@@Charlie-wl2qt by your perspective, the most demanding of the ten commandments would be #1 & 2. Have no other gods. Hey if I'm your creator, all I ask is you don't treat someone or something else like they're your creator. 2. Hey, don't want no problems don't start none. Keep your name out of my mouth. The rest are pretty standard "don't be horrible" that yt atheists say are common sense abd don't need a God to tell them to do. Which is it? Too rigid/demanding or unneeded because we know better?
That should read "be human" if taken in the spirit it was meant (yes, it is sexist with the woman of the period being an extension of the dominant male in her life).
It is highly irrational to deny the logic or existence of feelings. Feelings, like rational thought, are defined by what one does with them, rather than their subjective basis.
@@phoenixcodge6870 : Cliche terms like _"simp"_ and _"sjw"_ are used by those who have, as of yet, been unable to come to grips with the fact that denying their feelings is unreasonable/illogical. So they seek to project this denial of their own feelings onto others through the usage of such cliches.
@@_PanchoVillarealizing we have no meaning is both the scariest thing and most beautiful thing. Life has no meaning, it sucks that's there's not something better afterwards, but it's amazing that we are able to even do anything in the first place, so take advantage of that and enjoy life.
@@countryboyred because you only get 1, might as well enjoy it and make other lives better rather than not. Once you're gone you're gone, so be happy you exist in the first place. It's a very VERY low chance you exist.
He sounds like the ultimate pragmatists, aware of the futility of much of what he is doing, yet still doing it. He was probably a philosopher free from any illusions of grandeur, and I respect that.
If only modern philosophers would follow his example. It's acceptable to have small errors in your work, that can be corrected at a later date, even by other people. Instead, we get entire fields based on fantasies.
i thought this too. there's a sort of lineage that flows from Hume to Dewey to Chomsky (or, more correctly, the lineage flows backwards from Chomsky to Dewey to Hume!)
A philosopher is a lover of a reason - not someone who denies reason and regards it as futile. As for the Pragmatists - by their denial of objective moral right and wrong (indeed their denial of objective truth in general) they did terrible harm.
@@tibfulv philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
If god made me think rational, and if rational thinking it’s the best there is, I would tell God if he existed fuck you, you made impossible to believe you exist lol 😂 that’s him
philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
I almost feel the same, that Hume is my favorite now, but if what they say about Diogenes is true, then it's definitely Diogenes. That was one awesome human being! I bet you are awesome too, TrapMode! Best wishes!
@@enterthevoidIi Intelligence is a social construct in general (Rousseau), you cannot measure intelligence without inflicting it a categorization (aka isolating types) (Nietzsche), and thus, any type of intelligence can be considered worthless if put enough into systematic perspective. Emotional intelligence can be synonymous with rational thinking in times of hurry or other moments of emotional shade. Therefore, you can consider emotional intelligence as an advantage to anyone's components. Well, I tend to see it that way.
As I interpreted it, he was in favour of emotional training and restraint, not unabashed feelery. Some people may have interpreted the report of his words that way, but his actual intent is more Stoic than anything else.
that quote at about 6:47 is literally how I have felt about my entire life. Thanks David for crystallizing what I could have never said as eloquently as you.
Reminds me of Francis Bacon's quote: All colors will agree in the dark; everyone is compiled of a multitude of stable and transient points of view, but, at some point, there is room for agreement
Reminds me of Francis Bacon's quote: All colors will agree in the dark; everyone is compiled of a multitude of stable and transient points of view, but, at some point, there is room for agreement
If people knew about their own feelings and learned how to control them and not be impulsive there wouldn’t be so many problems in the world. Thats why i feel philosophy of the human nature is something people need to be aware of
There are numerous people benefitting from others not being in control of their emotions and work diligently to keep it that way. There are many books on emotional intelligence. I'd put money on the idea that most people don't even know what that is.
@@KinoStudentX : While I agree with the rest of your comment, I would refrain from saying those people actually _"benefit"_ from such oppression of others. Feelings exist as a balance to reason. One without the other would _feel bad/be illogical._ Therefore being a detriment to their mental/emotional health.
@fynes leigh : Feelings are more important than most realize. For instance: anger in it's purest form is simply energy to inspire us into action, similar to how pain exists to inspire us to stay healthy. Anger in and of itself is not intrinsically negative. We are not defined by what we feel, but rather by what we do with those feelings.
fynes leigh if that’s the case then what is the point of making it decisions with those feeling. To what degree is there a lack of choice? Are you saying they restrict to just what we feel or are you saying they go beyond to the point where we lack agency with what we do to those feelings?
I don't agree that being rational about everything is a special kind of madness. Yes, you must feel the energy around you and gather it in order to cure diseases but rationality is the key to life.
You know what I always find amusing? How some of the greatest thinkers of the world who were also people who connected well with the common people, world around them and genuinely wanted to help others (Orwell, Nietzsche, Hume etc.), were also people who hated academics and universities etc.
I have adult ADHD and because of that it's hard for men to focus and read books. your video was really helpful and informative. Thank you for your time to create that.
Hume was the man. I love how he was smart AF and still chose to live among the people and did so happily. His last days are so inspirational. Now that’s a philosopher to follow 💕💕💕
I really like this way of thinking, and it acknowledges a feeling I have had for a while now. When I was younger I looked up to elderly people (say 30+), thinking they where more emotionally mature, and where more or less free from emotional descisions, and who had their rationale in control. When I was around 20 I still had that feeling; once you're around 30 you must be mature, and don't have people around you making rushed decisions based on emotion. Now that I"m 26 I see that nothing has changed for me in the last 4-5 years or so, and if I look at people of 30+, 40+ etc., I still see the same emotional responses, the lack of self control, envious and childish bullshit. They are very much like any 22 year old, except they have a morgage, a steady office job and one or two kids. Bottomline; untill a certain age you are more prone to emotional decisions, but after that, it's basically the same for the rest of your life I guess, which means everybody is still very emotionaly driven and not nearly as rational as everybody pretends (or even perceives for them selves) to be.
Yes as we grow older we learn more and become more rational. But maybe that's not the case, maybe as we grow our pattions tend to disappear and we are able to rule over them. For examble neuroscience tells us that the emotional part of our brain has indeed a priority against the rational one, that has to do with the way blood operates into our brains. But as we grow older maybe that factor is influenced too.
Emotion will win over rational thinking almost every time no matter what age you are. UNLESS you’ve been trained, or trained yourself, to ignore those emotion impulses and trust in your rational mind.
This thing about Hume is that not only did he share his philosophical ideas with the world but believed them enough to actually live by his own philosophy. This I believe is what sets him apart and why more people should adopt his way of life. If a man is willing to die by his own ideas then i'd be willing to at least give them a corner of thought.
