Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:00 pm Bundle theory

The odd thing about bundle theory is that it seems very similar to my own ontology which I had fully developed before discovering Hume's theory. I was actually expecting his view to be the same as my own. It is very close.

He is absolutely right that there is no underlying, "substance," to which an entities properties (I call qualities) adhere. A thing is whatever it properties or qualities are. But qualities are not themselves independent existents that are somehow "bundled" together to make an entity what it is. An entity is whatever is qualities are, but those qualities do not exist independently of the entity they are qualities of. You may be interested in a brief overview of my ontology on this site: "Ontology Introduction"

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
  -wiki

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:00 pm On Miracles

I do not disagree with Hume's conclusion that there are no miracles, but I certainly disagree with his argument. Nothing can be established on the basis of other people's testimony, no matter how many or few support it. If a miracle is defined as that which happens in defiance of the nature of reality itself, it is impossible by definition, and no argument is required.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:00 pm On induction

Hume's arguments regarding induction rest on his false view of causation, but in one sense, his conclusion was correct. There is no such logical process as induction.

His argument against his own wrong view of cause, "It appears, then, that this idea of a necessary connexion among events arises from a number of similar instances which occur of the constant conjunction of these events; nor can that idea ever be suggested by any one of these instances, surveyed in all possible lights and positions. But there is nothing in a number of instances, different from every single instance, which is supposed to be exactly similar; except only, that after a repetition of similar instances, the mind is carried by habit, upon the appearance of one event, to expect its usual attendant, and to believe that it will exist," also assumes that induction is how science is done or that principles are established.

There really isn't such a thing as inductive reasoning, as though it were a different kind of reasoning, there is only deductive reasoning or logic. There is an inductive method, which is really nothing more than observation, a kind of research which looks for things that repeat or are similar, but nothing can be established by that method except the observation and data gathered, and possibly the development of a hypothesis about why there is a similarity or why there is repeated phenomena. If observation gets that far, a hypothesis can be tested, at which point it is deductive reason which is being used.

Our reason for believing the sun will rise tomorrow is not because it always has, but because we understand what the sun is, and that it's rising is due to the earth's rotation, both of which will continue barring some celestial cataclysm. Pre-scientific man may have believed many things based on nothing more than the observation a thing always happened, but that "knowledge" was very uncertain and the reason for famines (the rain that always came, didn't) and natural catastrophes (the volcano has only ever smoked in the past).

There is more to this issue than I can address here. What is mistakenly called induction is really a process of identification and concept formation.

==================================================

I've taken the time to address your questions because I believe you are interested. Of course this had to be very brief, because they are not simple questions that can be answered in a few sentences.

I'm also not very interested in refuting all the mistaken philosophy there is, especially since I think most of what goes by the name philosophy is mistaken. I am really only interested in what is true. What is false is infinite in scope and can never by fully addressed.

Today, philosophers recognize Hume as a thoroughgoing exponent of philosophical naturalism, as a precursor of contemporary cognitive science, and as the inspiration for several of the most significant types of ethical theory developed in contemporary moral philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:59 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:00 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 5:21 am I suggest, instead of going all over with Hume, why not critique Hume's main proposals, i.e.

1. Causation
2. Bundle theory
3. On Miracles
4. On induction

If you can convince me Hume was wrong on the above, then I will accept Hume was a very bad philosopher.

[Please see my article on this site, "Epistemology, Concepts", for a brief overview of a correct epistemology.]

The above URL is not working;

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:59 am This is a better approach, i.e. point by point.

I believe your condemnations of Hume
"a child or uncivilized savage."
"the epistemology of a child or a brute, not that of philosopher."
should be more correctly directed back to represent yourself.

It is very immature to condemn Hume for his views in 'ideas' and 'concepts' because the notable polemics on the dichotomy of views on "ideas" [philosophical] were raised long before Hume, i.e. back to Plato and 10,000 years ago in Eastern Philosophy.

