/lit/ - Literature

Maybe try some tautology shit nahmean

>>11404753
https://youtu.be/ozrlfmccUdI

Uhh, what is halapenas

>>11404796
>that delivery

Bump

>>11404753
David Hume ever picking up a pen and the number of pseuds on the planet increasing

The throwing of a brick and the breaking of a window by said brick. The reason we can casually connect the two events is because of the properties of the brick being of such and such a hardness and weight that it interacts with the glass window’s properties of fragility. Shut the fuck up and look into analytic powers theorists. The problem of induction has been solved metaphysically and semantically you twat, look into David Lewis. You’re stuck in the old days, radical skepticism is dead.

>>11405731
but how do you derive the property of the windows fragility and the bricks hardness. The brick might become as sponge, and the window like a diamond. Seeing it this way, we have no reason to believe you.

meaning precedes being

>>11405622
Kek

>>11405731
You can throw a brick through a window and experience the same phenomenon of window broken by brick a billion times, but you still cannot be definitively sure that the next time you throw the brick that same phenomenon will occur again. For this reason, assuming causal links between thrown brick and window breaking is useful but simply not true.

Posting in this bread

>>11407003
its not faith based, its empirical evidence. if you hire a kid to smash windows all day he's probably going to use a brick. i'd tell you to go outside more but maybe you shouldn't if you think bricks are sponges

>>11405622
oooff

>>11407626
I just don't really get this argument man

feels like the entirety of modern philosophy is a wrestling with autistic non-problems that can only exist within thought's parameters

>>11407626
maybe someone could throw a brick at your head so you can determine if the phenomenon is causal or not

>>11407685
>>11407716
I'll give a simple example. You are sitting at a table. On the table is a button and a light bulb. Each time you press the button, the light bulb blinks on then off. You press the button a billion times, and each time the bulb blinks on then off. Even considering that the same phenomenon apparently repeated a billion times, you still cannot be definitively sure that the bulb will blink on again the next time you press that button.

The argument is not that there is no causal link between the two phenomenon, but understanding the absolute nature of that causal link is impossible considering how we experience phenomena (with a finite, limited perspective). There may be an infinite amount of unseen variables behind a phenomenon we supposedly understand. Assuming causal links is as far as one could get from any sort of truth claim, as these assumptions are just habits of association; entirely meaningless fabrications not attached to any empirical knowledge (in the way that you cannot experience something before it apparently happens).

>>11407778
not knowing if the billionth time I push a glass off the counter it will shatter =/= pushing a glass off the counter doesn't shatter it

>>11407791
>The argument is not that there is no causal link between the two phenomenon
Did you even read the post?

>>11407809
it's just fucking dumb, it's a legitimate point but overblown, autistic thought-spirals getting way out of hand

Dancing Plagues, dancing, and plagues. That's THREE phenomena

>>11407822
It is still worth understanding. No need to get defensive. It is actually very humbling for one to admit that they do not comprehend this reality as effectively as they once thought, which is a positive thing. This assumed causality is just one (more juvenile and innocent) extension of human hubris which we so easily get surrounded by to the point where it is all we know.

>>11407716
>>11407685
physics agrees with hume now. there is an inherent random aspect to quantum positioning which allows for the complete anahilation of causaility (every time you throw the brink there is an minutr chance that the brick will pass through the glass unimpeeded. problem is we never deal with these in real life, eventhough it almost certainly exists in reality.

>>11407778
>you still cannot be definitively sure that the bulb will blink on again the next time you press that button.
id say that you can be

>>11407685

>>11408354
Okay, how? As we perceive phenomena now, we cannot experience them before they happen, so how can you be definitively sure?

>>11408370
/thread

>>11404753
>one example of two phenomenon which can be definitively linked together
you mean two phenomena, and you'd still be wrong because if they could be definitively linked together, they would be a singular phenomenon.

>>11408387
>we cannot experience them before they happen
this doesnt mean we cant be sure
im not dead, but at some point i will definitely die, it hasnt happened yet but that doesnt mean you cant be sure that it will

>>11408414
All humans thus far have died does not exactly mean all humans will die, it only means that living humans have a very strong association with dying over time.