It also largely glosses over Hume's views for the perception of the videographer's. This all may be true, but Hume was more concerned about empiricism not whatever this guy is blathering on about.
To distrust our perception and to recognize the impermanence of excistance is axiomatic to buddhist philosophy, but certainly not exclusive to buddhism.
Great video! My two cents: Hume's idea that pandering to emotions rather than rationale resonates in the modern world. People seek out ideas that make them feel good regardless of their validity. Mystical-psuedoscience books like the _The Power of Now_ and _The Secret_ become best-sellers while books written by physics professors sell a tiny fraction of that. Political ads don't go into the details of economic policies, but instead trump up terrorism to pander to peoples fears. While this is the nature of humanity, it is still an obstacle and is still better to change minds through logical arguments. The pulp science fiction books in the 40s and 50s had the right strategy. The covers often were drenched in horror and sexuality but there were profound insights in the plot of the book. They pandered to peoples visceral emotions to get people to start the story, but then appealed to their rational minds once they were invested. This is also true of youtube videos, the thumbnails are colorful and often sexual/bizarre/scary even if the content is meant to appeal to to the logical mind.
*"While this is the nature of humanity,"* This part is practically undeniable. *"it is still an obstacle and is still better to change minds through logical arguments."* The main problem with "proving" this is that we must settle on a definition of "better". In the common, intuitive sense of the word, changing minds through logical reasoning rather than by emotional manipulation is "better". I don't see Qaedtg's statement as particularly unreasonable and it has plenty of basis in empirical truth. *"If you cannot, you just spoke purely from emotion, with a groundless, self evident truth."* A groundless, self-evident truth is a nonsensical concept; self-evident truth *is* the ground off which reason builds. Overall, you're the only one trying to seem "better" by making a lot of arrogant statements toward Qaedtg's reasonable comment.
Thomas Vu , I completely agree with your dissection of the flaws in Heretic's statement. Yet another flaw in Hume's reasoning is his claim that religions, despite being the product of irrationality have utility. I agree that religions are the product of irrationality. However, it would be very unusual for utility to arise out of irrationality. Human necessities do entail that a religion cannot form in entirely blatant contradiction. This doesn't mean that any given religion operates with utility or even with realizable goals, at least not in modern times. To clarify, institutions such as the Catholic Church may have been useful in the past, wielding great power and serving as a unifying force, but this does not mean that it was beneficial utility. This can be clearly seen when the Reformation began and secularism formed.
Have you actually read the power of now? Why are you so quick to deride people trying to feel good. Would you rather someone commit suicide then become spiritual by reading such a book. Think about the implications of what you are saying. We are not robots, we need to feel good sometimes otherwise none of us would be here very long. Even a supposed "rational" person such as yourself probably tells themselves falsehoods everyday to make yourself feel better. Hume was right that you cannot escape your nature, without it you would not even exist. The best thing to do is accept it and transmutate it's power into something great.
Hume is one who understands me deeply and I can relate to him very well. I'm very glad this video was made from my very favorite channel. Love the work, School of Life.
Thank you for the primers on famous philosophers. I love your simple and interesting summaries. I always wondered why certain thinkers like Hume, Smith, Descartes, and Kant were considered so important to philosophers. Many of us commoners are curious, but are unwilling to invest thousands of hours reading and comparing just to arrive at a two-paragraph synopsis.
“So convenient a thing to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do.” - Benjamin Franklin
I totally agree to his ideas. Thank you to my professor who gave us the activity to search about David Hume. And also, thank you to the people behind the video who constructed the idea in order for us to easily understand the view of life of David Hume.
I have been following this channel for quiet some months now. I absolutely love your videos. Not only are they informative but emphasize human values like Love, compassion and understanding. This channel is like a safe retreat from the battlefield of everyday mundane experiences.
Enlightening! I now know more about Hume; truly a great, sympathetic, and practical philosopher! A philosopher for most of the people, not only for the very accomplished, supremely logical person.
Research in positive psychology tells us the benefits of benevolence, of being kind, of being empathetic. It points out to the fact that certain reward circuitries in our brains get activated everytime we act kindly. It was also seen that acting kindly resulted in lasting happiness. So, yes now we have logical reasons to behave in a benevolent manner. We should do it for our own happiness. What I mean to say is maybe we don't need schools to follow a 'feeling' way of teaching like Hume suggested.
Ive seen this in practice. Especially in at my work place. Where people got promoted not due to merit but how the management felt about them. You have to be more sociable and likeable to prosper in life.
This barely touches on Hume's most important contributions. I mean, Kant built much of his own philosophy as a response to Hume's skepticism of science. Hume believed that we couldn't actually know the cause of anything. Has the sun come up the previous billion days? Sure, but we cannot know that it will come up tomorrow. That seems like kind of a big deal to understand how Hume came to this philosophy. It's hugely important and influential, but like I said not even touched in this video.
This seemes more aimed towards his practical philosophy and personal history as an itroduction on not so focused on theory of knowledge, unfortunately...
Well, I think this guy is a communist - materialist, mechanist, determinist, etc. - and if causation falls apart - which it does in Hume as well as in quantum mechanics, then the whole edifice of Marxist determinism falls apart, and Marxism and communism have no ground to stand on, except emotionalism, i.e., let's be kind to the less fortunate and share.
I feel like he was so ahead of his time. Like his moral is basically an evolution based one, he was almost atheist, understood the importance of feelings (again very evolutionnist ideas), his vision on the self is basically what meditation teaches us, and an accurate description imo. And he fucking understood some basic shit that it feels like no one did before.. Like on moral the Hum's guillotine is something so crucial that weirdly he was the first to understand. The problem of induction is also an amazing idea. Like I just love the skepticism in this guy, an actually much more brutal one than Descartes, he doesn't drop it midway to prove god's existence. Everything seems to make sense, no explanations coming from nowhere, big principles, just a description, that is very humble btw and self critic. Even though he didn't give much credit to reason, his argumentation is almost flawless.
Please cover more of this. That's the School of Life that grew on me so quickly! That original formula was already perfect to me. I still don't get why you've ever changed this way.
6:48 "We are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other in inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement." That's not very far removed from the quantum-mechanical description of physical matter.
6:27 Sounds a lot like Quantum Theory. Observation changes the outcome so to speak. The self then is undefinable but rather a bundle of possibilities...
@@hoangvanoan845 I think the non-self theory is much more imposing than it really is, the whole "you aren't the same person you were when you were young" type of thing. I think that the idea that the soul can evolve is just as valid. And obviously, it's really all speculation.
