What do you think?
Rate this book
賲亘丨孬 賮賷 丕賱賮丕賴賲丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞
La Investigaci贸n sobre el conocimiento humano constituye la exposici贸n m谩s coherente y madura de las ideas de David Hume (1711-1776). La obra se erige en torno a la formulaci贸n de los dos grandes principios del empirismo cl谩sico del siglo XVII -por un lado, la afirmaci贸n de que todas nuestras representaciones se fundamentan en la experiencia y, por otro, el principio de que las cuestiones de hecho, esto es, las proposiciones f谩cticas, no son reductibles a las relaciones de ideas, sin que quepa establecer una dependencia jer谩rquica del conocimiento emp铆rico respecto al conocimiento racional-. A partir de estos fundamentos, la exposici贸n se centra, en definitiva, en la cr铆tica de la noci贸n de causa, con todas las implicaciones y derivaciones que el desarrollo de este tema central lleva consigo. Pr贸logo y traducci贸n de Jaime de Salas Ortueta.
221 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1748
1,420 people are currently reading
46.9k people want to read
About the author
David Hume
2,967听books1,605听followersDavid Hume was a Scottish historian, philosopher, economist, diplomat and essayist known today especially for his radical philosophical empiricism and scepticism.
In light of Hume's central role in the Scottish Enlightenment, and in the history of Western philosophy, Bryan Magee judged him as a philosopher "widely regarded as the greatest who has ever written in the English language." While Hume failed in his attempts to start a university career, he took part in various diplomatic and military missions of the time. He wrote The History of England which became a bestseller, and it became the standard history of England in its day.
His empirical approach places him with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others at the time as a British Empiricist.
Beginning with his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume strove to create a total naturalistic "science of man" that examined the psychological basis of human nature. In opposition to the rationalists who preceded him, most notably Ren茅 Descartes, he concluded that desire rather than reason governed human behaviour. He also argued against the existence of innate ideas, concluding that humans have knowledge only of things they directly experience. He argued that inductive reasoning and therefore causality cannot be justified rationally. Our assumptions in favour of these result from custom and constant conjunction rather than logic. He concluded that humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self.
Hume's compatibilist theory of free will proved extremely influential on subsequent moral philosophy. He was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on feelings rather than abstract moral principles, and expounded the is鈥搊ught problem.
Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent western philosophy, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive philosophy, theology and other movements and thinkers. In addition, according to philosopher Jerry Fodor, Hume's Treatise is "the founding document of cognitive science". Hume engaged with contemporary intellectual luminaries such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, James Boswell, and Adam Smith (who acknowledged Hume's influence on his economics and political philosophy). Immanuel Kant credited Hume with awakening him from "dogmatic slumbers".
In light of Hume's central role in the Scottish Enlightenment, and in the history of Western philosophy, Bryan Magee judged him as a philosopher "widely regarded as the greatest who has ever written in the English language." While Hume failed in his attempts to start a university career, he took part in various diplomatic and military missions of the time. He wrote The History of England which became a bestseller, and it became the standard history of England in its day.
His empirical approach places him with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others at the time as a British Empiricist.
Beginning with his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume strove to create a total naturalistic "science of man" that examined the psychological basis of human nature. In opposition to the rationalists who preceded him, most notably Ren茅 Descartes, he concluded that desire rather than reason governed human behaviour. He also argued against the existence of innate ideas, concluding that humans have knowledge only of things they directly experience. He argued that inductive reasoning and therefore causality cannot be justified rationally. Our assumptions in favour of these result from custom and constant conjunction rather than logic. He concluded that humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self.
Hume's compatibilist theory of free will proved extremely influential on subsequent moral philosophy. He was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on feelings rather than abstract moral principles, and expounded the is鈥搊ught problem.
Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent western philosophy, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive philosophy, theology and other movements and thinkers. In addition, according to philosopher Jerry Fodor, Hume's Treatise is "the founding document of cognitive science". Hume engaged with contemporary intellectual luminaries such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, James Boswell, and Adam Smith (who acknowledged Hume's influence on his economics and political philosophy). Immanuel Kant credited Hume with awakening him from "dogmatic slumbers".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 741 reviews
November 14, 2014
I had seen so many references to Hume's Enquiry that I almost thought I had read it; but, when I actually got around to opening the book, I found as usual that things were not quite as I had imagined. I was not surprised by his relentless scepticism, or by his insistence on basing all reasoning on empirical evidence. These qualities, after all, have become proverbial. I was, however, surprised to find that I hadn't correctly grasped the essence of his argument concerning the nature of knowledge. In case you are as poorly informed as I was, let me summarise it here.
Hume's position is wonderfully simple. He asks what grounds we have for supposing that multiple repetitions of an experiment justify us in inferring a necessary law. If we note, on many occasions, that hot objects burn our hands when we touch them, what logical reason do we have for assuming that we should not touch the next candle flame we happen to see?
The answer is that we have no logical grounds at all for making such an inference. Of course, as a matter of observed fact, we do assume, after a small number of trials, that touching hot objects will hurt us. Hume says this is nothing to do with logic; we are simply designed in such a way that we cannot help being influenced by our experience to adopt such rules. As he points out, many other living creatures do the same. It is impossible to believe that a dog or a horse is performing any kind of logical deduction when they learn to avoid touching naked flames. They simply acquire the habit of behaving in this way. The most economical explanation of what we see is that human beings are doing the same thing.
A mountain of discussion has accumulated since Hume published his book, and it would be presumptuous of me to give my opinions when so many extremely clever people have already done so. I am, however, struck by something I have noticed in the course of my professional career. I have worked in Artificial Intelligence and related subjects since the early 80s, and during that period the field has suffered a profound change. In 1980, most AI research was related to logic. People assumed that the notion of intelligence was in some essential way based on the notion of deduction. Making machines intelligent was a question of making them capable of performing the right kinds of logical inferences. This tempting approach was, unfortunately, a resounding failure.
Somewhere towards the end of the last century, a different way of looking at things started to become fashionable, and quickly gained ground. Instead of thinking about logic, people began more and more to think about probability. They collected data and extracted various kinds of statistical regularities. The new AI systems made no attempt to think logically; their decisions were based on associations acquired from their experience. At first, the AI community was scornful, but it was soon found that "data-driven" systems worked quite well. They made stupid mistakes sometimes; but so did the logic-based systems, and the mechanical logicians tended to make more stupid mistakes. They could reason, but they had no common sense. Today, data-driven systems have taken over the field, and the approach has been shown to work well for many problems which had once been considered impossible challenges. Particularly striking successes have been notched up in machine translation, speech recognition, computer vision, and allied fields.
If David Hume came back today, I have no idea whether he'd be offered a chair at a philosophy department. But I'm fairly sure that Google would be interested in hiring him.
Hume's position is wonderfully simple. He asks what grounds we have for supposing that multiple repetitions of an experiment justify us in inferring a necessary law. If we note, on many occasions, that hot objects burn our hands when we touch them, what logical reason do we have for assuming that we should not touch the next candle flame we happen to see?
The answer is that we have no logical grounds at all for making such an inference. Of course, as a matter of observed fact, we do assume, after a small number of trials, that touching hot objects will hurt us. Hume says this is nothing to do with logic; we are simply designed in such a way that we cannot help being influenced by our experience to adopt such rules. As he points out, many other living creatures do the same. It is impossible to believe that a dog or a horse is performing any kind of logical deduction when they learn to avoid touching naked flames. They simply acquire the habit of behaving in this way. The most economical explanation of what we see is that human beings are doing the same thing.
A mountain of discussion has accumulated since Hume published his book, and it would be presumptuous of me to give my opinions when so many extremely clever people have already done so. I am, however, struck by something I have noticed in the course of my professional career. I have worked in Artificial Intelligence and related subjects since the early 80s, and during that period the field has suffered a profound change. In 1980, most AI research was related to logic. People assumed that the notion of intelligence was in some essential way based on the notion of deduction. Making machines intelligent was a question of making them capable of performing the right kinds of logical inferences. This tempting approach was, unfortunately, a resounding failure.