>>11408448
>All humans thus far have died does not exactly mean all humans will die
yes it does

>>11408448
god hume fuckin blows

>>11408543
>yes it does
No, it doesn't. Like I said, this only means that living humans have a very strong association with dying as time progresses. Causally linking personhood and death together is not an absolute claim of truth, but an association by habit.

where my Kantians at

>>11408618
probably eating tendies and watching anime

>>11408579
> Causally linking personhood and death together is not an absolute claim of truth, but an association by habit.
im not linking them, they simply ARE linked. all people die

>as time progresses
and time will definitely always progress, or will you say that we cant be sure and time might suddenly stop forever

>>11408651
>we cant be sure and time might suddenly stop forever

physicists literally say this.

>>11404753
"I" would like to see just one example of this so-called "self" that bundles of ideas and opinions keep referring to

>>11408618
What would kantians have to add besides 'Read Kant?' He admitted that Hume is completely right on this point and the only solution being an a prior onei.

>>11408654
so?

>>11407147
No. Meaning must be conveyed

>>11408651
Oh so you are saying a person has to die *by definition*. I don't define a person by their ability to die. For example (whether you believe or not), God is a person (spirit, soul) which can theoretically exist as a person indefinitely without dying. I don't think a person has to die by definition so I would need you to justify why a person needs to die by definition.

>>11408667

They are empirical stifflers. They won't even acknowledge metaphysics, but they accept possibilities that you just find "too out there". Do you see that maybe you are missing something other people can understand or at least entertain?

>>11408687
they just do it m8, what else do you want to hear
give me one example of something that would usually definitely happen like: dropping something and it falling to the ground, humans being mortal, water being wet etc but then it not happening

>>11408705
I'm not saying those things have not happened consistently in the past, my claim is that we cannot expect them to happen again in the same way in the future, as we cannot experience phenomena before it happens with our finite perceiving abilities.

>>11408723
>we cannot expect them to happen again in the same way in the future, as we cannot experience phenomena before it happens with our finite perceiving abilities.
we absolutely can expect them to happen the same way again. we know that they do happen, why they happen, how they happen etc exactly so yes we can
you dont have to be clairvoyant to know whether or not certain things will happen

>but what if the laws of reality suddenly shit the bed
there is no reason to think that something like this will happen, and until evidence that it can is presented we can be sure. present some evidence and ill concede my point

>>11408723
i don't think you're doing justice to hume's position. he was interested in denying so-called Rational justification with its pretensions to absoluteness, especially with regards to abstract metaphysical entities like god, the soul, the self etc. and he placed causality alongside these. he was not literally saying sometime, someday, things will fall upwards. he wasn't interested in that.

>>11408757
>we know that they do happen, why they happen, how they happen etc
You are not reading any of my posts or you are just too dense for this topic.

Read this again to refresh your memory.
>>11407778
You do not actually know why or how things happen, but you are free to associate two separate phenomenon as you have, though you ought not believe these bear any real truth whatsoever.

>>11408770
>he was not literally saying sometime, someday, things will fall upwards. he wasn't interested in that.
Yes, but I don't think he would expect that to never happen.

>>11408832
>ad homs
rude
im just saying my position has evidence to support it, i asked for you to present some and then you insult me. if thats how it is ill just stop posting with you then babes

>>11408869
I linked my post (which you should have already read). Judging by what I quoted from you, you are just ignoring my points in my previous posts (like the one I linked for you to reread). Ignoring my arguments and the general discussion is probably worse than a little ad hom in between my points, as is the nature of this board.

>>11408651
>all people die
>implying the first immortals aren't already living right now
What are you going to do when we can edit genes and cells and prevent old age? Saying 'all people die' is a perfect example of faulty inductive reasoning. You have no idea what the future of medical science will be, and have no grounds for saying 'all people die' other than its always happened before. Four hundred years ago you could have said with great confidence 'all people with blood infections die', but you would have been wrong.

>>11408897
im not ignoring them, im just asking you to give evidence to support them thats all

>>11407003
>but like dude lmao what if the brick magically becomes a sponge?????
so this is the power of radical skepticism

>>11408177
>physics agrees with hume now
just stop saying this

>>11408904
Just reply to the points in this post >>11407778
directly, I don't feel like repeating what I've already posted.

>>11404753
Me reading your post causes it to have been read by me. This post was read by x+1 persons, the +1 being me. I can die, the thread can vanish, whatever, but the post has been altered for ever, because it can from now on accurately be described as thread #(...)73, read by x people PLUS anon. Nothing else can cause this.

The future will resemble the past because ... the future has resembled the past? Circular lol

That’s why we can’t say definitively that all humans will die

>>11405731
>>11407660
>>11407716
>>11407791
>>11407822
>>11408354
>>11408414
>>11408543
>>11408544
>>11408651
>>11408705
>>11408757
>>11408869
>>11408904

retards

So, what can be known for certain? Just cogito ergo sum bullshit?

