From: Dr. Blake Nelson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 20:07:32 EDT
Among Hume's many failings -- and one that empiricism
since has unfortunately shared -- is the shallowness
of the conception of experience.
This also goes back to a point Steve P. was asking
about re how can religion be consonant with a
scientific worldview, part of the problem with the
"scientific" worldview, is that it has an *extremely*
shallow definition of experience which basically takes
*most* of what religion speaks about out of any
"scientific" worldview, along with eliminating art,
Hilary Putnam presented an excellent discussion of
this problem as part of a Templeton Lecture series at
UC Santa Barabara arguing for a deeper meaning of
experience along the lines of what Kant discusses.
It is well worth the read -- as is Putnam's Renewing
Philosophy which has some relevant chapters on
Wittgenstein and religion -- to begin to figure out
many of the problems with the "scientific" worldview
that passes for a "worldview" these days.
--- Richard.Kouchoo@firstdata.com.au wrote:
> I will continue using the term _relativist_ (it is
> not a curse - it just
> describes someone's propensity to disfavour the
> existence of truth)
> particularly when you say things like:
> >>>Try reading David Hume.<<<
> OK. Here's Hume:
> 1) Facts cannot be proved but are discovered or
> inferred from experience
> and judgement about reality is not feasible.
> 2) Assertion that the absolute universal principles
> are unknowable.
> 3) Knowledge is based solely on experience and has
> no outside influences.
> Therefore there is no truth since future experiences
> may undermine any
> current truthful claims.
> Now to say that Hume has a few flaws is an
> All self referencing here. For example if one holds
> as Hume does, that all
> judgement about reality is uncalled for (since we
> are not 'qualified'
> enough or know enough, to make judgements) then one
> is making a judgement
> without qualification.
> The assertion that absolute universal principles are
> unknowable is false
> since it claims that at least one _absolute_
> universal principle is
> knowable: that no absolute universal principles are
> Knowledge is based on experience and has no outside
> influences? Please!
> Hume contradicts himself again when he uses his own
> to propound propositions like this.
> And how about that historical truth gem: there is no
> truth (a
> contradiction) since future experience undermine
> current claims? How about
> Hume's own previous _truthful_ claim? Is it now
> redundant, since we've
> already had a future experience?
> Relativist propositions are their own killers.
> Here's another one:
> >>>I have never seen anything that is self-evident,
> thus I don't believe
> any such thing exists.<<<
> Is this absolutely true? That you have never seen
> things that are
> self-evident - if it is then, it is self-evident.
> >>>absolutely nothing is unquestionable.<<<
> If nothing is unquestionable, then this statement is
> itself questionable,
> therefore in the least, it cannot be trusted.
> >>>IF something is self-evident...then it is in the
> logical form of an
> This is itself an assumption. Self-referencing and
> therefore false.
> >>>You didn't even address the problem of humans who
> lack conciences and
> have no 'sense of justice' for others. Thus it is
> not 'self-evident' that
> humans have a sense of justice'.<<<
> You should be getting the drift from the
> contradictions above.
> Quite frankly, my favourite philosopher is not Hume.
> Best Regards.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 21 2003 - 20:07:40 EDT