Somewhere towards the end of the last century, a different way of looking at things started to become fashionable, and quickly gained ground. Instead of thinking about logic, people began more and more to think about probability. They collected data and extracted various kinds of statistical regularities. The new AI systems made no attempt to think logically; their decisions were based on associations acquired from their experience. At first, the AI community was scornful, but it was soon found that "data-driven" systems worked quite well. They made stupid mistakes sometimes; but so did the logic-based systems, and the mechanical logicians tended to make more stupid mistakes. They could reason, but they had no common sense. Today, data-driven systems have taken over the field, and the approach has been shown to work well for many problems which had once been considered impossible challenges. Particularly striking successes have been notched up in machine translation, speech recognition, computer vision, and allied fields.
If David Hume came back today, I have no idea whether he'd be offered a chair at a philosophy department. But I'm fairly sure that Google would be interested in hiring him.
December 11, 2021
Is it not uncertain whether the effect of my realizations about the disconnection of causes and effects is due to the cause of reading An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding? The most excellent definition of causation being "if the first object had not been, the second never had existed" is not true in this case since I, as with Hume, may have been able to realize this independently. It is said correlation does not entail causation, and reading Hume does not necessarily entail that it was the cause of me realizing the same ideas. It seems further experimentation will be necessary.
I submit that multiple individuals read An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding as the experimental group and have another group read randomly selected books as the control group. Then, let us have them take a reading comprehension test or perhaps have them submit reviews on some platform, call it notbadtexts.com, for comparison. Using tests of statistical significance, it will thus be able to be confirmed whether the effect of learning about the disconnection of causes and effects was indeed due to the cause of reading a book about such. I daresay this may be the most important scientific experiment on causality to ever be devised. It is imperative we test and confirm whether causal effects indeed lead to thoughts about causal effects, elsewise the entire scientific enterprise may currently be compromised.
Anyhow, the weather today was nice, and I look forward to supper.
Ah, right, but was it not also said "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence"? Tis true, tis true... However, an experiment of such a kind would be of the highest order of evidence. Rather than theorizing the validity of those notions, such an experiment would finally make them become a matter of fact about matters of fact. For "a weaker evidence can never destroy a stronger."
We will then be able to compound our certainty by performing an experiment on the effects of reading about an experiment (a cause) on the effects of reading about the true nature of causality from a text called An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (another cause). Ad infinitum. Thus, a means has been established of having certainty about certainty, which is the greatest form of certainty.
Has thee Bayes been beaten? Has thy necessity of Kantian transcendental pure reason been admonished?
I submit that multiple individuals read An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding as the experimental group and have another group read randomly selected books as the control group. Then, let us have them take a reading comprehension test or perhaps have them submit reviews on some platform, call it notbadtexts.com, for comparison. Using tests of statistical significance, it will thus be able to be confirmed whether the effect of learning about the disconnection of causes and effects was indeed due to the cause of reading a book about such. I daresay this may be the most important scientific experiment on causality to ever be devised. It is imperative we test and confirm whether causal effects indeed lead to thoughts about causal effects, elsewise the entire scientific enterprise may currently be compromised.
Anyhow, the weather today was nice, and I look forward to supper.
Ah, right, but was it not also said "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence"? Tis true, tis true... However, an experiment of such a kind would be of the highest order of evidence. Rather than theorizing the validity of those notions, such an experiment would finally make them become a matter of fact about matters of fact. For "a weaker evidence can never destroy a stronger."
We will then be able to compound our certainty by performing an experiment on the effects of reading about an experiment (a cause) on the effects of reading about the true nature of causality from a text called An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (another cause). Ad infinitum. Thus, a means has been established of having certainty about certainty, which is the greatest form of certainty.
Has thee Bayes been beaten? Has thy necessity of Kantian transcendental pure reason been admonished?
August 12, 2021
丿蹖賵蹖丿 賴蹖賵賲 賴賲趩賵賳 賱丕讴 賵 亘丕乇讴賱蹖 丕夭 賮賱丕爻賮賴鈥屰� 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屭必ж池�. 丕蹖賳 賮賱丕爻賮賴 賲毓鬲賯丿賳丿 讴賴 鬲噩乇亘賴 賲賳亘毓 丕氐賱蹖 賲毓乇賮鬲 賵 卮賳丕禺鬲 丕爻鬲.
