Ham, Clearly Hume is a man after my own heart. I would note that much of what he says has been found highly relevant in the modern world of cognitive sciences. His account of mental functions and his elaboration of the process of association are of particular current interest.
Since he is relevant I can see why you would dismiss him along with the other natural philosophers who did propose theories they "presumed to be empirically verifiable." Newton, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Galileo, Locke, you know the first string players your lot were always hoping would tire so they could get a chance at bat. Krimel ____________________________________________________ Krimel -- > While it is not difficult to find quotes of him stating one position > and then the other; it is clear throughout the work which position > Hume takes. The idea that I have taken him out of context can > only be the product of wishful thinking or careless reading. > > To one who finds ammunition in such big guns as Cusa and > Eckhart I suppose Hume must seem minor... (Excuse me, I > spilled coffee all over myself laughing at that.) The position YOU are taking is that metaphysical theories are useless because they cannot be verified with moral or factual certitude, and you are using Hume to corroborate this position. Frankly, I don't need Hume's "Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding" to tell me this. I have maintained all along that absolute knowledge is inaccessible to man, and that the only discernable truths are relative within the framework of relational existence. Philosophy is not Science, nor have its theories ever been presumed to be empirically verifiable. Metaphysical cosmology and epistemology are attempts to extend man's perspective beyond the limitations of experiential knowledge. Plotinus, Eckhart, Cusanus, and Leibniz are especially noteworthy in this regard because they've each offered a rational ontology to account for the appearance of diversity from primary Oneness. Despite some epistemological differences and the theistic orientation (of Eckhart and Cusa), the conclusions of these luminaries are remarkably similar. Those who scorn metaphysics, insisting that philosophy must serve a utilitarian purpose, are depriving themselves of the value that such insight affords us. I believe Pirsig has tried to straddle the philosophical fence by avoiding metaphysical explanations while leaning heavily on Zen mysticism for his epistemology. The incongruity of the Western and Eastern mindsets has resulted in a thesis that unfortunately lacks the cogency and specificity required for comprehension in the tradition of classical philosophy. But of course these are only my views, and coming from a known renegade in this forum, I don't anticipate that they will "spoil the party". Thanks for taking the trouble to explain Hume's position for me, Krimel. It is a worthy analysis, but I do not share Stanford Encyclopedia's adulation for this philosopher. (I wonder what they think of Hume's contemporary Bishop Berkeley?) Best regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