1. The founder of this channel Alain de Botton once mentioned Bach on an interview, as the perfect example of a mixture of rationality and emotion. Friends who are not familiar with Bach, if you wish, just listen to this and you'll understand: "Aus Liebe will mein Heiland sterben" ( search for the version with the soprano Sibylla Rubens ) It would be great if we could live our lives just a little bit like the way Bach composed. 2. When you said that Hume believed in common sense, I remembered Chamfort saying: " Public opinion is the worst of all opinions". Well, indeed he is kind of right too, huh? But may be these words by the Nobel Laureate Physicist Frank Wilczek make justice to both Hume and Chamfort: “You can recognize a deep truth by the feature that its opposite is also a deep truth.” 3. This is what I loved the most from this lesson: " Being good means getting into good habits of feeling". I remembered a great TED Talk by Guy Winch called: " Why we all need to practice emotional first aid". He tells us for example that chronic loneliness increases your likelihood of an early death by 14 percent. If we weren't emotionally driven creatures, how could that be true? He explains us how to build emotional resilience, mentioning the most important four components. Don't miss it! He is very funny too. 4. On the issue about our "core identity" , whether we change over the years or not, there is a terribly interesting Invisibilia podcast episode called: " The Personality Myth" 5. I haven't read Hume yet, but I once watched a lecture about him. These are the words from that lecture that I liked the most: "Hume's answer is to found morality on sentiment, on fellow feeling,on empathy for others. We naturally identify with others and share their pain." No wonder he had such a soft ending. Only a person who lived well, feeling at home in this world and having a sense of " brotherhood" can die so peacefully.
Being good means getting into good habits of feeling...I have a feeling u practice that lua veli :) About no.2 I cant help but agree with Chamfort and not so much with Hume, I couldn't really grasp what Frank Wilczek meant by his phrase though, will u elaborate? :)
Selamun aleykum Yarah! Always nice to hear from you:-) Thanks a lot for your lovely message. Oh yes, Chamfort speaks to heart, especially in these days after the horrifying Brexit decision. To your question: what Wilczek says is so interesting you know... I can't claim to have understood it fully. But may be I got a sense of it. I have also came across that idea in a book buy Andrew Solomon called " Far from the Tree". Before you read the rest, watch the trailer of that book if you wish.... It is so moving. He says certain conditions like deafness or dwarfism are seen as medical conditions, but indeed they are "identities" too. In the book he says: "Physicists gain certain insights from understanding energy as a wave, and other insights undertsanding it as a particle, and use quantum mechanics to reconcile the information they have gleaned. Similarly we have to examine illness and identity, understand that observation usually happen in one domain or the other, and come up with a syncretic mechanics. We need a vocabulary in which the two concepts are not opposites, but compatible aspects of a condition. " To understand Wilczek better, you could listen to the "On Being with Krista Tippett" podcast wit him. I am totally addicted to that podcast. Well, actually, to try the podcast you must listen to the episode with Maria Popova first. She is an incredibly wise woman. The one who founded the website " Brain Pickings". Subscribe to her Sunday newsletters too. You'll find great books! Sorry for such a caotic message! Good night:-)
@@jerrykoh9692 Hello there! Thank you very much for your time! I am very happy to hear that you have found this comment interesting. Stay safe and healthy :- ) Many greetings!
Your channel has given me much insight over the past 1,5 years and it is always a joy to watch - one of a kind. If you read this I would like to see a video on Alan Watts, but as long as you keep doing your thing at least a part of the world is moving forward :) This is not only a great video but perfect timing for a lecture I will have. You gave me clarity from the start, thank you!
I am just learning about this great man! He seems to have brilliantly drawn a mid-line between our logical self and our emotional self upon which he walked throughout his life. A wise man would know by experience that in order to persuade someone you must take into account the person you are trying to persuade and the nature of man to be an emotional creature. An example which comes to mind is the character Sherlock Holmes who largely fails at being liked. He is quite brilliant logically but lacks the basic temperament to account for the way humans are designed. The contempt that Sherlock holds for people not being rooted into logic alienates him socially. While Sherlock attacks the irrational beliefs of people aggressively using logic he makes them feel threatened and when has someone been persuaded when they felt threatened? Hume on the other hand I imagine would use the feelings attached with the irrational belief, make them feel safe and then continue to carefully make his case, therefore, art.
"committed to preventing our feelings from getting in the way" 4:30ish. Two Einstein quotes: "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." "I believe in intuitions and inspirations...I sometimes FEEL that I am right. I do not KNOW that I am."
Thank you for the video you have introduced me to philosophers of great knowledge; I have lived my life based on rationale and logic (interrupted by a lot of irrational and impulsive decisions some giving me the greatest happiness in my life) so this video hits home I recently ended a relationship based on rationale, in a move I conceived as logical and well thought out I made one of the biggest mistakes of my life. We cannot discount or forget the way a certain person makes you feel even though you might think someone else is a more logical fit or will be a better fit in the long run, if someone makes you happy in more ways than they disappoint you I know now it is better to try your hardest to bring this person up because logically you will find another partner but it's no guarantee this person will make you happy in the proven ways the other did and at the end of the day It's only logical to build on something you know exist than to chase something that might not be there.
Hate to burst everyone's happy bubble but Hume was a lot more complex and cannot be broken down into a few blurbs on how he chose feelings over rationality! Reading his actual work is difficult and rewarding.
I have really high hopes for an episode on Villém Flusser. Has everything to do, not only with our moment in time, but with the channel - as a medium - itself.
I absolutely love this channel. These videos have brought me more insight about the human condition than TV, School, Video games, movies, books or even people have ever brought. Maybe I need to get out more but this needs to be a required channel on youtube in my opinion.
Great video! I'm writing a Philosophy of Science exam in the near future... So if videos about Popper, Kuhn or Feyerabend appeared on this channel.. well, I would be much obliged
Finally a famous Western philosopher who seemed to live well. I often feel like most great western philosophers undermine the validity of their ideas by being jerks, Nazis, emotional wreks, sexually unhealthy, or people I wouldn't trust to be around children. This guy reminds me of Plato, a master, not only of intellectual gymnastics, but of living.
When we are concerned about feelings, we are forced to reason. The cause of reasoning are feelings, reasoning then also affects feelings a great deal. Coming up with the strategy of addressing one's feeling is reasoning itself. Concerning about others' feelings is important, but it is correct and incorrect reasoning that matter at the end of the day, not feelings' importance superseding reasoning's importance
Incredible explanation. Not sure if I love or hate Hume, but I can appreciate his thought. This is a fascinating topic of philosophy that I tend to think about on a regular basis. This video is also well put together. +1 sub :)
I've been seeing the name Hume for days now to the point that I realized it, low and behold I end up here with this guy countering the arguments of my previously favourite philosopher Descartes and making perfect sense... shit... lol this is literally about to change my life... the world really is kinda crazy as is... why try to make that much sense of it... I want to die happy too man
I think in some ways that common sense can lead to mistakes, ignorance, and suffering for others. For example, when you meet someone who you notice is messing up their lives by making mistakes but they just continue laughing on about it....And then they expect you to laugh about it, too, so the right thing to do then would be to let them be because the common sense idea would be to allow them to continue living their life in such a blindful manner, since you are not even very close (such as a coworker/classmate) But by doing this, they will continue on living their life in that same way. And you could have done something to prevent their continuing unconscious suffering, but because the "right thing" to do would laugh about it when them and let them go because their life is not on your list of priorities, You have allowed another human being to live their life this way. And they will continue on making the SAME mistakes, and the rest of humanity will also continue on noticing, but not ever let them know their such mistakes. I've seen this occur multiple times during my lifetime. Where someone keeps making the same mistakes, but because others don't want to make them feel bad about themselves they just never tell them, and so the person continues on making the same mistakes until the day they die. I find it quite sad, actually. This is why I think BOTH rationality AND feeling are immensely important. Feelings should not be the only disposition we think of when communicating with one another.