- 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘
賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 睾丕賲囟貙 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 賵丕囟丨
賴蹖賵賲 賮賱爻賮赖 乇丕 亘賴 丿賵 賯爻賲 鬲賯爻蹖賲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�: 睾丕賲囟貙 賵丕囟丨. 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴乇 丿賵 賲賵乇丿賽 賳蹖丕夭 賴爻鬲賳丿. 丕诏乇 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 睾丕賲囟 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 鬲禺氐氐蹖 賳亘丕卮丿貙 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 賵丕囟丨 卮讴賱 賳禺賵丕賴丿 诏乇賮鬲 蹖丕 卮讴賵賮丕 賳禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿. 賮賱爻賮赖鈥� 丕夭 賳馗乇 賴蹖賵賲 亘丕蹖丿 讴丕乇亘乇丿蹖 亘丕卮丿 賵 丿乇 禺丿賲鬲 亘卮乇. 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 讴丕乇亘乇丿蹖 賴賲丕賳 賮爻賱賮賴鈥屰� 賵丕囟丨 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賵爻胤 毓賲賵賲 賲乇丿賲 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲 賵 亘讴丕乇诏蹖乇蹖 丕爻鬲. 賴蹖賵賲 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 亘乇丕蹖 毓賲賵賲 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池� 賵 亘賴 乇丕爻鬲蹖 趩賳蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 賲丕亘毓丿丕賱胤亘蹖毓賴 丕夭 賳馗乇 賴蹖賵賲 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屸€屫й� 睾丕賲囟 賵 賲賴賲賱蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘蹖乇丕賴賴 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌� 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屰� 睾賱胤 賮賱爻賮蹖丿賳 丕爻鬲.
賲賳卮兀 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏�
亘賴 毓賯蹖丿賴鈥屰� 賴蹖賵賲貙 賴乇 賮讴乇 賵 丕蹖丿賴鈥屫й屫� 趩賴 亘爻蹖胤 賵 賲乇讴亘 丕夭 鬲噩乇亘賴 賲蹖鈥屫③屫�. 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏й� 賲乇讴亘貙 丨丕氐賱 倬蹖賵爻鬲賳 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏й� 亘爻蹖胤 賴爻鬲賳丿. 丿乇 鈥屬嗀屫� 賴蹖趩 丕蹖丿賴鈥屰� 賮胤乇蹖鈥屫й� 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 丿乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲 賮讴乇 賵 乇賵丕賳 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 倬爻 丕夭 鬲賵賱丿 賴賲趩賵賳 賱賵丨鈥屬囏й� 爻賮蹖丿蹖鈥� 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 鬲噩乇亘賴 亘乇 丌賳賴丕 趩蹖夭賴丕 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池�.
丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏�
丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 亘賴 爻賴 乇賵卮 賲賲讴賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�: 卮亘丕賴鬲貙 賲噩丕賵乇鬲 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 蹖丕 賲讴丕賳貙 賵 毓賱蹖鬲.
賲賵囟賵毓 讴丕賵卮鈥屬囏й� 亘卮乇蹖: 丨爻丕亘 賵 賴賳丿爻賴貙 丕賲賵乇 賵丕賯毓
賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 讴丕賵卮鈥屬囏й� 亘卮乇蹖 丿賵 賳賵毓 賴爻鬲賳丿. 蹖讴蹖 芦乇賵丕亘胤賽 亘蹖賳 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 讴賴 丕夭 噩賳爻 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 亘乇賴丕賳蹖鈥� 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 丿乇 丨爻丕亘 賵 賴賳丿爻賴 讴丕乇亘乇丿 丿丕乇丿. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賳賵毓 亘乇丕蹖 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屭屫臂� 鬲賳賴丕 賳蹖丕夭 亘賴 讴賳卮鈥屬囏й� 匕賴賳蹖 丿丕乇丿. 賳賵毓 丿賵賲 讴丕賵卮 丿乇 芦丕賲賵乇 賵丕賯毓禄 丕爻鬲. 讴丕賵卮 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲賵乇丿 亘賴 讴賲讴 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 卮讴賱 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟嗀� 賵 賲亘鬲賳蹖 亘乇 毓賱蹖鬲 丕爻鬲. 鬲噩乇亘賴貙 丕蹖賳 賳賵毓 讴丕賵卮 乇丕 禺賵乇丕讴 賲蹖鈥屫囏�.
