on Hume...

[fredx]

Recently, some people have mentioned to me about the philosopher David Hume and his An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, so I have decided to say my piece about it.

I think that it is clear he is not considered one of the top philosophers in history because he is a windbag. He is a cheerleader in a vast sea of more important thinkers with more important thoughts.

He doesn't realize that the human mind when left to its own devices is the most unreliable thing in existence and that without customs, we would all kill each other in one days time by various means. Humans are savages with the ability to think and be reasonable, but that abilities are never the most important things when you think about it. Animal instinct is the rule of law because life is all about procuring needs and wants, and one has to be more dominant that others to secure those things.

David Hume is the product of a sheltered mind in a sheltered era. One that glorifies learning and the things of the mind above all else, while for the most part although not totally, ignoring that most people really could care less about these things and the people that read for knowledge and to increase their learnedness are an ever-decreasing breed, especially because there is less and less economy in it.

Hume has wonderful examples to prove the reasonablenesss and logicity of the mind (i.e. his example of how the motions of cue balls are not predictable and thereby no cause can be discovered from what happened, in other words, the effect). Humans are not logical. Mostly they are petty, mean and rude. These things have nothing reasonable about them because they sow discord in the soul. Perhaps Hume's grossest error is that he proclaims that philosophy must be infused with or at least be geared to be used in everyday life and reality, but his philosophy embodies none of this, being instead rather diffuse and abstract, which again are two sins which he himself portends to be on guard against.

To me, books are bullshit, my philosophy always comes from and starts with real life. That is why some of you criticize my findings, because it doesn't have that stamp of rationality, which honestly, is the plague of all modern thought from Wittgenstein to Derrida and anyone else that thinks in any field for that matter. I am above all a human scientist, philosophy is merely a hobby, because of all kinds of books, I think philosophy books are comparatively speaking the best and most useful, and all other books useless rubbish.

[Lucysnow]

Quote by fredx:

"I think philosophy books are comparatively speaking the best and most useful, and all other books useless rubbish."



By other books I assume you mean fiction. Most "other" books usually contains a working philosophy of some sort within the fabric of a story and is more readily available to the average person than suffering through some scholars work. The most these learned men can offer is the realization that if you are sitting around reading or thinking through dry reason chances are it is because life has not fully absorbed one as yet. I love Thus Spake Zarathustra but Nietzsche was hardly a "superman". He was an impotent who wrote about the hero whom never would have read such a piece to begin with (too busy). Try Henry Miller at least he lived (Sexus, Plexus and Nexus). I prefer to read anything and everything from someone whom has lived life fully not just observing the phenomenon of life from their settee. Hume it is said became ill of mind trying to develop his philosohpical vision due to his isolation. Once his crisis past he settled in a a sleepy little French town where he lived frugally where he read the great scholars and engaged in arguments with Jesuits before finishing his Treatise Of Nature.

[fredx]

If you read novels trying to find some sort of philosophic system you are sadly mistaken. What you really get is a romantic flirtation with certain ideas that have been around along enough to gain acceptance. Novels can only teach you to be a housewife, you are really misguided, I recommend Kant or Jaspers for you, they are really your only hope.

Also, who said Nietzsche was impotent, I just finished a biography and it seems that he decided not to deal with woman too much after Lou Salome because they were too much trouble, and he didn't really need children since his books were his children, if you think about it, and they have indeed proved more valuable than most people's children.

I don't know if you are a woman or not but the fact that you think Nietszche was impotent is exactly the reason he didn't deal with woman, if he was in fact inpotent it was caused by the way woman think. When a man faces the kind of dangers in life that Nietzsche did, he must necessarily eliminate the possibility of other dangers just to stay alive. This is just common sense.

[Lucysnow]

fredx quote: "Novels can only teach you to be a houswife"

Ha, Ha, Ha, well yes fedex I am a woman and novels I am afraid have taught me nothing about being a housewife except that it should be avoided at all cost. No novels, I am speaking of literary novels, are imaginary worlds where one can experience a subtle yet useful connection with the rest of humanity.

fredex quote: "What you really get is a romantic flirtation with certain ideas that have been around along enough to gain acceptance."

Well what of the Ayn Rand's Fountainhead? I would hardly call that a simple flirtation though it is an illustration of what she had expounded on in "The Virtue of Selfishness". By the way what is wrong with Romance? Why I say Romance is the stuff of life! Passion in ones body, mind and soul is what EXCITES one during a dreary day. I am only on occasion sentimental (those times of the month you see) but I try to bring Romance into everything.
Romantic: Having no basis in fact: imaginary, marked by the emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized.
What was Thus Spake Zarathustra if not a romantic tale of the hero's journey?
The poor man could not deal with L. Salome, fitting last name I am sure. I wonder which head she cut away from poor Mr. Nietzche? If Nietzsche could not deal with women then I say he could not deal with LIFE! Perhaps if he would have dealt more with the mystery of the opposite sex he would have discovered more than his childish illusions of being a "SUPERMAN". If living ones life with a pen in one hand and the other stroking ones private member is enough then indeed women ARE too much trouble.

fredx quote: "If he was impotent it was caused by the way women think"

Well I guess if I were an impotent Nietzsche I would have used the same excuse. Why should a woman think like a man? I have no interest in being divorced from body and soul...swimming away in the prison of my mind! And by the way fredx who would be around to read his books if it weren't for some woman's children? I am sure a philosophical scholar such as yourself were not produced in a petri dish (well okay maybe).

fredex quote: "When a man faces the kind of dangers in life that Nietzche did, he must necessarily eliminate the possibility of other dangers just to stay alive"

Well I guess that would be common sense, but what should a woman think of a SUPERMAN who's achilles heel resides in the female orifice?

I thank you for your recommendation and will read Kant and Jaspers.









;)

[mouse]

If you read novels trying to find some sort of philosophic system you are sadly mistaken.
Novels can only teach you to be a housewife
I would not put it so general... it all depends on the novel type. Not all novels are romances, the genre itself leaves room for a philosophical tone.

if he was in fact inpotent it was caused by the way woman think.
Wild speculation.

When a man faces the kind of dangers in life that Nietzsche did, he must necessarily eliminate the possibility of other dangers just to stay alive.
Yes, women are very well known for being a danger to men... i married one, and have to fight for survival everyday :rolleyes:

This is just common sense.
Hardly.