>>11410300
>Just cogito ergo sum bullshit?
Not even that. As this anon pointed out >>11408664

>>11410309
Sure but deriving a foundation from direct experience is still sound. You can literally see that experience contains definite structure.

>>11409450
If we define anon as any anon, then anyone else could have read the thread instead of you and everything else would hold true.

If we define anon = you, then you have the meaningless statement
>Me reading your post causes it to have been read by me
This is just repetition, based on referring to the same event from different reference points. It's not causation

>>11405622
wew lad

>>11408354
What if it just so happened that the billion times you pressed it degraded the circuitry or the bulb blew. You can say that it’s unlikelu because it worked a billion times before but bulbs blow and circuitry degrades.

>>11410551
This is true but sort of misses the point. Yes, certain obvious issues arise in that example, but it was supposed to point out how there are potential unforeseeable variables affecting the light bulb phenomenon which may occur after each new time the button is pressed; entirely unexpected by the subject.

>>11410449
What I mean is that in "the books" of the universe, the post is now registered as having been read by me, unique individual no. something.
If you want to take it to extremes, my point is that every interaction between two atoms causes, if nothing else, a "memory" of that interaction.

>>11407778
No, it's because the event of the "linkage" is in the future, and future as a category is not perceivable to men.

>>11411681
What I mean is: causality exists, but it isn't perceivable. so it doesn't exist.

>>11405622
how will man recover ooph

>>11405622
I see no wrong here

>>11411689
>>11411681
>What I mean is: causality exists, but it isn't perceivable. so it doesn't exist.
My point in that post is that causality *might* exist, but it isn't perceivable as it totally is so we will most likely never know as we are now (finite perspectives).

>No, it's because the event of the "linkage" is in the future
No, the linkage is everywhere except the future. If you understand time as linear, then the future is the only place lacking in any empirical causal links as it is impossible to experience before it actually happens.

>>11407824
dunno why I laughed at this

>>11408635
Underrated post

you are all a bunch of retards.

Hume was right but you people take it too seriously. In the real world you will never experience this so it makes sense to just go with cause and effect

>>11405622
/thread

>>11407778
How can you be certain next time that when exerting force on the switch it will move?
How can you be certain next time that when you try to move your finger it will move?

>>11413261
Why are you asking me? Considering my post my answer is pretty obvious. I am not certain of any of that, that is my point.

>>11413229
Exactly, but people need to understand that these cause and effect claims are not truth claims, but only a pragmatic answer to a somewhat unanswerable question. People understand the "laws" of physics like religious people understand God; as absolute, unchanging, controlling forces in the universe. These are not problems in themselves, but the absolute certainty associated with them is disappointing.

>>11404753
Fedora scepticism and virginity

>>11404753
Just as one cannot see how a magic trick is performed from the audience gallery, one cannot know definitively how creation works, while operating within creation. You would have to go "backstage".

>>11413304
>>11413229
the point hume was making was that causation is something that happens inside our minds as we associate impressions and the ideas formed from them, so attributing "causation" to the metaphysics of the external world is uncalled for and unjustifiable.

he never says causation "doesn't exist" as straight-forwardly as that.

>>11405622
spbp

>>11413611
>he never says causation "doesn't exist" as straight-forwardly as that.
Yes and I am not saying it doesn't exist either.

>>11413304
>dude science isn’t real lmao
*snap*

@11413648
Not an argument.

bump

>>11407003
Do you actually carry this belief around with you or are you just playing a language game where you exercise the human mind's ability to doubt?

>>11408927
Jesus christ, why even bother

>>11413363
Someone already did it but far better

You know there aren't any.
My thing is, how is Hume's philosophy any more groundbreaking than the radical skeptics before him? It seems like he's just stating a subset of previous philosophers arguments.
I haven't read Hume since highschool though so I don't really know.

>>11405622
Absolutely amazing.

>>11415739
The problem of induction isn't even a significant part of his philosophy although it's necessary. It's only that people are so desperate to solve it that has pseuds constantly talking about it.

How is he different from other skeptics? He was the first to be skeptical about causality itself.

The big issue with Hume is he's too straight forward and you can't pretend to have an obscure understanding of the world with his philosophy. Still he is likely to be the most correct of any single philosopher to date. His philosophy is basically the major conceptual foundations to scientific inquiry today. This makes the Kantians and all other manner of pseuds seethe since they want the book to remain open.