David Hume Philosophy and Questions

[Steve2323ZX]

causality doesn't exist in the physical world either

[bluecarpet12345]

@Steve2323ZX

be more explicit

[MagnusHansenMusic]

I like the part when you get crazy.

[IDoNotBlameYou]

EXCELLENT! In my little myopic world of "the best vloggers," you win.

[SquirrelFromGradLife]

Its striking that you havent realized that theres a monumental logical fallacy in Hume's work.

In basics Hume's theory basis on his assertion that you can only experience the world through your senses and from your little example we can derive that we actually can not trust our senses at all to give us an accurate representation of reality.Like the synthetic claim is verifies by observation and the a posteriori is verified by experience.

But we can not trust our senses through optical illusions

[Chris180Z]

Good video. I have to point out that the thread title is splet wrong! :) Not that it matters too much.

[phlewis86]

@Chris180Z All this time I never noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm going to correct it now.

[HIMAZZZ1991]

GREAT VIDEO......i knew this n a whole a bunch of things on my own,i guess um naturally talented at this thing called "philosphy" :P :D .....

[Alberto2382]

Great video!! Hume was perhaps the greatest skeptic in the enlightenment period.

[dramaz13]

very informative video, goodjob thumbs up if you agree

[TheLoneWolf1921]

@phlewis86 I love your video, you reminded me that the simple question WHY? is so much fun. 5 Stars!

[arcaniondeath666]

philosophy 101 fun relaxing stuff good video

[menkio]

first interesting person i've seen on youtube. thanks.

[Cliffordburleson]

your explanation of blue is the reality of the matrix. ha

[Ryguy1450]

Hey man, nice video. I'm from Chicago too. Want to get a cup of tea and discuss philosophy some time? I think about these issues fairly often. You're video is very enlightening.

[mikehuntfilgood]

you make interesting videos.

[archdeaconj]

Philosophy asks questions, yes - questions that commonsense doesn't even pose because it presumes to knows the answers. What is the nature of time? How do we know there are other selves? Does the external world exist? Can anything exist independent of consciousness. It seeks to answer these purely by means of reason. I am now going to make a contentious claim: all authentic philosophical problems involve paradox. Debate anyone?

[astudyofeverything]

@archdeaconj Just because you can ask a question doesn't mean there is an answer. i.e. What is the purpose of mountains? I think some of the questions you pose embody a break down of the actual language you're using. We sound like we are asking profound questions to the universe when in actual fact what we're asking doesn't make any sense - we just don't realise it. Just my opinion but!

[archdeaconj]

@astudyofeverything I agree with you, yes. This is what the logical positivists were heavily into, exposing statement that were meaningless (like 'God is Love') and of course questions too ('Is God Love?'). These statement and questions are meaningless because they are syntactically or semantically nonsensical. It is the task of philosophy to expose them. I don't think any of the questions I gave as examples in my previous posting fall into this category, by the way. Challenge, anyone?

[astudyofeverything]

@archdeaconj "How do we know there are other selves? Does the external world exist?" In themselves, they don't make much sense but I do understand what you are getting at.

[archdeaconj]

@astudy The best philosophers have addressed these questions in all sincerity. Kant, arguably the greatest, held that all that we experience as external world is an attribute of consciousness - not just the greeness of the grass etc but space and time, everything - we never apprehend directly the Thing-in-Itself. Idealist philosophers hold that there is no external world at all. Scientist Eddington famously said, 'the world is beginning to look more like a great thought than a great machine'.

[astudyofeverything]

@astudyofeverything I'm not talking about philosophical arguments of the answers themselves but only making a comment in relation to our original discussion about language.

[archdeaconj]

@astudy What do you mean by 'philosophical arguments of the answers themselves'? Do you mean answers to philosophical questions?

You said (above): 'I think some of the questions you pose embody a breakdown of the actual language you're using.' Which questions had you in mind?

It is not philosophical questions themselves that are internally incoherent but ordinary 'common sense' notions that give rise to them - and if a concept is incoherent it cannot correspond to anything real,

[cupwithhandles]

Correct about blue. There is no blue. Same as time. There is no such thing as time.

[braap02]

@cupwithhandles

@cupwithhandles

Time exists, it just changes relative to who is the observer. Although it's not defined concretely like a color; it most likely has a more complicated existence, as do colors and their composing parts, photons.

[TwilightAronXD]

Very good video! *subscribe*

[anmpir]

Wonderful video!

[TPreyland]

Look at it this why. God or Everything that is infinite like time and space with free will created Man with some level of free will so to make things exist for nothing exist unless the self of free will can contemplate through the power of language using faith and reasoning its exist. In other words God created man or other intelligent life forms so God can know his self exist. We can never fully contemplate God or Knowledge because of the limitation of the Human brain, language and time.

[grimslider75]

canibus (rapper) mentions david hume in his song "poet laurete II"

amazing video by the way, i will (if i have children), share with them the message of questioning everything

[skinnylugnuts]

Would colors exist if we did not have a mind to experience them? You are right. questions are more important than answers.

[Houseraider]

No light, no colors (besides black).

In an environment without light, every other color disappear.

Black is the only color that don´t need light.:)

Am i wrong?.

[Chairmaneoin]

@Houseraider black isn't a colour, it's an abscence of light, you actually can not see black,

[theboombody]

Penguin rules.

This video got me thinking about British Romanticism.

[makislav]

So according Hume we can not go beyond our experience because we identify every being with our perceptual apparatus.

[makislav]

I think Hume's emphasis on your example of the blue body would be his criticism against the primary/secondary -qualities distinction (Enquiry, Section XII, part 1). Hume asks: How could there be a spatial body without extension that we could see or touch? There can not be. Thus, because every body's extension is an observable property, Hume asks further: How could any object exist without any secondary qualities, like colour or tangibility?

[xboxlive346]

wut if youre blind? would you know blue exists? would u kno which way was up n which way was down? bcuz u claim that u can see, ure blind. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

[eequalsfb]

I think the color blue is both in the real world AND in our perception of it. What we call blue is a specific wavelength of light. It is like a specific frequency or pitch of sound. What we might recognize as a C# also has a physical representation in reality, which is a pattern of air compression "hills and valleys".

The same is true of photon frequency. The higher the frequency, the closer to blue you get in the spectrum. The lowest frequencies that we are able to see is red.

[eequalsfb]

CONT>>>

Of course, the visible band of frequencies only represent a sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, which goes seamlessly from radio and microwaves at the bottom, to x rays toward the top.

So, the color blue may not exist in reality in the same way people think of it. But it does exist.

[almafarag]

yes, experience is our only reality,

and since our reality is partial it is basically founded on questions,

great vid,