睾乇蹖夭鈥屬団€屰� 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱
丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 鬲噩乇亘蹖 诏賵賳賴鈥屫й� 賯賵賴鈥屫й� 賲讴丕賳蹖讴蹖 蹖丕 睾乇蹖夭蹖鈥屫池� 讴賴 賳丕禺賵丿丌诏丕賴 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ臂屬�.
毓賱蹖鬲 趩蹖爻鬲責
毓賱蹖鬲 丕夭 賳馗乇 賴蹖賵賲 賯丕亘賱 丕孬亘丕鬲 賳蹖爻鬲. 蹖毓賳蹖 賲丕 賴乇诏夭 賯丕丿乇 亘賴 讴卮賮 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屸€屫й� 賲賱賲賵爻 亘蹖賳 毓賱鬲 賵 賲毓賲賵賱 賳蹖爻鬲蹖賲. 亘賱讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 丕夭 鬲讴乇丕乇 丕鬲賮丕賯丕鬲 賴賲鈥屫操呚з� 賵 亘乇丕爻丕爻 毓丕丿鬲 賵 鬲噩乇亘賴 丨丿爻 賲蹖鈥屫操嗃屬� 讴賴 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屫й� 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 丕爻賲 丌賳 乇丕 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 毓賱賾蹖 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж臂屬�. 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賳賲賵賳賴 丕诏乇 鬲賳賴丕 蹖讴 亘丕乇 爻賯賵胤 卮蹖卅蹖 乇丕 丕夭 亘丕賱丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳 亘亘蹖賳蹖賲貙 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬� 趩蹖夭蹖 乇丕 鬲氐賵乇 讴賳蹖賲 蹖丕 鬲卮禺蹖氐 丿賴蹖賲 亘賴 賳丕賲 噩丕匕亘賴. 賵賱蹖 丕诏乇 丕蹖賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 鬲讴乇丕乇 卮賵丿貙 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 毓賱鬲 乇丕 蹖丕賮鬲賴鈥屫й屬� 賵 丌賳 乇丕 亘丕 丿乇 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘丕 噩爻賲 賵 夭賲蹖賳貙 芦噩丕匕亘賴禄 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呟屬�. 賵賯鬲蹖 鬲賳賴丕 賲賳亘毓 卮賳丕禺鬲 賲丕 鬲噩乇亘賴 丕爻鬲貙 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賲胤賲卅賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 乇賵蹖丿丕丿賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 鬲噩乇亘賴 讴乇丿賴鈥屫й屬呚� 鬲丕 賴賲蹖卮賴 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 賲卮丕亘賴 蹖讴爻丕賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 禺賵丕賴丿 丕賮鬲丕丿.
毓賱蹖鬲貙 亘丕賵乇貙 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲
毓賱蹖鬲 丨丕氐賱 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賳蹖爻鬲貙 丨丕氐賱 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 丕爻鬲. 芦亘丕賵乇禄 丨丕氐賱 丕賵賳爻 賵 毓丕丿鬲 亘賴 鬲讴乇丕乇 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屸€屬囏й� 蹖讴爻丕賳 丕爻鬲. 賵賯鬲蹖 丕夭 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲 氐丨亘鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬呚� 賴賲趩賳丕賳 丕鬲讴丕蹖 賲丕 亘賴 鬲噩乇亘賴 賵 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 丕爻鬲.
