Has anyone disproven Hume yet?

[Anonymous No.12975786]

And why did it take humans so long to come up with the is-ought problem? It seems like common sense, how was Hume the first to come up with it?

[Anonymous No.12975800]

>>12975786
Advance sciences like physics dont adhere to humian notions of causality. They do one and done tests of theories that have huge, immediate implications.

So.

[Anonymous No.12975808]

>>12975800
Until it all breaks down at the quantum level and is guesswork at best.

[Anonymous No.12975811]

>>12975808
That is exactly what I'm discussing dumb faggot

[Anonymous No.12975815]

>>12975800

[Anonymous No.12975816]

>>12975800
>They do one and done tests of theories that have huge, immediate implications.
>So.
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12975825]

>>12975800
4/20 ended, sober up faggot

[Anonymous No.12975836]

It really depends on your intuitions.
The is-ought problem is very compelling to people with emiricist sympathies.
There are a few decent replies that can be made.
One is that what is isn't ontologically prior to what ought to be. This is an embrace of either teleological explanation (ought is ontologically prior) or ethical naturalism (ought is coincident with is). The mainstream view is moral realism, which is compatible with either depending on the flavor of realism to which you subscribe.
A second reply could be to attack the distinction bewteen is and ought as an instance of misplaced concreteness. In this case, what is cannot be defined without reference to what ought to be, or what is possible (a strict superset of what ought to be). The converse is also true, that the ought, or the possible, cannot be defined outside of relation to the is, and the idea that either can be considered in isolation from the other is a fallacious reification of abstraction on sense-experience.

[Anonymous No.12975844]

>>12975800
I was going to reply to OP seriously but then this happened and I'm done.

[Anonymous No.12975845]

>>12975836
A long winded way to say Hume is yet to be disproved

[Anonymous No.12975858]

>>12975845
If that's what you got from my post, then I wasn't being clear enough for you. Sorry.
You don't disprove an argument. That isn't really how philosophy is done. Given the assumptions that you apparently hold, there won't be any refutation of the is-ought dilemma. So if you are committed in this way, you need to accept the invalidity of moral truth. This is counterintuitive even to empiricists. Do you really think fishing your feces back out of the toilet and chowing down on it is morally equivalent to saving a drowning child?
You'd better, if you can't resolve the is-ought dilemma. I gave you some avenues of inquiry, but like any philosophical problem you won't come to a conclusive answer that is convincing to everyone.

[Anonymous No.12975881]

>*laughs in the shadows*
>"Was ist aufklärung?"

[Anonymous No.12975931]

>>12975786
Kant destroyed Hume’s questioning of causality with his a priori concepts of time and space. Skepticism (the original kind, you can’t know shit) is a useful but stupid phase of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12976814]

>>12975881
Based Kaliningrad poster