Plato argued in dialogues such as the Phaedo, Symposium, Republic, and Timaeus that there is a realm of ideas or forms (eidei), which exist independently of anyone who may have thoughts on these ideas, and it is the ideas which distinguish mere opinion from knowledge, for unlike material things which are transient and liable to contrary properties, ideas are unchanging and nothing but just what they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea

Since then many Philosophers had countered Plato's ideas;

In striking contrast to Plato's use of idea [7] is that of John Locke. In his Introduction to An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke defines idea as "that term which, I think, serves best to stand for whatsoever is the object of the understanding when a man thinks, I have used it to express whatever is meant by phantasm, notion, species, or whatever it is which the mind can be employed about in thinking; and I could not avoid frequently using it." [8] He said he regarded the book necessary to examine our own abilities and see what objects our understandings were, or were not, fitted to deal with.
In his philosophy other outstanding figures followed in his footsteps — Hume and Kant in the 18th century, Arthur Schopenhauer in the 19th century, and Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Karl Popper in the 20th century.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:59 am Lately from the neurosciences, cognitive science, the views of 'ideas' are aligned with those of Locke, Hume, Kant and others.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:59 am Why do you only condemned Hume in this case?
You should condemn those who disagree with Plato and you on a class basis.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:59 am Instead of condemning Hume you should argue your views on ideas on a collective basis against the Philosophical Anti-Realists. i.e.
Philosophical Realist versus Philosophical Anti-Realist.
The above is reducible to the arguments,
for the Philosophical Realist, the ideas and its objects are independent of the human mind,
while
for the Philosophical Anti-Realism, the ideas and its objects are somehow inevitably linked with the human conditions.

Instead of Hume, the better one to counter for you would be Kant who claimed there is no such thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves but rather things are things-by-humanselves.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 7:13 am Your above is based on the following assumption:
The implied (and correct) assumption behind causality is that the world is objectively real..
You merely assumed but have no proofs.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 7:13 am Again this is reducible to the Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism contention.
Note this is linked back far to Protagoras, Heraclitus versus Plato, Aristotle.

Thus it would be more effective to prove the Philosophical Anti-Realist are wrong, e.g. those views of Kant.
Hume views on ideas are not as organized as that of Kant's.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 7:23 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:00 pm Bundle theory

The odd thing about bundle theory is that it seems very similar to my own ontology which I had fully developed before discovering Hume's theory. I was actually expecting his view to be the same as my own. It is very close.

He is absolutely right that there is no underlying, "substance," to which an entities properties (I call qualities) adhere. A thing is whatever it properties or qualities are. But qualities are not themselves independent existents that are somehow "bundled" together to make an entity what it is. An entity is whatever is qualities are, but those qualities do not exist independently of the entity they are qualities of. You may be interested in a brief overview of my ontology on this site: "Ontology Introduction"

From your link:
"Material existence is all that exists independently of anyone's knowledge or awareness. "

This is the same stance as Philosophical Realism or Philosophical Materialism;

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Since your views are that of Philosophical Realism/Materialism which support the Substance Theory in a way,

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
  -wiki

I don't see how can your view on this be agreeable with Hume's.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:01 am I see you are very ignorant in condemning Hume as
In addition, many of your points are based on ignorance and merely assumptions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:13 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:19 am "ALL Humans Ought To Breathe" is a Moral Objective Law as evident and justified from empirical evidence on human nature.

This is proof, that 'ought' can be derived from "is".
This 'ought' is reasoned and inferred from actual empirical evidence on human nature.

There is no hint of a moral ought being derived from a practical is in that statement.
In practical terms, humans ought (for practical reasons) to breathe regularly if their objective is to live.
In moral terms, humans ought (morally) to breathe, if continued life is morally desirable.
You did not derive a moral truth from a factual state of affairs. All you did was confuse two types of ought.

You keep making the same mistakes and learning nothing from them.

In the case of Hume's no 'ought' from 'is' he was referring to some sort of ontological objective moral rule from empirical facts.

What I have shown above is an abstraction of an 'ought' is possible from empirical facts.
It does not matter it is practical or biological, it is still an 'ought' i.e. an imperative ought all human must exercise.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:33 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:59 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:00 pm

[Please see my article on this site, "Epistemology, Concepts", for a brief overview of a correct epistemology.]

The above URL is not working;

Sorry about that. This link works if you are interested:
"Epistemology, Concepts".

If you've read Kant, Schopenhauer, Russell, and Wittgenstein, you know they were all influenced by Hume, especially his worst ideas. But I have no interest in personalities, only the very bad concepts propagated by these very bad philosophers.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:59 am Lately from the neurosciences, cognitive science, the views of 'ideas' are aligned with those of Locke, Hume, Kant and others.

Quite right, which is exactly what is wrong with all that is called "cognitive science." It ought to be called, "anti-rationalism."