囟乇賵乇鬲
丕诏乇 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 芦丕乇鬲亘丕胤 囟乇賵乇蹖禄 賵噩賵丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿貙 趩賳蹖賳 丕乇鬲亘丕胤蹖 睾蹖乇賯丕亘賱 卮賳丕禺鬲 丕爻鬲. 夭蹖乇丕 賴蹖趩 賵賯鬲 亘丕 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屰� 倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 賯丕丿乇 亘賴 賲卮丕賴丿賴鈥屰� 賳蹖乇賵 蹖丕 丕賳乇跇蹖鈥屫й� 賳禺賵丕賴蹖賲 亘賵丿 讴賴 囟乇賵乇鬲丕賸 丕鬲賮丕賯蹖 乇丕 賲賲讴賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 蹖丕 亘丕蹖丿 亘卮賵丿.
賲毓噩夭赖
賲毓噩夭丕鬲 乇丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 倬匕蹖乇賮鬲 [蹖丕 賲賵噩賴 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 亘倬匕蹖乇蹖賲] 趩賵賳 鬲賳賴丕 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 诏賵丕賴蹖 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 亘賴 丕胤賱丕毓 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀�. 賴乇 趩賯丿乇 诏賵丕賴蹖鈥屫囐嗀з嗁� 乇賵蹖丿丕丿賴丕 丕夭 賱丨丕馗 賲讴丕賳蹖 賵 夭賲丕賳蹖 丕夭 賲丕 丿賵乇鬲乇 亘丕卮賳丿貙 诏賵丕賴蹖 丌賳鈥屬囏� 睾蹖乇賯丕亘賱鈥� 丕鬲讴丕鬲乇 丕爻鬲. 賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賲毓賲賵賱丕賸 丕夭 賮蹖賱鬲乇 丌诏丕賴丕賳 賵 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳 诏匕乇 賳讴乇丿賴 賵 丿乇 爻乇夭賲蹖賳 賲乇丿賲丕賳 賳爻亘鬲丕賸 噩丕賴賱 乇賵蹖 丿丕丿賴鈥屫з嗀�. 賴蹖趩 賲毓噩夭赖鈥屫й� 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 賴賲鈥屫操呚з� 鬲賵爻胤 鬲賲丕賲賽 賲乇丿賲賽 蹖讴 毓氐乇貙 蹖丕 丨鬲蹖 鬲賲丕賲 賲乇丿賲丕賳賽 賲丨賱 賲毓噩夭赖 丿乇 丌賳 毓氐乇 鬲丕蹖蹖丿 卮丿賴 亘丕卮丿 賵 賲禺丕賱賮蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿. 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 丕賳爻丕賳蹖貙 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩貙 賵 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲 亘賴 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屭堐屬嗀� 賴乇 賯丿乇 蹖讴 丕鬲賮丕賯 賳丕丿乇鬲乇 賵 禺丕乇賯鈥屫з勜关ж団€屫� 亘丕卮丿貙 讴賲鬲乇 倬匕蹖乇賮鬲賳蹖鈥屫池�. 丿乇 丕賲賵乇 乇賵夭賲乇賴 丕诏乇 亘毓丿 丕夭 賴夭丕乇 亘丕乇 賲卮丕賴丿賴鈥屰� 蹖讴 乇賵蹖丿丕丿 亘賴 卮讴賱蹖 禺丕氐貙 蹖讴 亘丕乇 丌賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 乇賵蹖 丿賴丿貙 亘賴 噩丕蹖 倬匕蹖乇卮 蹖讴 乇賵蹖丿丕丿 禺丕乇賯鈥屫з勜关ж囏� 丕亘鬲丿丕 亘賴 賲卮丕賴丿賴鈥屰� 禺賵丿賲丕賳 卮讴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬呚� 蹖丕 爻毓蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賲丿丕賯賴 讴賳蹖賲 賵 丕丨鬲賲丕賱 賲蹖鈥屫囒屬� 丕蹖賳 亘丕乇 卮丕蹖丿 毓賱鬲蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丿乇 讴丕乇 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 丌賳 亘蹖鈥屫ㄘ臂屬�. 丕诏乇 禺賵丿賲丕賳 丕蹖賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 乇丕 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 乇丕 賲卮丕賴丿賴 賳讴乇丿賴鈥� 亘丕卮蹖賲 賵 鬲賳賴丕 丕夭 胤乇賮 讴爻蹖 诏賵丕賴蹖 卮丿賴 亘丕卮丿貙 亘賴 诏賵丕賴蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 卮讴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬�. 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賴賲 亘丕蹖丿 趩賳蹖賳 讴賳蹖賲.
