John Passmore on Hume: Section 5

Hume

The leading philosopher of the Scottish Enlightenment, David Hume, is the subject of this program. In it, expert John Passmore of the National Australian University discusses causality as the cornerstone of Hume's philosophy. Also discussed are three of Hume's basic philosophical views:anything that is not a fact, is illusion; judgments on fact mist be based on concrete experience; and all knowledge is imperfect. Hume also denies the idea of a continuous identical self, refutes deism, and views reason as a slave to passion.

Section 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6v3ZYt08fY

Section 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpmBufGBW1Q

Section 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXS-HcBsHQ8

Section 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYkMQultX9Y

Section 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmeC85cS_3s

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bryan
• Magee
• John
• Passmore
• David
• Hume
• Empricism
• Philosophy

[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.

[seanwal111111]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.