VA, the last thing I wrote to you was, "I'm also not very interested in refuting all the mistaken philosophy there is, especially since I think most of what goes by the name philosophy is mistaken. I am really only interested in what is true. What is false is infinite in scope and can never by fully addressed.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 5:18 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:13 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:36 pm
There is no hint of a moral ought being derived from a practical is in that statement.
In practical terms, humans ought (for practical reasons) to breathe regularly if their objective is to live.
In moral terms, humans ought (morally) to breathe, if continued life is morally desirable.
You did not derive a moral truth from a factual state of affairs. All you did was confuse two types of ought.

You keep making the same mistakes and learning nothing from them.

In the case of Hume's no 'ought' from 'is' he was referring to some sort of ontological objective moral rule from empirical facts.

What I have shown above is an abstraction of an 'ought' is possible from empirical facts.
It does not matter it is practical or biological, it is still an 'ought' i.e. an imperative ought all human must exercise.

You haven't derived an ought from an is, you've asserted an ought and claimed the is.

It does matter that one of the oughts is goal-directed (practical), while the other ought is normative, because those two things are completely different.

A goal-directed ought is morally neutral, if the goal is morally good (keeping people alive) then the ought inherits that goodness. If the goal is bad, then the ought inherits that, because this sort of ought has no sort of moral standing. So if the goal is to kill millions of people, the killer ought to build a nuclear bomb.

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour

People like you, who cannot distinguish between practical and moral oughts are the reason why this is-ought problem even needs to be mentioned. Your use of a practical ought asserted as if it were a moral one is an act of smuggling.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:19 am "ALL Humans Paedophiles Ought To Fuck Children" is a Moral Objective Law as evident and justified from empirical evidence on paedophile nature.

This is proof, that 'ought' can be derived from "is".
This 'ought' is reasoned and inferred from actual empirical evidence on human nature.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:21 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:33 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:59 am
The above URL is not working;

Sorry about that. This link works if you are interested:
"Epistemology, Concepts".

Off hand it look flimsy.
I will take a detailed look later.

Note my response to your flimsy article;
viewtopic.php?p=444813#p444813

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:19 am "ALL Humans Paedophiles Ought To Fuck Children" is a Moral Objective Law as evident and justified from empirical evidence on paedophile nature.

This is proof, that 'ought' can be derived from "is".
This 'ought' is reasoned and inferred from actual empirical evidence on human nature.

That's what you get when you insist on claiming goal driven oughts as moral imperatives.
But it's ok, because making it a [GUIDE] somehow changes that.

• The prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown, but the highest possible prevalence in the male population is theorized to be approximately three to five percent. The prevalence in the female population is thought to be a small fraction of the prevalence in males.https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/co ... pedophilia

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:25 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:19 am "ALL Humans Paedophiles Ought To Fuck Children" is a Moral Objective Law as evident and justified from empirical evidence on paedophile nature.

This is proof, that 'ought' can be derived from "is".
This 'ought' is reasoned and inferred from actual empirical evidence on human nature.

That's what you get when you insist on claiming goal driven oughts as moral imperatives.
But it's ok, because making it a [GUIDE] somehow changes that.

Your reasoning power is too low.

There are at most 3-5% of adult males who are pedophiles.

• The prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown, but the highest possible prevalence in the male population is theorized to be approximately three to five percent. The prevalence in the female population is thought to be a small fraction of the prevalence in males.https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/co ... pedophilia

If all paedophiles ought to fuck children, and if universalized in theory, that will not lead to the potential, the human species will be exterminated.

On the other hand, if "all human ought not to breathe" is universalized, then in theory, it will have the potential to exterminate the human race.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:00 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:25 am Your reasoning power is too low.

There are at most 3-5% of adult males who are pedophiles.

• The prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown, but the highest possible prevalence in the male population is theorized to be approximately three to five percent. The prevalence in the female population is thought to be a small fraction of the prevalence in males.https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/co ... pedophilia

If all paedophiles ought to fuck children, and if universalized in theory, that will not lead to the potential, the human species will be exterminated.

On the other hand, if "all human ought not to breathe" is universalized, then in theory, it will have the potential to exterminate the human race.

Then the ought wasn't derived from the is at all. It derived from other oughts that you simply didn't mention when it didn't suit you.

• The "is" is very evident, every living human is breathing at present.
  Thus it can be inferred [derived, abstracted] an 'ought' - 'all living humans must breath or else they all will die and the human species will be extinct.
  My derivation of an 'ought' from 'is' is very logical.