氐賮丕鬲 禺丿丕
丕诏乇 亘鬲賵丕賳 毓賱鬲 乇丕 丕夭 蹖讴 賲毓賱賵賱 卮賳丕禺鬲 蹖丕 丨丿爻 夭丿貙 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕賸 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賲卮禺氐丕鬲蹖 乇丕 亘賴 毓賱鬲 賳爻亘鬲 丿丕丿 讴賴 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 賲毓賱賵賱 賯丕亘賱 讴卮賮 亘丕卮丿貙 賳賴 賮乇丕鬲乇 丕夭 丌賳. 賵賱蹖 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 賲匕賴亘蹖 倬丕 乇丕 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賮乇丕鬲乇 賲蹖鈥屭柏必з嗀�. 賳賴 賮賯胤 亘丕 賲卮丕賴丿賴鈥屰� 賲禺賱賵賯丕鬲貙 禺丿丕 乇丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 禺丕賱賯 讴卮賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 亘賱讴賴 氐賮丕鬲 丿蹖诏乇蹖 乇丕 賴賲 賲孬賱 毓丿丕賱鬲 賵 賴丿賮賲賳丿蹖 乇丕 賴賲 亘賴 丌賳 賲賳鬲爻亘 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 蹖讴 丿賱蹖賱 卮丕蹖丿 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 噩丕蹖 禺丿丕 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж辟嗀�. 鬲氐賵乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丕诏乇 丌丿賲蹖 趩賳蹖賳 鬲賵丕賳賲賳丿 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 趩賳蹖賳 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖蹖 乇丕 禺賱賯 讴賳丿貙 丨鬲賲丕賸 毓丕丿賱 丕爻鬲 賵 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 賴丿賮蹖 丿丕乇丿 賵 丕賱蹖 丌禺乇貙 倬爻 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賳鬲蹖噩賴 诏乇賮鬲 讴賴 禺丿丕 賴賲 趩賳蹖賳 丕爻鬲.
丕賳賵丕毓 卮讴丕讴蹖鬲
賴蹖賵賲 丕賳賵丕毓 卮讴丕讴蹖鬲 乇丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 卮讴 丿讴丕乇鬲蹖 乇丕 賲賮蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 賵賱蹖 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇禺賱丕賮 丕丿毓丕蹖 丿讴丕乇鬲貙 丕蹖賳 卮讴 賴賲賴鈥屫з嗀ㄙ� 賵 賵丕賯毓蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 亘賴 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 卮讴 讴乇丿 賵 爻倬爻 蹖讴 賳賯胤賴鈥屰� 丌睾丕夭蹖賳 賵 賯丕亘賱 丕鬲讴丕 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 卮乇賵毓 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿 讴賴 亘蹖鈥屫蹿� 丕夭 賴乇 卮讴蹖 亘賴 丿賵乇 亘丕卮丿 賵 爻倬爻 亘賴 讴卮賮 丕賲賵乇 丿蹖诏乇 倬乇丿丕禺鬲.
爻倬爻 卮讴 丕賮乇丕胤蹖 乇丕 乇丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 卮讴 丕賮乇丕胤蹖 丿乇 亘胤賳 禺賵丿 賲鬲賳丕賯囟 賵 賲賴賲賱 丕爻鬲. 丕诏乇 鬲賱丕卮 讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 孬丕亘鬲 讴賳蹖丿 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 賲卮讴賵讴 丕爻鬲貙 卮讴 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲賳讴乇 卮丿蹖丿. 趩乇丕 讴賴 賲丿毓蹖 賴爻鬲蹖丿 讴賴 芦賲卮讴賵讴 亘賵丿賳 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭禄 噩丕蹖 卮讴 賳丿丕乇丿. 丕蹖賳 卮讴 乇丕賴 亘賴 噩丕蹖蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必� 賵 丨鬲蹖 丕賲賵乇 乇賵夭賲乇賴 賴賲 亘丕 丌賳 倬蹖卮 賳賲蹖鈥屫辟堌�.