"We are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in perpetual flux and movement" It may just be me but I see a strong connection between this and how certain Eastern philosophies view things, specifically daoism
I was just looking for anything to make sense of Hume's take on cause and effect but this was really nice. I like the way you all humanized him because his humanity was delightful
I agree with Hume. Logic is a tool and a process. That’s all It it’s . To say someone is motivated by rationality doesn’t really make sense because all rationality is directed toward something. That something may be finding the truth or solving a problem, but those are ultimately desires that are supported by emotions. Everything we do is to satisfy our emotions and feel happier
I love the insights the School of Life brings, but I especially love their fan base. There's no arguing here and nearly every comment is made by someone just as enlightened as the last. This channel truly is great in all facets
+The School of Life thank you for making a video on Hume, I love his philosophy and skepticism. You did leave out that he greatly aggravated the Catholic church by his writings. He was my favorite in Philosophy classes.
My favourite quote of Hume's: "I'm prepared to accept the idea of a great deity, I just don't understand why He requires our constant applause!"
Hahaha I love this, I always used to bring out this point.
@Naraka it's not even asked for. All that the Hebrew God asked for is acknowledgement of his blessings. Not worship
@Naraka Yeah. I suppose if you just ignore the rest of the Bible(like the commandments) That makes sense. In reality, that isn't what happened.
@@Charlie-wl2qt by your perspective, the most demanding of the ten commandments would be #1 & 2.
Have no other gods. Hey if I'm your creator, all I ask is you don't treat someone or something else like they're your creator.
2. Hey, don't want no problems don't start none. Keep your name out of my mouth.
The rest are pretty standard "don't be horrible" that yt atheists say are common sense abd don't need a God to tell them to do.
Which is it? Too rigid/demanding or unneeded because we know better?
@@davegilbertson What excatly is it you're trying to point out to me?
"Trying to be rational everytime is a special kind of madness"
Be your philosopher, but amidst of all your philosophy , be man. WOW.
That should read "be human" if taken in the spirit it was meant (yes, it is sexist with the woman of the period being an extension of the dominant male in her life).
@@ywoulduchoosetousethis SIMP
I love this. This seems to be so true to me. I see around me everyone making decisions from feeling, instead of facts and logic. Very true.
It is highly irrational to deny the logic or existence of feelings. Feelings, like rational thought, are defined by what one does with them, rather than their subjective basis.
@@phoenixcodge6870 : Cliche terms like _"simp"_ and _"sjw"_ are used by those who have, as of yet, been unable to come to grips with the fact that denying their feelings is unreasonable/illogical. So they seek to project this denial of their own feelings onto others through the usage of such cliches.
This is the first philosopher I know of that died happily. That must speak for something.
@@_PanchoVillarealizing we have no meaning is both the scariest thing and most beautiful thing. Life has no meaning, it sucks that's there's not something better afterwards, but it's amazing that we are able to even do anything in the first place, so take advantage of that and enjoy life.
@@Hmmmmmmm1lol no. It’s not amazing at all. It’s nihilistic.
@@Hmmmmmmm1”enjoy life”
Why?
@@countryboyred because you only get 1, might as well enjoy it and make other lives better rather than not. Once you're gone you're gone, so be happy you exist in the first place. It's a very VERY low chance you exist.
@@Hmmmmmmm1 thanks for your response.
He criticises logic and reason, while using logic and reason.
And it is still beautiful.
Would be hesitant in using the word "logic" and "reason" that loosely 😅. Just simply good arguments, good "sensible" arguments 🙂.
@@DC-zi6seWell, technically is still logic and reason.
set theory and reason*
Reasoning and argumentation is based more on set theory than logic.
He sounds like the ultimate pragmatists, aware of the futility of much of what he is doing, yet still doing it. He was probably a philosopher free from any illusions of grandeur, and I respect that.
If only modern philosophers would follow his example. It's acceptable to have small errors in your work, that can be corrected at a later date, even by other people. Instead, we get entire fields based on fantasies.
i thought this too. there's a sort of lineage that flows from Hume to Dewey to Chomsky (or, more correctly, the lineage flows backwards from Chomsky to Dewey to Hume!)
A philosopher is a lover of a reason - not someone who denies reason and regards it as futile. As for the Pragmatists - by their denial of objective moral right and wrong (indeed their denial of objective truth in general) they did terrible harm.
@@paulvmarks Pragmatism didn’t do away with that, modernity did.
@@tibfulv
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
These Philosopher guys are pretty smart
If god made me think rational, and if rational thinking it’s the best there is, I would tell God if he existed fuck you, you made impossible to believe you exist lol 😂 that’s him
He is a part of the consciousness'evolution.
0:-)
@@gforcedod shame on your rudeness, talked to your parents like that too???
Crystal Shining, I was speaking Metaphorically darling. However, you are correct, I should not use a foul language in any Circumstance.
Smart asses! Ha
Basically a great thinker that didn't abandon his humanity. Huge respect
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
I can't even begin to explain how much I appreciate these videos...
MihaiRUdeRO Now that is one badass profile pic. Whose coat of arms is it?
google says romania
correct and correct :)
this has to be my favorite philosopher you've covered
I second that!
I almost feel the same, that Hume is my favorite now, but if what they say about Diogenes is true, then it's definitely Diogenes. That was one awesome human being! I bet you are awesome too, TrapMode! Best wishes!
Same
Same
We don't compare legends, Kant and Spinoza were all exceptional as Hume
He is probably the father of emotional intelligence
There's no such thing as emotional intelligence, it's a vague concept that cannot be measured.
@@enterthevoidIi Intelligence is a social construct in general (Rousseau), you cannot measure intelligence without inflicting it a categorization (aka isolating types) (Nietzsche), and thus, any type of intelligence can be considered worthless if put enough into systematic perspective. Emotional intelligence can be synonymous with rational thinking in times of hurry or other moments of emotional shade. Therefore, you can consider emotional intelligence as an advantage to anyone's components.
