Thank you for your very helpful video! I was wondering what (if any) the difference is between this and Leibniz’s distinction between truths of reason vs truth of fact?
I am not quite sure about whether there is an inconsistency. On one hand, every propositions are traceable to impressions. On the other hand, there is a kind of propositions that is a priori, independent of experience. Does that mean even if we assert that "a triangle has an interior angle of 180 degree" still base on ideas of triangle, angle, etc. which ultimately traces to simple impressions. Once we have ideas of these, is a mere operation of mind. So that these ideas are not innate, like Decartes proposed, making Hume an empiricist.
I never quite understood Hume's skepticism of cause and effect. I know that wasn't the subject of this video, but cause and effect was mentioned at the end as the foundation of all reasonings concerning matters of fact. But if that's true (cause and effect is the foundation of all reasonings concerning matters of fact) then how does Hume's skepticism of cause and effect play into that? Or does it?
It depends on how you interpret Hume. Some say Hume meant cause and effect is not real and humans project cause and effect, others says it's real but we can't see it. So if cause and effect is the reasoning concerning matters of fact, then matters of fact is an either pure illusion or an imperfect sensory interpretation.
![What is 'Hume's Fork'? [Illustrated]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QcYwoWqiHvs/mqdefault.jpg)
I never would’ve been able to write my essay without you. Thank you so much!
You're welcome
Your videos are making it so interesting to read David Hume Enquiry. Thank you so much. Gregory B Sadler. Hope you are doing fine.
You're welcome - hope you're doing well too
Wonderful job! Thank you.
You’re welcome!
Thank you for your very helpful video! I was wondering what (if any) the difference is between this and Leibniz’s distinction between truths of reason vs truth of fact?
They're very similar. Best thing to do is read both and decide for yourself
Thank you so much sir. I have been thinking about it for quite some time but wasn't able to get it until now.
Hope you are doing fine
Glad the video was helpful for you!
I am not quite sure about whether there is an inconsistency. On one hand, every propositions are traceable to impressions. On the other hand, there is a kind of propositions that is a priori, independent of experience. Does that mean even if we assert that "a triangle has an interior angle of 180 degree" still base on ideas of triangle, angle, etc. which ultimately traces to simple impressions. Once we have ideas of these, is a mere operation of mind. So that these ideas are not innate, like Decartes proposed, making Hume an empiricist.
Ideas are derived from impressions.for Hume. You'll want to read the text and see how he thinks that takes place
Thank you.
You're welcome
I never quite understood Hume's skepticism of cause and effect. I know that wasn't the subject of this video, but cause and effect was mentioned at the end as the foundation of all reasonings concerning matters of fact. But if that's true (cause and effect is the foundation of all reasonings concerning matters of fact) then how does Hume's skepticism of cause and effect play into that? Or does it?
It depends on how you interpret Hume. Some say Hume meant cause and effect is not real and humans project cause and effect, others says it's real but we can't see it. So if cause and effect is the reasoning concerning matters of fact, then matters of fact is an either pure illusion or an imperfect sensory interpretation.
I'd read the text. He's pretty straightforward