NationStates Jolt Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

Read this (or don't if you already know about it), then tell me what you think.

Maybe it would be good to have a few of the relatively more important philosophers discussed, since they so strongly influence all the usual debates about things like taxation, welfare, religion etc etc

I myself am interested in Philosophy, but I have no formal education in it whatsoever - so don't expect huge knowledge from me, but I'll do what I can.

I find myself agreeing with most of what is written in this article. I find the "is-ought" problem less relevant to myself, but the ideas of the self, of free will and of reasoning as a source of ethics and morals are very interesting indeed.

I've never been able to understand any of those 18th century philosophers. I think it is because they analyze things that just aren't important to every day life. It was a bit like the pre-Socrates philosophers who thought of weird things, like all matter is water. Personally, I prefer anything later than the mid 19th century, when philosophy started to have context within life again. Strangely enough, this is around when different governments and societies governed themselves by differing philosophies.

(Without reading the article)

I like Hume for focusing on how practical ethics depends, in the final analysis, on the sense of empathy. There is actually a very profound, if sometimes subtle, critique of class society built into his analysis, which is probably why Rousseau found him so irresistable. ;-)

Nevertheless, I think Kant won the argument on knowledge a priori.

Strangely enough, this is around when different governments and societies governed themselves by differing philosophies.
Indeed...
But when the Libertarian Clique is out and about preaching Natural Rights, Private Property, and sometimes reason being the only ground for morals and ethics, then this stuff might be important.

Nevertheless, I think Kant won the argument on knowledge a priori.
Actually, I somehow miss the problem here...where do Hume and Kant actually collide on knowledge? On morals it seems pretty clear, but did Hume say all that much about knowledge?

Actually, I somehow miss the problem here...where do Hume and Kant actually collide on knowledge? On morals it seems pretty clear, but did Hume say all that much about knowledge?

Yes, Hume was a strict empiricist, hence he did not believe in the possibility of a priori knowledge. Kant actually quite admired Hume for making the best case possible (in Kant's view) for his position, as opposed to Locke in particular, whom Kant viewed as making careless leaps in reasoning.

Kant, on the other hand, argued that while all knowledge arises out of experience as a matter of fact, there are certain pure categories of the understanding that are necessary for experience itself, and thus not dependent on experience for their validity.

Kant, on the other hand, argued that while all knowledge arises out of experience as a matter of fact, there are certain pure categories of the understanding that are necessary for experience itself, and thus not dependent on experience for their validity.
Hmm...I guess I agree with Hume then. What would those necessary understandings (presumably saved in our DNA) be?
Babies learn everything from day one - so far that has been established by the relevant specialists. Once they learn they can move their arm (in the womb), they can learn that touching things makes them move etc etc.
Where is that knowledge that comes before that?

Once they learn they can move their arm (in the womb), they can learn that touching things makes them move etc etc.
Where is that knowledge that comes before that?

Well, Kant's theory is a bit complex to explain, in brief, on Nationstates... so if you are genuinely interested I encourage you to read him, or relevant secondary texts, directly.

Nevertheless, I'll attempt the "short version."

First of all, it is important to understand that Kant does not claim that there is any knowledge that we obtain "before" experience. A priori, for Kant, does not mean "before" experience in a literal sense. Rather, it refers to something like a "logical" sense, although Kant would say that the deduction of such knowledge "transcends" formal logic in that it establishes the grounds for formal logic even as much as it establishes the grounds of experience.

To restate that more clearly: Kant explicitly agrees with Hume that there can be no knowledge prior to experience. Everything we know about the world is obtained by experiencing the world, and abstracting from that experience.

So what, then, can it mean to have a priori knowledge, knowledge that "does not depend on experience"?

It helps to first understand something of Hume's hard empirical position. Hume argued that all knowledge is probabilistic, because it all depends on inferences made from experience. There is no "must be true" in Hume. Everything is contingent. This is why Hume is viewed, usually, as a sceptic.

Kant criticizes this view on the ground that certain aspects of human reality are necessary for "experience" to happen in the first place. Among these are notions of space (relations in space) and time (relations in time). Interestingly, he argues that these conditions of experience are only clearly necessary for human experience, leaving open the possibility that "other creatures" may exist who see the world differently. Nevertheless, this does not mean such aspects of experience are "merely subjective," or merely "added" by humans... they are a part of "how we are built" to perceive the world.

Kant also includes the basic notion of causality -- essentially, that events in the world are necessarily related -- as a condition of experience.

Thus, to reiterate: Kant does not believe there is knowledge "written in our DNA" in the sense that we know anything "before" experience teaches us. However, he does argue that there are certain conditions of experience, and therefore conditions of knowledge. In other words, his argument breaks down to this:

"If there is to be any (empirical) knowledge at all, perception must be organized according to spatial, temporal, and causal relations. Therefore, knowledge of spatial relations (geometry), temporal relations (abstract mathematics, on Kant's argument) and causal relations (abstract physics) does not depend on experience -- in the sense that it does not depend on what we find in the world. There is certainty in mathematics, not just probability."

On Hume's view, even mathematics is merely probabilistic, except for its merely analytic statements.

I am truly and completely grateful for you to make the effort and explaining this to me (wasn't reasoning that made you do it, was it?)

Indeed, that makes a lot more sense - I guess he has a point somewhere in there, I'll put him on my reading list (goddammit, that's like a hundred books, and I'm not even half-way).

Thanks again