Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without a...
In a message dated 9/10/00 11:33:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the claim that "we always will" - i.e. that "in other instances" the repetition, the expectation and the belief will be conjoined - cannot be justified Of coutrse it can't. If it could, then there would be an answer to the problem of induction. So what's your point? --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without a...
Hume would say, more constant conjunction is what you have--here, the CC of the bell with the CC of the two other things. --jks In a message dated 9/10/00 12:13:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I give up. What would Hume say? The bell is warning you that constant conjunction is bad for your constitution? Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] turn up in the future? Like what? Suppose a bell went off whenever you had constant conjunction, starting today. Would that help? You know what Hume would say.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without a...
Well I was joking. But seriously would anyone hear Hume? There is constant conjunction everywhere all the time. The ringing would be incessant and overpowering. Wouldn't Hume seek medical attention for the constant ringing in his ears? Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 12:46 PM Subject: [PEN-L:1621] Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without a... Hume would say, more constant conjunction is what you have--here, the CC of the bell with the CC of the two other things. --jks In a message dated 9/10/00 12:13:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I give up. What would Hume say? The bell is warning you that constant conjunction is bad for your constitution? Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] turn up in the future? Like what? Suppose a bell went off whenever you had constant conjunction, starting today. Would that help? You know what Hume would say.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without a...
In a message dated 9/10/00 4:10:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ustin wrote: In a message dated 9/10/00 11:33:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the claim that "we always will" - i.e. that "in other instances" the repetition, the expectation and the belief will be conjoined - cannot be justified Of coutrse it can't. If it could, then there would be an answer to the problem of induction. So what's your point? --jks The point is in the sentence following the one you quote. OK, then we are on the same page, but I don't see that this is an objection to Hume. It's his point. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without aCat(was Re: pomoistas)
Ken Hanly wrote: Reason is not capable of really questioning induction since reason is powerless against such a natural instinct. How then is Hume able to question induction? Ted -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without aCat(was Re: pomoistas)
Ted Winslow wrote: Ken Hanly wrote: Reason is not capable of really questioning induction since reason is powerless against such a natural instinct. How then is Hume able to question induction? This reason/passion/[appetite] metaphysics had its origins in Plato's attack on Athenian democracy -- and as far as I can tell has served reaction ever since. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without aCat(was Re: pomoistas)
He doesn't really. He questions justifications of it. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Ted Winslow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 2:07 PM Subject: [PEN-L:1562] Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without aCat(was Re: pomoistas) Ken Hanly wrote: Reason is not capable of really questioning induction since reason is powerless against such a natural instinct. How then is Hume able to question induction? Ted -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without aCat(was Re: pomoistas)
At 03:31 PM 09/09/2000 -0500, you wrote: Going down the road of hyperbolic doubt gets you to the malevolent demon and deep questions about whether we might not all be brains in vats. I doubt these questions are of great practical use as preparation for socialist revolution. Isn't that the premise of that movie with Keanu Reeves, THE MATRIX? Can't we dismiss all these questions about induction and epistemology and ontology in a pragmatic way, i.e., say that our doubts and skepticism are really irrelevant if they don't act as a guide to practice? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without aCat(was Re: pomoistas)
Well there is the historical hen who always ran out to greet the farmer and received generous amounts of chickenfeed, and using induction figured out that the appearance of the farmer meant chickenfeed. On this inductive basis the hen adopted the practice of rushiing out whenever the farmer appeared. On the 1001 appearance the farmer grabbed the hen and chopped off her head. What works and has worked for a good long time may not always work. Hypothetical doubt removed from practice can often have unforeseen practical applications. I know nothing of the movie you mention. Seems to me the example was originally advanced by Robert Nozick the erstwhile libertarian but I could be wrong. Putnam's formulation of the example and his solution are given at: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mccormickm/BIVcontinued.html Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 4:03 PM Subject: [PEN-L:1573] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without aCat(was Re: pomoistas) At 03:31 PM 09/09/2000 -0500, you wrote: Going down the road of hyperbolic doubt gets you to the malevolent demon and deep questions about whether we might not all be brains in vats. I doubt these questions are of great practical use as preparation for socialist revolution. Isn't that the premise of that movie with Keanu Reeves, THE MATRIX? Can't we dismiss all these questions about induction and epistemology and ontology in a pragmatic way, i.e., say that our doubts and skepticism are really irrelevant if they don't act as a guide to practice? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hume the Postmodern Grin without a Cat(was...
In a message dated 9/9/00 3:15:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ken Hanly wrote: Reason is not capable of really questioning induction since reason is powerless against such a natural instinct. How then is Hume able to question induction? Ken misspeaks, Reason can question, but the questioning does not disturb the deeply rooted force of habit that makes us accept induction. Reason is pretty weak, according to Hume, in the face of passion or habit. And was he wrong to think so? --jks