Well, I tend to see it that way.
As I interpreted it, he was in favour of emotional training and restraint, not unabashed feelery. Some people may have interpreted the report of his words that way, but his actual intent is more Stoic than anything else.
@@tibfulv Very cool to see another point of view. Thank you.
I think he would be proud of how we regard our emotions today. I really feel like you're right on this. I almost thought the same thing.
that quote at about 6:47 is literally how I have felt about my entire life. Thanks David for crystallizing what I could have never said as eloquently as you.
Reminds me of Francis Bacon's quote: All colors will agree in the dark; everyone is compiled of a multitude of stable and transient points of view, but, at some point, there is room for agreement
Reminds me of Francis Bacon's quote: All colors will agree in the dark; everyone is compiled of a multitude of stable and transient points of view, but, at some point, there is room for agreement
If people knew about their own feelings and learned how to control them and not be impulsive there wouldn’t be so many problems in the world. Thats why i feel philosophy of the human nature is something people need to be aware of
"philosophy of the human nature"
Isn't that basically psychology?
There are numerous people benefitting from others not being in control of their emotions and work diligently to keep it that way. There are many books on emotional intelligence. I'd put money on the idea that most people don't even know what that is.
@@KinoStudentX : While I agree with the rest of your comment, I would refrain from saying those people actually _"benefit"_ from such oppression of others. Feelings exist as a balance to reason. One without the other would _feel bad/be illogical._ Therefore being a detriment to their mental/emotional health.
@fynes leigh : Feelings are more important than most realize. For instance: anger in it's purest form is simply energy to inspire us into action, similar to how pain exists to inspire us to stay healthy. Anger in and of itself is not intrinsically negative. We are not defined by what we feel, but rather by what we do with those feelings.
fynes leigh if that’s the case then what is the point of making it decisions with those feeling. To what degree is there a lack of choice? Are you saying they restrict to just what we feel or are you saying they go beyond to the point where we lack agency with what we do to those feelings?
David Hume is the kind of person that you would want as your best friend!
"Trying to be rational about everything is a special kind of madness".
WHOA.😍
if it weren't for science we'd live in darkness
I don't agree that being rational about everything is a special kind of madness. Yes, you must feel the energy around you and gather it in order to cure diseases but rationality is the key to life.
@@Rod1712 We do live in Darkness. Ask the MAGA universe.
@@cartergomez5390 ‘feel the energy around’? That does not sound very rational to me.
@@Mr.Monta77 All of that are superstitions
You know what I always find amusing? How some of the greatest thinkers of the world who were also people who connected well with the common people, world around them and genuinely wanted to help others (Orwell, Nietzsche, Hume etc.), were also people who hated academics and universities etc.
Imagine what the would think of academia now
I have adult ADHD and because of that it's hard for men to focus and read books. your video was really helpful and informative. Thank you for your time to create that.
Anyone else just genuinely interested in philosophy and watching these great videos?
Actually my day job has nothing to do with philosophy. I am watching for its own sake
no, you're special
Yeah lad
I do philosophy in uni and I'm totally dropping it, not as fun when you're being tested (this is part of my studying)
@@idah aka you aren't good enough lol. Jk jk
Hume was the man. I love how he was smart AF and still chose to live among the people and did so happily. His last days are so inspirational. Now that’s a philosopher to follow 💕💕💕
I really like this way of thinking, and it acknowledges a feeling I have had for a while now. When I was younger I looked up to elderly people (say 30+), thinking they where more emotionally mature, and where more or less free from emotional descisions, and who had their rationale in control. When I was around 20 I still had that feeling; once you're around 30 you must be mature, and don't have people around you making rushed decisions based on emotion. Now that I"m 26 I see that nothing has changed for me in the last 4-5 years or so, and if I look at people of 30+, 40+ etc., I still see the same emotional responses, the lack of self control, envious and childish bullshit. They are very much like any 22 year old, except they have a morgage, a steady office job and one or two kids.
Bottomline; untill a certain age you are more prone to emotional decisions, but after that, it's basically the same for the rest of your life I guess, which means everybody is still very emotionaly driven and not nearly as rational as everybody pretends (or even perceives for them selves) to be.
Yes as we grow older we learn more and become more rational. But maybe that's not the case, maybe as we grow our pattions tend to disappear and we are able to rule over them. For examble neuroscience tells us that the emotional part of our brain has indeed a priority against the rational one, that has to do with the way blood operates into our brains. But as we grow older maybe that factor is influenced too.
I question you and the people around you then. That's what happens when you ditch religion in favor of a man made morality.
Emotion will win over rational thinking almost every time no matter what age you are. UNLESS you’ve been trained, or trained yourself, to ignore those emotion impulses and trust in your rational mind.
This thing about Hume is that not only did he share his philosophical ideas with the world but believed them enough to actually live by his own philosophy. This I believe is what sets him apart and why more people should adopt his way of life. If a man is willing to die by his own ideas then i'd be willing to at least give them a corner of thought.
Thank you very much for your beyond quality content. I grew to love this channel with a passion.
You have a pink hair?
Yup, only one.
EsamoKoram
Look at how thin their neck is. Of course they have pink hair.
BTS TRASH I second that!
If I could I'd dedicate my life to being school of life evangelist. Trying to get as many people on this planet as possible to watch these videos.
Now I remember why I liked this guy in college. Years later this is a good primer on his simple yet extraordinary way to live.
wow this Hume is amazing. his take on personal identity is like what zen masters are trying to teach
I wonder whether he knew about the teaching of anatta.
It also largely glosses over Hume's views for the perception of the videographer's. This all may be true, but Hume was more concerned about empiricism not whatever this guy is blathering on about.
I think he arrived at it independently of Eastern teachings. It's empirically obvious when we look close.
To distrust our perception and to recognize the impermanence of excistance is axiomatic to buddhist philosophy, but certainly not exclusive to buddhism.
I enthusiastically agree! It's pretty amazing how often philosophical concepts come full circle between East and West.
Great video! My two cents:
Hume's idea that pandering to emotions rather than rationale resonates in the modern world. People seek out ideas that make them feel good regardless of their validity. Mystical-psuedoscience books like the _The Power of Now_ and _The Secret_ become best-sellers while books written by physics professors sell a tiny fraction of that. Political ads don't go into the details of economic policies, but instead trump up terrorism to pander to peoples fears. While this is the nature of humanity, it is still an obstacle and is still better to change minds through logical arguments.
The pulp science fiction books in the 40s and 50s had the right strategy. The covers often were drenched in horror and sexuality but there were profound insights in the plot of the book. They pandered to peoples visceral emotions to get people to start the story, but then appealed to their rational minds once they were invested. This is also true of youtube videos, the thumbnails are colorful and often sexual/bizarre/scary even if the content is meant to appeal to to the logical mind.
