[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.12025757 [View]
File: 68 KB, 627x620, what . . . ..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12025757

>>12025659
How can you be an Anarcho-Monarchist?

>> No.11179007 [View]
File: 68 KB, 627x620, 1373133382454.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11179007

>>11170542
I keep reading over and over again in contemporary work that Hume's view of causality is causality as "constant conjunction". They then proceed to point out that this obviously isn't what causality is and then say that they have BTFO'd Hume's view of causality.

But wasn't Hume's point that we can never know that, in any event we observe, causality was actually present, and that we only have the concept of causality as a result of observing what seems like a "constant conjunction" of occurrences?

I feel like I'm being fucking gaslighted. Is this just a cheap trick to get around Hume's skepticism about causality?

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]