John Passmore on Hume: Section 5

[sama05]

@amcd981 I agree... Dawkins could do with a bit of Hume....

[amcd981]

Loved this, I'll be putting the audio on my mp3 player, thank you. I will also add that Richard Dawkins and other arbitrary celebrity thinkers should be taking notes to this, especially regarding the point made here 03:00

[paranapoleon]

@paranapoleon

nevertheless i thank thee for this highly interesting talk

[chamlou]

It's funny, Kant was quite the gentleman too.

[alfredhitchcook]

Hume do seem like a good guy to sit next to. Russell could also be fun, I would surely try to sit far away from Wittgenstein who wouldn't let me talk, and from Socrates who wouldn't stop asking questions.

[hraisz1]

Nice to find something on REAL celebraties.

[ct13ful]

what is the programme called?

[starxship]

Really cool video

[mohamedbongfish]

ever wonder if sometimes these philsophers just think magees an idiot when he goes off on those ramblings?

[petkragh]

Not really. He usually asks them if they agree with his conclusions - and they usually do. Magee is an expert in philosphy himself and could easily be in the other end of the couch, if he didn't happen to be the host.

[adrastea99]

wat

[fede2]

fuck! not a word about the is-ought problem.

[memoryburn7]

@fede2 they probably didn't mention the is-ought problem because of time, though i'm secretly hoping they know it was one of the places hume was very very wrong.

[fede2]

@memoryburn7 i´m not so sure he was wrong. in terms of the imposibility of derriving prescriptive claims from factual statements i'd say he´s 100% right. that is not to say that it is unbridgeable or that prescrition is impossible. it just means that in order to do so one must dig a little deeper.

[memoryburn7]

@fede2 you can bridge the is-ought gap by analyzing what we mean when we use the word ought. making a prescriptive statement about "x" means that doing "x" will increase our wellbeing. if we want to increase our wellbeing, then we shouldn't infect someone with the AIDS virus.

AIDS decreases your wellbeing = is statement

don't infect yourself with AIDS = ought statement

you just need to unpack what we mean by "ought". come now!

[fede2]

@memoryburn7 well i don't disagree at all. but technically speaking the gap still stands.

"AIDS decreases your wellbeing = is statement

don't infect yourself with AIDS = ought statement

you just need to unpack what we mean by 'ought'. "

no, the bridge here is dependent, not on the "is" itself but on an "if". i.e: *if* you want to increase your wellbeing you *ought* not infect yourself with aids. the key in this eqation (or any equation for that matter) is the motives of the agent.

[memoryburn7]

@fede2 we don't need to include the "if" since every person who's opinion is worthwhile wants to increase their wellbeing and avoid AIDS. everyones motive is the same, so like a good mathematician the identical base motives of everyone (wellbeing) cancel out and are unimportant.

[fede2]

@memoryburn7 it doesn't matter if everyone in the world has the same stadards of evauation. logically speaking, prescriptive moral claims are relative to human existence, not natural facts. natural facts are at best useful data for deliberation. but not all facts are a no-brainer, like the one in question, when it comes to existence itself, yeah. avoiding aids seems like an easy case. but, again, this is relative to the choice of living. a *good* choice, mind you, but a *choice* non the less.

[memoryburn7]

@fede2 this type of skepticism could be applied with the same force to natural facts as well. it's as obvious that you should choose not to get AIDS as it is that "this table is in front of me". all statements about natural facts require values too. if i say that "water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen", i've chosen to value evidence and reason and parsimony and consistency. anyways it's been fun debating with you, i think we've hit the limit.

[memoryburn7]

@fede2 this same skepticism could be applied with equal force to natural facts as well. in order to say that "water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen" you must make the choice to value evidence and reason and parsimony and consistency. asking "who's to say that wellbeing is the right choice?" is equivalent to asking "why should we value evidence?" we've hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question, to quote a person smarter than myself.

[fede2]

@memoryburn7 i don't feel like you've paid much attention to my last comment. i'm not manifesting skepticism. i'm not even arguing that wellbeing is the right choice. i'm simply stating the fact that it is a *choice*. of course it is, like descriptive claims as you pointed out, dependent on more fundamental values but i dissagree that it would logically lead to ultimate skepticism. i can't go deeper into this on a count of comment space so if you wish to continue the discusion please PM me. bye.

[popnorth]

clarity and elegance

[moheex420]

Very Informative, thanx for posting!

"One should not assume the philosophy of David Hume is nothing more then a subjective conclusion"

(lyrics from song)

Poet Laureate II - by Canibus

[seanwal111111]

I loved that chat. Made me feel warm all over.

[dashpowers22]

Awesome discussion, thanks for posting!!