused me. To put it another way, the "If you're not with me, you're against me, " is such a narrow minded approach. What do you think?
I agree, but when you are speaking about a debate that has been going on for centuries and someone with Hume's personality, then you are bound to have these. Hume's fork is so clearly flawed in many ways (for example, it states ideas like History, Tradition, Art, Religion and many more that we can all agree on and understand, do not exist) but is made perfectly to combat thinkers like Descartes and their beliefs of God.
"all his contemporaries and immediate predecessors accepted..." I think you must mean successors. His predecessors presumably had never heard of him. Or are you saying he was not original?😀
Man that's sad what Russell said. Did he ever knew that Jesus came in the flesh? I'm making a connection with Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6 (KJV) I also remember this one (I'm interpreting both) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 1 John 4:3 (KJV)
![The 'Ship of Theseus' Problem [Illustrated]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iVlIZJTwgyQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Best video I have seen on Hume’s fork! Thank you so very much!
Damn I must say that this was truly a great video. Perfectly explained, nice graphics, and a very comfy background music that did not disturb but heighten the experience.
Good stuff.
If David Hume distinguishes between a priori and a posteriori, then did he really believed *all* knowledge comes from experience, or was he particularly focused in showing all knowledge pertaining to Cause and Effect come from experience? Using Kantian terms, did Empiricists reject both analytic and synthetic a priori knowledge, or just the latter?
Nice video but damn, the music sound like the end of the world.
I’m pretty sure Hume only creates such distinctions due to the fact of teleological arguments taking surface, especially during his time. He questions the validity of the teleological arguments by undermining the impression that you can reach god as the conclusion, by obtaining such, in a posteriori way. I don’t think he invested in it quite how you’d think but he only utilises this formula to create a line between what is empirically obtainable in the material world to counteract classical theism at the time. I think Hume doesn’t fully rejects the concepts as in the end he did mention that it’s up to chance of the universes creation, so I would take a gamble myself and argue he takes all components into consideration.
Thankyou so much for sharing such a clear and concise explanation on humes fork, unlike the millions of other videos on youtube.
Best explanation of this I’ve seen yet
I still believe in the reality (or usefulness) of the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. When I was in graduate school I wrote a paper critiquing Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."
The genesis of logic is perception. That’s why both are necessary, perception is requisite for men to expand its prehensility and dexterity meanwhile logic is requisite for men to avoid circumstances that were perceived at the past to be destructive and to be malice.
Absolutely fantastic, please make more videos! so well done, well written and interesting. I'll be sure to check more of your stuff
Very clearly explained, and with a couple of nice quotes from literary figures. Great!
The quotes were so helpful!
Just rewatched it, truly great great video! Helped a lot!
Loved this! Great work man!
Great video! Very well explained.
2:46 "In Mexico its called Agua"
Kant started from the assumption that Hume ‘s metaphysics was wrong. Why would you then use Kantian terminology to explain Hume? Especially since modern science has vindicated Hume over Kant?
I like your explanation and your accent, btw very nice illustrations.
superb; in content and presentation.
Sherman
Panzer III
Matilda
Churchill
excellent work
This video is amazing!
may I know your source/es? thanks
music is a bit ominous
As im not a philosopher, i may not be qualified in this, but ive never understood the polarity in which people persieve some things. When you asked "Why did Hume create the idea of Matters of Fact when it went cobtrary to his beliefs, "I can honestly say that the question never occured to me. The fact that people think that " because im A, means that B is inherintly wrong, distastful, etc, " has always confused me. To put it another way, the "If you're not with me, you're against me, " is such a narrow minded approach. What do you think?
I agree, but when you are speaking about a debate that has been going on for centuries and someone with Hume's personality, then you are bound to have these. Hume's fork is so clearly flawed in many ways (for example, it states ideas like History, Tradition, Art, Religion and many more that we can all agree on and understand, do not exist) but is made perfectly to combat thinkers like Descartes and their beliefs of God.
"all his contemporaries and immediate predecessors accepted..." I think you must mean successors. His predecessors presumably had never heard of him. Or are you saying he was not original?😀
great video, loved it, but please stop this creepy dramatic music, it gets unnecessarily intense. kbye
Hume's fork only rules out God if you assume materialism. But materialism is false. Mind is not material.
Man that's sad what Russell said. Did he ever knew that Jesus came in the flesh? I'm making a connection with Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Hosea 4:6 (KJV)
I also remember this one (I'm interpreting both)
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:3 (KJV)
Nice story about Hume's fork, but misrepresents his position on God.
a shame you should have expanded on that
A female dog