*"While this is the nature of humanity,"*
This part is practically undeniable.
*"it is still an obstacle and is still better to change minds through logical arguments."*
The main problem with "proving" this is that we must settle on a definition of "better". In the common, intuitive sense of the word, changing minds through logical reasoning rather than by emotional manipulation is "better".
I don't see Qaedtg's statement as particularly unreasonable and it has plenty of basis in empirical truth.
*"If you cannot, you just spoke purely from emotion, with a groundless, self evident truth."*
A groundless, self-evident truth is a nonsensical concept; self-evident truth *is* the ground off which reason builds.
Overall, you're the only one trying to seem "better" by making a lot of arrogant statements toward Qaedtg's reasonable comment.
Thomas Vu , I completely agree with your dissection of the flaws in Heretic's statement.
Yet another flaw in Hume's reasoning is his claim that religions, despite being the product of irrationality have utility. I agree that religions are the product of irrationality. However, it would be very unusual for utility to arise out of irrationality. Human necessities do entail that a religion cannot form in entirely blatant contradiction. This doesn't mean that any given religion operates with utility or even with realizable goals, at least not in modern times. To clarify, institutions such as the Catholic Church may have been useful in the past, wielding great power and serving as a unifying force, but this does not mean that it was beneficial utility. This can be clearly seen when the Reformation began and secularism formed.
Have you actually read the power of now? Why are you so quick to deride people trying to feel good. Would you rather someone commit suicide then become spiritual by reading such a book. Think about the implications of what you are saying. We are not robots, we need to feel good sometimes otherwise none of us would be here very long. Even a supposed "rational" person such as yourself probably tells themselves falsehoods everyday to make yourself feel better. Hume was right that you cannot escape your nature, without it you would not even exist. The best thing to do is accept it and transmutate it's power into something great.
examples of these books?
"Trump up terrorism to pander to people's fears." You go that right. Trump.
Hume is one who understands me deeply and I can relate to him very well. I'm very glad this video was made from my very favorite channel. Love the work, School of Life.
You make it sound like Hume is a relative.
Thank you for the primers on famous philosophers. I love your simple and interesting summaries. I always wondered why certain thinkers like Hume, Smith, Descartes, and Kant were considered so important to philosophers. Many of us commoners are curious, but are unwilling to invest thousands of hours reading and comparing just to arrive at a two-paragraph synopsis.
distinguishing between thought and feeling is another example of using language to separate body & mind.
“So convenient a thing to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do.” - Benjamin Franklin
I totally agree to his ideas. Thank you to my professor who gave us the activity to search about David Hume. And also, thank you to the people behind the video who constructed the idea in order for us to easily understand the view of life of David Hume.
Exactly if not for this he would be confusing.
I have been following this channel for quiet some months now. I absolutely love your videos. Not only are they informative but emphasize human values like Love, compassion and understanding. This channel is like a safe retreat from the battlefield of everyday mundane experiences.
Enlightening! I now know more about Hume; truly a great, sympathetic, and practical philosopher! A philosopher for most of the people, not only for the very accomplished, supremely logical person.
Research in positive psychology tells us the benefits of benevolence, of being kind, of being empathetic. It points out to the fact that certain reward circuitries in our brains get activated everytime we act kindly. It was also seen that acting kindly resulted in lasting happiness.
So, yes now we have logical reasons to behave in a benevolent manner. We should do it for our own happiness. What I mean to say is maybe we don't need schools to follow a 'feeling' way of teaching like Hume suggested.
Ive seen this in practice. Especially in at my work place. Where people got promoted not due to merit but how the management felt about them.
You have to be more sociable and likeable to prosper in life.
Therefore the Old saying.."its not what you know, but who you know"
@@william3onfire Very true saying
I like the Hume-erous touch in this video
lol
I find it interesting that this video done on Hume is post-HUME ...ous
Someone was bound to, and you're that guy. Am I the only one who doesn't find puns amusing?
Hume in shades with a black leather jacket and a cigarette? Most Hume-erous, Postman Pat.
Postman Pat is this suppose to be wit. This is by far the worst thinking philosopher who was just a troll to the previos philosophers before him.
One of my absolute if not favourite philosophers of all time. Just love him so much.
Well, i'm a world where, acording to Yuval Harari: "democracy results are influenced by our emotions", i belive he's very much current to our days.
Thank you for introducing Hume to me! I am already looking for his books!
These ancient philosophers were so very intelligent. They were so real with how the world works
Wow, I thought I knew Hume, this video just made me respect him and relate to him in a whole new light thank you for this
This was the best series of School Of Life and I hope you guys make a sequel
This barely touches on Hume's most important contributions. I mean, Kant built much of his own philosophy as a response to Hume's skepticism of science. Hume believed that we couldn't actually know the cause of anything. Has the sun come up the previous billion days? Sure, but we cannot know that it will come up tomorrow. That seems like kind of a big deal to understand how Hume came to this philosophy. It's hugely important and influential, but like I said not even touched in this video.
This seemes more aimed towards his practical philosophy and personal history as an itroduction on not so focused on theory of knowledge, unfortunately...
to be fair its not a bad idea comments like your's encourage those who are new to the subject matter to dig for themselves
@@oscarwahlberg1837 Well, it's only 11 minutes.
Well, I think this guy is a communist - materialist, mechanist, determinist, etc. - and if causation falls apart - which it does in Hume as well as in quantum mechanics, then the whole edifice of Marxist determinism falls apart, and Marxism and communism have no ground to stand on, except emotionalism, i.e., let's be kind to the less fortunate and share.
@@xanthe5401 yes.
Just to know that great minds walked the earth and their intellectuals still roam this earth, mind boggles me.
FINALLY A PHILOSOPHY VIDEO!! :D
Literature next!
Yup finally
William Faulkner, please.
..or Henry James.
yarah you are beautiful, where are you from ?
Lucid and concise summary of Hume's basic ideas. I wish there was more about Hume's thoughts on justice.
I feel like he was so ahead of his time. Like his moral is basically an evolution based one, he was almost atheist, understood the importance of feelings (again very evolutionnist ideas), his vision on the self is basically what meditation teaches us, and an accurate description imo. And he fucking understood some basic shit that it feels like no one did before.. Like on moral the Hum's guillotine is something so crucial that weirdly he was the first to understand.
The problem of induction is also an amazing idea.
Like I just love the skepticism in this guy, an actually much more brutal one than Descartes, he doesn't drop it midway to prove god's existence. Everything seems to make sense, no explanations coming from nowhere, big principles, just a description, that is very humble btw and self critic. Even though he didn't give much credit to reason, his argumentation is almost flawless.
