/lit/ - Literature

>>23037381
>causality isn't an illusion
he lacks the critical information

Should I start with the Treatise or skip straight to the Enquiries?

Hume on two kids of moral philosophy
>It is certain that the easy and obvious philosophy will always, with the generality of mankind, have the preference above the accurate and abstruse; and by many will be recommended, not only as more agreeable, but more useful than the other. It enters more into common life; moulds the heart and affections; and, by touching those principles which actuate men, reforms their conduct, and brings them nearer to that model of perfection which it describes. On the contrary, the abstruse philosophy, being founded on a turn of mind, which cannot enter into business and action, vanishes when the philosopher leaves the shade, and comes into open day; nor can its principles easily retain any influence over our conduct and behaviour. The feelings of our heart, the agitation of our passions, the vehemence of our affections, dissipate all its conclusions, and reduce the profound philosopher to a mere plebeian.

He remains undefeated

>restates the empiricism of Locke and Hobbes in his own words
>tacks on some shitty ethics and skepticism
>his skepticism is based on a strawman of the idea of causality, reducing Aristotle's sophisticated notions into some vague bullshit about things happening
>somehow this becomes accepted as what causality is by Kant and therefore all subsequent philosophy
I am an empiricist myself, but fuck this guy

Poetry and literature are more valuable than scripture or philosophy when it comes to living a moral, principled existence.

>>21539748
cope

You cannot prove causality because it is neither contradictory to deny causality nor is it possible to observe a necessary connection between events A and B. There is nothing logically contradictory about all apparent cause-and-effect relationships being mere correlations. If tomorrow the law of conservation of momentum stopped working, then this would not be a logical contradiction, but it would simply differ from past correlations. You may observe the correlation of event A and event B a million times, but you can never observe any sort of necessity or causal relationship between them. That is just inferred by the mind.

The law of causality leads to more philosophical problems than it solves. How or why does the law itself exist? How does it interact with existence in such a way that everything always follows this law? If God exists due to causal reasoning, then does this mean that causality is the cause of God?

Whereas if there is no such thing as causality, then there is nothing contradictory about the universe existing inexplicably. And the causal patterns that we see can be explained as mere correlations. This universe is just one of many infinite possibilities. A lack of causality can never contradiction itself, whereas causality can contradict itself. Without causality there are no problems. It makes no sense to ask why anything exists or how consciousness exists. I asked these questions when I was just 4 years old, but now I’ve put away these childish things.

Reminder that the majority of Chad ancient pagans believed all the mythological stories were purely true and not allegorical like virgin neopagans claim today.

> “Lucian tells us expressly, that whoever believed not the most ridiculous fables of paganism was deemed by the people profane and impious. To what purpose, indeed, would that agreeable author have employed the whole force of his wit and satire against the national religion, had not that religion been generally believed by his countrymen and contemporaries?” - David Hume

>>20564733
Free will advocates be like
*deconstructs philosophy and all reductionist materialism*

Is there any point in reading the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding if you've read the Treatise of Human Nature?

>Ahem

Is David Hume right about Protestant sects and why they always seem to eventually lose steam?

> On the other hand, it may be observed, that all enthusiasts have been free from the yoke of ecclesiastics, and have expressed great independence of devotion; with a contempt of forms, ceremonies, and traditions. The quakers [1] are the most egregious, though, at the same time, the most innocent enthusiasts that have yet been known; and are, perhaps, the only sect, that have never admitted priests amongst them. The independents [2], of all the English sectaries, approach nearest to the quakers in fanaticism, and in their freedom from priestly bondage. The presbyterians [3] follow after, at an equal distance in both particulars.

> My second reflection with regard to these species of false religion is, that religions, which partake of enthusiasm are, on their first rise, more furious and violent than those which partake of superstition; but in a little time become more gentle and moderate. The violence of this species of religion, when excited by novelty, and animated by opposition, appears from numberless instances; of the anabaptists [4] in GERMANY, the camisards [5] in FRANCE, and other fanatics in ENGLAND, and the covenanters [7] in SCOTLAND.

> It is thus enthusiasm produces the most cruel disorders in human society; but its fury is like that of thunder and tempest, which exhaust themselves in a little time, and leave the air more calm and serene than before. When the first fire of enthusiasm is spent, men naturally, in all fanatical sects, sink into the greatest remissness and coolness in sacred matters; there being no body of men among them, endowed with sufficient authority, whose interest is concerned to support the religious spirit: No rites, no ceremonies, no holy observances, which may enter into the common train of life, and preserve the sacred principles from oblivion. Superstition, on the contrary, steals in gradually and insensibly; renders men tame and submissive; is acceptable to the magistrate, and seems inoffensive to the people: Till at last the priest, having firmly established his authority, becomes the tyrant and disturber of human society, by his endless contentions, persecutions, and religious wars. How smoothly did the Romish church advance in her acquisition of power? But into what dismal convulsions did she throw all EUROPE, in order to maintain it? On the other hand, our sectaries, who were formerly such dangerous bigots, are now become very free reasoners; and the quakers seem to approach nearly the only regular body of deists [8] in the universe, the literati, or the disciples of CONFUSCIUS in CHINA.

Behold, the greatest philosopher in the English language.

What do I need to know before I read this Scottish laddie?

>loses an argument once
>P-PEOPLE ONLY USE REASON TO DEFEND THINGS THEY LIKE
This dude would just be your average redditor if he existed today

> Refutes causality.

Hume thread?

>>19058860
>I have knowledge of it
No you don't. You have faith that the inductive tendencies of experience will continue to appear as they have appeared to you before.

Who are the most overrated philosophers?

I'm thinking Hume, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Lacan

His stupid hat discredits everything he ever wrote

>As to past Experience, it can be allowed to give direct and certain information of those precise objects only, and that precise period of time, which fell under its cognizance: but why this experience should be extended to future times, and to other objects, which for aught we know, may be only in appearance similar; this is the main question on which I would insist.

Well, /lit/? What's your answer to Hume's question? Is causality logically invalid?

Can art, such as literature, be judged objectively? If you dislike books considered great, such as Ulysses, or you like things generally considered bad like most genre fiction, are you objectively wrong?