This following is limited in that one cannot post a book in here but it should inspire discussion. Hume was wrong in ever fundamental aspect. I will start with cause and effect. He should have known that he himself began the defeat of his own philosophical position in its formulation. His billiard ball analogy was facilitated by “his” choice of billiard balls as opposed to all other things, such as crochet balls, etc. His choice was distinct and sufficient in its character that we all knew and understood it (what billiard balls were). Logically now, how is it that it was possible to choose billiard balls as opposed to anything else? It was by his recognition and surrender to the assertion of their physical characteristics (sense impressions or not), i.e., spherical so they would roll, etc. So he stated that we could not claim that the ball moving were it to strike the stationary ball would necessarily cause the latter to move. However, he should have known and understood that the motion of the one ball was “not” a characteristic of billiard balls for if so, the other ball would be moving as well. Consider (as he should have) that there cannot be motion absent an object (which is moving), an absolute truth of materiality. Motion is a phenomenon which is “about” the object moving. By “deduction” then, embedded in the inductive reasoning he presented, the motion of the ball moving had to have been imparted (again, it not a characteristic of billiard balls). That is cause and effect itself even before we calculate that were the moving ball to hit the second stationary ball it too would be forced to move, again, cause and effect. As for the nature of the reality we perceive…material entities are an imposition into materiality and by that, our perception/awareness. Quantum physics speaks to this but since he had no such knowledge, I will omit that aspect of the discussion. However, to perceive or to be aware at all (cause), even of the self, is to react, to be an effect of that imposition. Descartes had it right, “I think therefore I am”. Perception is like motion, a phenomenon and not material in any aspect. As with motion, to perceive, first there must be an object of it (of the process). That too is cause and effect. It might be argued, as silly as it is, that one cannot be certain of the accuracy of his perception of objects. However, that they exist to impose upon his awareness is a certainty. There are also rules of materiality and the logic which is a reflection of its architecture which must be considered, that a rock cannot be both here and there at once, so too one is restricted from considering legitimate that he might “appeal to truths to define a position which denies the existence of truth”. All of Hume’s nonsense about “sense impressions” and empiricism falls away in a systematic examination of the context in which this discussion takes place. The logic defined above is understood as unequivocal by the awareness, by virtue of the very means of the definition of Hume’s propositions to begin with. Hume’s entire argument cannot be formulated to be presented unless its conclusions are considered untrue for the means of its definition would then not exist. Any thoughts?
Wow. This was a great summary. You have the characteristics of a great teacher
Thank you so much!
I love your videos and the art that you use on them
Thank you so much 😀
This following is limited in that one cannot post a book in here but it should inspire discussion. Hume was wrong in ever fundamental aspect. I will start with cause and effect. He should have known that he himself began the defeat of his own philosophical position in its formulation. His billiard ball analogy was facilitated by “his” choice of billiard balls as opposed to all other things, such as crochet balls, etc. His choice was distinct and sufficient in its character that we all knew and understood it (what billiard balls were). Logically now, how is it that it was possible to choose billiard balls as opposed to anything else? It was by his recognition and surrender to the assertion of their physical characteristics (sense impressions or not), i.e., spherical so they would roll, etc. So he stated that we could not claim that the ball moving were it to strike the stationary ball would necessarily cause the latter to move. However, he should have known and understood that the motion of the one ball was “not” a characteristic of billiard balls for if so, the other ball would be moving as well. Consider (as he should have) that there cannot be motion absent an object (which is moving), an absolute truth of materiality. Motion is a phenomenon which is “about” the object moving. By “deduction” then, embedded in the inductive reasoning he presented, the motion of the ball moving had to have been imparted (again, it not a characteristic of billiard balls). That is cause and effect itself even before we calculate that were the moving ball to hit the second stationary ball it too would be forced to move, again, cause and effect.
As for the nature of the reality we perceive…material entities are an imposition into materiality and by that, our perception/awareness. Quantum physics speaks to this but since he had no such knowledge, I will omit that aspect of the discussion. However, to perceive or to be aware at all (cause), even of the self, is to react, to be an effect of that imposition. Descartes had it right, “I think therefore I am”. Perception is like motion, a phenomenon and not material in any aspect. As with motion, to perceive, first there must be an object of it (of the process). That too is cause and effect.
It might be argued, as silly as it is, that one cannot be certain of the accuracy of his perception of objects. However, that they exist to impose upon his awareness is a certainty. There are also rules of materiality and the logic which is a reflection of its architecture which must be considered, that a rock cannot be both here and there at once, so too one is restricted from considering legitimate that he might “appeal to truths to define a position which denies the existence of truth”. All of Hume’s nonsense about “sense impressions” and empiricism falls away in a systematic examination of the context in which this discussion takes place. The logic defined above is understood as unequivocal by the awareness, by virtue of the very means of the definition of Hume’s propositions to begin with. Hume’s entire argument cannot be formulated to be presented unless its conclusions are considered untrue for the means of its definition would then not exist.
Any thoughts?
Thank you so much for your time and effort! ❤️️
@@ideaslimitless Thanks for responding but i was hoping for some critique of my post. Any thoughts?