This channel is a beacon of wisdom in the internet and has become my unquestionably favorite hiding place. Keep up the hustle guys ✌️️
Brilliant. Thank you. Others are nitpicking but as an intro to the great man it works as a perfect first step.
Please cover more of this. That's the School of Life that grew on me so quickly! That original formula was already perfect to me. I still don't get why you've ever changed this way.
6:48 "We are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other in inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement."
That's not very far removed from the quantum-mechanical description of physical matter.
Hume just became one of my top five favorite philosophers.
9:13 Hume: "What is a good life?"
Conan: "To crush your enemies. See them driven before you... and to hear the lamentation of their women!"
He'll probably relax a bit when he gives up his Late Night show.
@@drewcampbell8555 😆👍
The way Hume's neck tilts on every conclusion drawn 😁 , this channel's videos are driven by reason and feelings .
6:27 Sounds a lot like Quantum Theory. Observation changes the outcome so to speak. The self then is undefinable but rather a bundle of possibilities...
univibe23 Like non-self theory of Buddhism too
@@hoangvanoan845 I think the non-self theory is much more imposing than it really is, the whole "you aren't the same person you were when you were young" type of thing. I think that the idea that the soul can evolve is just as valid. And obviously, it's really all speculation.
Finally one on David Hume, thank you so much for the quality of your videos in terms of content/form.
1. The founder of this channel Alain de Botton once mentioned Bach on an interview, as the perfect example of a mixture of rationality and emotion. Friends who are not familiar with Bach, if you wish, just listen to this and you'll understand:
"Aus Liebe will mein Heiland sterben" ( search for the version with the soprano Sibylla Rubens )
It would be great if we could live our lives just a little bit like the way Bach composed.
2. When you said that Hume believed in common sense, I remembered Chamfort saying:
" Public opinion is the worst of all opinions".
Well, indeed he is kind of right too, huh?
But may be these words by the Nobel Laureate Physicist Frank Wilczek make justice to both Hume and Chamfort:
“You can recognize a deep truth by the feature that its opposite is also a deep truth.”
3. This is what I loved the most from this lesson:
" Being good means getting into good habits of feeling".
I remembered a great TED Talk by Guy Winch called:
" Why we all need to practice emotional first aid".
He tells us for example that chronic loneliness increases your likelihood of an early death by 14 percent. If we weren't emotionally driven creatures, how could that be true?
He explains us how to build emotional resilience, mentioning the most important four components. Don't miss it! He is very funny too.
4. On the issue about our "core identity" , whether we change over the years or not, there is a terribly interesting Invisibilia podcast episode called:
" The Personality Myth"
5. I haven't read Hume yet, but I once watched a lecture about him. These are the words from that lecture that I liked the most:
"Hume's answer is to found morality on sentiment, on fellow feeling,on empathy for others. We naturally identify with others and share their pain."
No wonder he had such a soft ending. Only a person who lived well, feeling at home in this world and having a sense of " brotherhood" can die so peacefully.
Being good means getting into good habits of feeling...I have a feeling u practice that lua veli :)
About no.2 I cant help but agree with Chamfort and not so much with Hume, I couldn't really grasp what Frank Wilczek meant by his phrase though, will u elaborate? :)
Selamun aleykum Yarah! Always nice to hear from you:-) Thanks a lot for your lovely message. Oh yes, Chamfort speaks to heart, especially in these days after the horrifying Brexit decision. To your question:
what Wilczek says is so interesting you know... I can't claim to have understood it fully. But may be I got a sense of it. I have also came across that idea in a book buy Andrew Solomon called " Far from the Tree". Before you read the rest, watch the trailer of that book if you
wish.... It is so moving. He says certain conditions like deafness or dwarfism are seen as medical conditions, but indeed they are "identities" too. In the book he says:
"Physicists gain certain insights from understanding energy as a wave, and other insights undertsanding it as a particle, and use quantum mechanics to reconcile the information they have gleaned. Similarly we have to examine illness and identity, understand that observation usually happen in one domain or the other, and come up with a syncretic mechanics. We need a vocabulary in which the two concepts are not opposites, but compatible aspects of a condition. "
To understand Wilczek better, you could listen to the "On Being with Krista Tippett" podcast wit him. I am totally addicted to that podcast. Well, actually, to try the podcast you must listen to the episode with Maria Popova first. She is an incredibly wise woman. The one who founded the website " Brain Pickings". Subscribe to her Sunday newsletters too. You'll find great books!
Sorry for such a caotic message! Good night:-)
Thank you for your enriching and nice comment!!! Love the things you shared there :)
@@jerrykoh9692 Hello there! Thank you very much for your time! I am very happy to hear that you have found this comment interesting. Stay safe and healthy :- ) Many greetings!
I had a professor in college (Don Martindale) who reduced the types of sociological theory from over 70 to seven. His favorite philosopher was Hume!
Your channel has given me much insight over the past 1,5 years and it is always a joy to watch - one of a kind. If you read this I would like to see a video on Alan Watts, but as long as you keep doing your thing at least a part of the world is moving forward :)
This is not only a great video but perfect timing for a lecture I will have. You gave me clarity from the start, thank you!
more philosophe... yes more please (i have been waiting for this).
I am just learning about this great man! He seems to have brilliantly drawn a mid-line between our logical self and our emotional self upon which he walked throughout his life. A wise man would know by experience that in order to persuade someone you must take into account the person you are trying to persuade and the nature of man to be an emotional creature.
An example which comes to mind is the character Sherlock Holmes who largely fails at being liked. He is quite brilliant logically but lacks the basic temperament to account for the way humans are designed. The contempt that Sherlock holds for people not being rooted into logic alienates him socially. While Sherlock attacks the irrational beliefs of people aggressively using logic he makes them feel threatened and when has someone been persuaded when they felt threatened? Hume on the other hand I imagine would use the feelings attached with the irrational belief, make them feel safe and then continue to carefully make his case, therefore, art.
Holmes friends were Watson and cocaine! Not so rational between cases, but I digress, he wasn't real!
"One should not assume the philosophy of David Hume
Is nothing more then a subjective conclusion" - Canibus
Wow the doctor's letter at the end put a smile on my face. Thanks for the great vid.
"committed to preventing our feelings from getting in the way" 4:30ish. Two Einstein quotes:
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
"I believe in intuitions and inspirations...I sometimes FEEL that I am right. I do not KNOW that I am."
Thank you for the video you have introduced me to philosophers of great knowledge; I have lived my life based on rationale and logic (interrupted by a lot of irrational and impulsive decisions some giving me the greatest happiness in my life) so this video hits home I recently ended a relationship based on rationale, in a move I conceived as logical and well thought out I made one of the biggest mistakes of my life. We cannot discount or forget the way a certain person makes you feel even though you might think someone else is a more logical fit or will be a better fit in the long run, if someone makes you happy in more ways than they disappoint you I know now it is better to try your hardest to bring this person up because logically you will find another partner but it's no guarantee this person will make you happy in the proven ways the other did and at the end of the day It's only logical to build on something you know exist than to chase something that might not be there.
