1. Hume's Central Principles: Historical Background, and His 'Chief Argument'
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- First lecture on David Hume's Central Principles; focusing on the historical background and Hume's Chief Argument.
University of Oxford Podcasts
podcasts.ox.ac....
Hume's Treatise and his Enquiry
Courtesy of the University of Adelaide Library Electronic Texts Collection
ebooks.adelaide...
ebooks.adelaide...
You are welcome. I appreciate you taking the time to watch it.
I just got this need to know more about Hume and here I've got several hours.
After watching the first part I look forward to a lazy day on the couch, listening to this entire thing.
Thanks a million.
Wonderful lecture on Hume. Best on the net that I have run into
Excellent lecture. This should help me when I dive back into the 1600 page tome on human nature. Hume was a beast.
What a command of language and thought by lecturer. Thanks.
Thank you for this. I am beginning to think that Master Hume had a much clearer vision than he's ever gotten proper credit for. . . . The older I get -- the smarter HE gets !! haha
Many Thanks for these lectures 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉❤ Great job 👍🏽 👌🧑🎓🏆🎖✅️
This is a superb lecture, really well done. Thanks for posting. Hume was a genius.
You are welcome.
Have you posted other lectures like these? I am delighted with the excellent quality of this one on Hume and would love to view others.
Steven Yourke Here is the playlist
czcams.com/play/PLlGKhJRyG0snD8_1q3ZnL7dQEfPN0dm9H.html
Thank you very much!
+German Lourenço Mejia Who is lecturing in the video. I like him a lot. Superb speaker and teacher.
Philosophy is awesome, but I couldn't learn it properly when I was at college. My English was too weak to learn it. I plan to learn it to teach my kids. Philosophy, math, psychology, physics, and biology are basic knowledge that must be mastered to live productively.
very good lecture
I watched it...liked the historical background!
Riveting presentation. Thanks!
Excellent
Great lecture! ...someone gave this lecture a thumbs down???
Hi, this may sound a bit crazy but I can offer you the answer how, we can conclude that based on the same cause we will get the same consequence. This is possible if we make a deduction from the induction, that is, if we understand why it happened for the first time. Then we will understand why this will happen every time it is repeated. And why in these circumstances nothing else can happen. Take for example that you walk towards a wall and your body stops when you are in contact with a wall. The first question is why did that happen? And not something else ... When we divide the whole case into "all" factors that make it up, we will get: you who move, the floor, the space you pass through, the wall ... What we must understand is that every factor that exists has its own identity and cannot be different at the same time. So, just as in the identity of the body as well as in the identity of that wall there is no transience through each other due to the structure of those identities, it is not possible for those identities. That is why it happened, what is only possible, which can only happen through the contact of these identities. Therefore, in each repeated case, the same consequence will occur, stopping the body in contact with the wall. And for the first time, what was only possible in the contact of these identities happened. It is impossible for nothing to happen, and the only thing that can happen depends on the identities involved in the process. Every identity can react only according to what it is and in no other way. This limits the consequence and therefore only what each identity brings to the process for itself can always happen. Now try to imagine any other possible consequence, without having to change the identities we had in the first case, any different consequence will require some change of some identity in the process, and that implies a change of what Hume call the cause. Each repeated case will end the same if the same identities are present because each factor from that process has its own identity which at the same time cannot be different and therefore cannot react differently. A wall cannot have the identity of transience and non-transience for the body at the same time, the same goes for the space you walk through ... An identity is one that limits the possibility of a consequence to the identity it possesses. This is a simplified example of necessity in causality and I don’t think it provides a deeper understanding of necessity in causality but it is a powerful example that points to necessity that is indisputable without changing any identity in the process itself, and if we do, change something in the process itself, then we have changed the cause itself, so we should not expect the same consequence. I apologize if the translation is not perfect everywhere, I am dyslexic. That’s part of my charm.
interesting premise, but it is ridden with vagueness. The example posits a wall as an absolute barrier. But is that always true? Define "wall"
You could be near a source of an intense x-rays without knowing it. But your hair will still fall out shortly thereafter.
Amazing, thanks
Good voice! 👍🙏
" stones are driven by some kind of desire", really..
Hobbes was subpar and ruined the modern world with his definition of property and really his text "The Leviathan" in general.
I quite agree. Hobbes was below sub-par as a philosophy. I consider him more a political and social philosopher.
Goes to show why Hobbes is taught more in political and social studies.
I quit a course in graduate school after deciding that I had no interest in reading "Leviathan." I found it tedious and it has a lot of pages.
@@coreycox2345 Surprising you made it all the way to grad school before having to read that book! Of course, not sure what you studied in undergrad/grad studies, but I had to start reading Leviathan as far back as Grade 11 Philosophy.
At worst he crafted the ultimate steel-manning of a philosophical position probably most philosophers and lettered thinkers have disagreed with since the Enlightenment period, despite being, by some accounts, a sort of social misfit and prick himself; the former of which is an important contribution. At best he created social contract theory, and like the Greek political philosophers before him, set the table for the development of an important and relevant sociopolitical conversation that still continues, and has done much, though certainly not all, to lead us through and away from monarchs and despots (obviously not entirely!) towards increasingly rigorous, more representative social democracies, this despite himself being a rather totalitarian monarchist. Ideological robustness, philosophical fitness, requires and should always be grateful for, those who best articulates alternate views, positions we wish/seek to disprove, unjust institutions we wish to dismantle, etc.
why is it that preacher can influence people on the mass with 1/100 of the logic presented here but emotionalism of a not practical nature? I think Jesus would not be impressed with some of the preaching in church based on chaos.
This may be because people are wacky.
As Hume suggests, essentially, and to rather crudely, if correctly, attempt to recapitulate his view, the 'passions' rule us, 'reason' reins us, and we are guided by both into the social fray. Most of us have far more of the former than we do the latter, thus, for most of us, charisma and chutzpah rule the day.
Awesome!!! Thanks for posting it