His philosophy still resonates throughout Scotland.
I’m doing Higher philosophy in school rn and definitely not, some of his arguments are so flawed
@edgarallanpoe209 You're only starting your journey.
Humbly
Understanding
Mere
Existence
Hume is severely underrated.
Hate to burst everyone's happy bubble but Hume was a lot more complex and cannot be broken down into a few blurbs on how he chose feelings over rationality! Reading his actual work is difficult and rewarding.
So true. I always thought why was I more emotional than rational, Hume pretty much put it right, "We are slaves of our passion"
I’m a fan of Hume. Thank you for the video 😊
I have really high hopes for an episode on Villém Flusser. Has everything to do, not only with our moment in time, but with the channel - as a medium - itself.
What about Alan Watts?
Exactly
Aaron L. no, don't. that's all we need - five minutes of filler about an anglican-flavoured buddhist flanneller.
I absolutely love this channel. These videos have brought me more insight about the human condition than TV, School, Video games, movies, books or even people have ever brought. Maybe I need to get out more but this needs to be a required channel on youtube in my opinion.
Will we be seeing a Literature episode for Orwell or Huxley soon?
cant wait to see a comparison of them, or something similar, that would be great
Ahhhh I'm so excited for the Orwell episode of Literature.
Jane Doe!!!!!
As an argentinian, I would love a 'LITERATURE - Borges' video
+The School of Life hooray!!
Hume is one of my favorite thinkers. Great video as always TSoL! Big ups!
Great video! I'm writing a Philosophy of Science exam in the near future... So if videos about Popper, Kuhn or Feyerabend appeared on this channel.. well, I would be much obliged
Finally a famous Western philosopher who seemed to live well. I often feel like most great western philosophers undermine the validity of their ideas by being jerks, Nazis, emotional wreks, sexually unhealthy, or people I wouldn't trust to be around children. This guy reminds me of Plato, a master, not only of intellectual gymnastics, but of living.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
Or vice versa.
When we are concerned about feelings, we are forced to reason. The cause of reasoning are feelings, reasoning then also affects feelings a great deal. Coming up with the strategy of addressing one's feeling is reasoning itself. Concerning about others' feelings is important, but it is correct and incorrect reasoning that matter at the end of the day, not feelings' importance superseding reasoning's importance
“Reason is a slave of passion”. A precursor of Freud.
And an influence.
Damn, will need to read more Hume, sounds like he had some Earth shattering ideas, fascinating!
Incredible explanation. Not sure if I love or hate Hume, but I can appreciate his thought. This is a fascinating topic of philosophy that I tend to think about on a regular basis. This video is also well put together. +1 sub :)
I've been seeing the name Hume for days now to the point that I realized it, low and behold I end up here with this guy countering the arguments of my previously favourite philosopher Descartes and making perfect sense... shit... lol this is literally about to change my life... the world really is kinda crazy as is... why try to make that much sense of it... I want to die happy too man
Finally! Can you please do Gottfried Leibniz? Or as an unrelated request, Karl Popper?
More philosophy videos at this length is greatly appreciated! Good work.
I think in some ways that common sense can lead to mistakes, ignorance, and suffering for others.
For example, when you meet someone who you notice is messing up their lives by making mistakes but they just continue laughing on about it....And then they expect you to laugh about it, too, so the right thing to do then would be to let them be because the common sense idea would be to allow them to continue living their life in such a blindful manner, since you are not even very close (such as a coworker/classmate)
But by doing this, they will continue on living their life in that same way.
And you could have done something to prevent their continuing unconscious suffering,
but because the "right thing" to do would laugh about it when them and let them go because their life is not on your list of priorities,
You have allowed another human being to live their life this way. And they will continue on making the SAME mistakes, and the rest of humanity will also continue on noticing, but not ever let them know their such mistakes.
I've seen this occur multiple times during my lifetime. Where someone keeps making the same mistakes, but because others don't want to make them feel bad about themselves they just never tell them, and so the person continues on making the same mistakes until the day they die. I find it quite sad, actually.
This is why I think BOTH rationality AND feeling are immensely important. Feelings should not be the only disposition we think of when communicating with one another.
"It's not our problem... ...until it cause us problems."
"We are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in perpetual flux and movement" It may just be me but I see a strong connection between this and how certain Eastern philosophies view things, specifically daoism
"DAVE'S JUST THIS GUY, YOU KNOW!"
I was just looking for anything to make sense of Hume's take on cause and effect but this was really nice. I like the way you all humanized him because his humanity was delightful
Just because one cannot easily quantify emotional intelligence doesn’t negate its existence.
Thank you! It helps me to learn English and know more about philosophy.
Carl jung/alan watts?
abc def watts, please.
Jung of-course :D
fuck I was coming down here to comment that, guess im not alone
Vivek Jung's stuff is mostly bullshit. You might like to read " The Jung Conspiracy "
Dane Zen and the art of nonsense ?
As a therapist I never heard of him. I’m intrigued ❤
The year he died the year American constitution was born.. he is the father of western civilization pragmatism
Hume doesn't seem like a typical philosopher. He seems like a typical down-to-earth Scotsman.
Scotland’s very own Socrates.
its a shame he couldn't play fitba 😎👍🏴🏴
I agree with Hume. Logic is a tool and a process. That’s all It it’s . To say someone is motivated by rationality doesn’t really make sense because all rationality is directed toward something. That something may be finding the truth or solving a problem, but those are ultimately desires that are supported by emotions. Everything we do is to satisfy our emotions and feel happier
I love the insights the School of Life brings, but I especially love their fan base. There's no arguing here and nearly every comment is made by someone just as enlightened as the last. This channel truly is great in all facets
This video is so much more watchable then all the other options about hume on TH-cam. The rest of them will put you to sleep in minutes
It's a great discovery that humans are more emotional than logical?
yes
+Evan Thomas
the way I see it, you can either write an expression or be the expression after all, your heart manipulates all the laws of physics to pump blood.
haha good one.. no!!! I am just experience life being the sea and the sky. being mad and wise.
what if I wasn't trying to say anything? would you have got me??
Harika! Hume'u yattığı yerden gülümsetecek bir sunum olmuş teşekkürler.... Başka sunumlsr da isteriz...
In the middle of writing my uni coursework on Hume, and this has added some much-needed clarification to my perturbed mind - thank you!
+The School of Life thank you for making a video on Hume, I love his philosophy and skepticism. You did leave out that he greatly aggravated the Catholic church by his writings. He was my favorite in Philosophy classes.
He also upset the Scottish Presbyterians who dominated the Edinburgh of his day.