鬲賳賴丕 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 丕夭 賳馗乇 賴蹖賵賲 噩丕蹖 卮讴 賳丿丕乇丿貙 乇蹖丕囟蹖 丕爻鬲. 毓賱鬲 賴賲 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 乇蹖丕囟蹖 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賵丕丨丿賴丕蹖 毓丿丿蹖 亘丕 賴賲 蹖讴爻丕賳 賴爻鬲賳丿. 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴貙 賲賯丕蹖爻賴 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屭屫臂� 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲. 賵賱蹖 丿乇 丕賲賵乇 賵丕賯毓 锟斤拷蹖趩 丿賵 趩蹖夭蹖 讴丕賲賱丕賸 蹖讴爻丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿 賵 賴蹖趩 賲賯丕蹖爻賴 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屫й� 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 丿賯蹖賯 賵 亘蹖鈥屫蹿� 丕賳噩丕賲 诏蹖乇丿.
丕賲賵乇 讴賱蹖 賵 噩夭卅蹖
賴賲賴鈥屰� 丕賲賵乇 噩夭卅蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿. 讴賱蹖丕鬲 鬲賳賴丕 賳丕賲鈥屬囏й屰� 賴爻鬲賳丿 亘乇丕蹖 丕賲賵乇 噩夭卅蹖 讴賴 亘賴 卮讴賱蹖 卮亘蹖賴 賴賲 賴爻鬲賳丿. 賴賲賴鈥屰� 毓賱賵賲貙 毓賱賲 亘賴 讴賱蹖丕鬲 賴爻鬲賳丿.
亘賴 丌鬲卮 亘爻倬丕乇蹖丿!
賴蹖賵賲 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 讴鬲丕亘 氐亘賵乇 丕爻鬲. 賵賱蹖 丌賳 乇丕 胤賵賮丕賳蹖 鬲賲丕賲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 賴乇 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丿乇 丿爻鬲 诏乇賮鬲蹖丿 趩賳蹖賳 讴賳蹖丿: 芦亘丕蹖丿 亘倬乇爻蹖賲 丌蹖丕 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱蹖 賲噩乇丿 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 讴賲蹖鬲 蹖丕 毓丿丿 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇 丿丕乇丿責 丌蹖丕 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱蹖 丌夭賲丕蹖卮蹖 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 丕賲乇 賵丕賯毓 賵 賵噩賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇 丿丕乇丿責 賳賴. 倬爻 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 卮毓賱賴鈥屬囏й� 丌鬲卮 亘爻倬乇蹖丿貨 夭蹖乇丕 噩夭 爻賮爻胤賴 賵 鬲賵賴賲 趩蹖夭蹖 丿乇 亘乇 賳鬲賵丕賳丿 丿丕卮鬲.禄
- 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 鬲乇噩賲賴
賲鬲乇噩賲 丿乇 賲賯丿賲賴 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 賯氐丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 賯乇賳 賴噩丿賴賲蹖 賴蹖賵賲 賵賮丕丿丕乇 亘丕卮丿. 丕蹖賳 賵賮丕丿丕乇蹖 亘賴 賳賮毓 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 鬲賲丕賲 賳卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 噩賲賱丕鬲賽 倬乇卮賲丕乇蹖貙 丨鬲蹖 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 讴賱賲丕鬲 睾乇蹖亘賴 賵 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿. 亘賴 噩丕蹖 爻丕禺鬲丕乇賽 賲毓賲賵賱賽 賮丕乇爻蹖 噩賲賱賴 蹖毓賳蹖 賮丕毓賱貙 賲賮毓賵賱 賵 賮毓賱貙 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 蹖毓賳蹖 賮丕毓賱貙 賮毓賱 賵 賲賮毓賵賱 亘賴 讴丕乇 乇賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 賲鬲賳 亘丿賵賳 丿賱蹖賱 賲賵噩賴貙 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 賵 丌夭丕乇丿賴賳丿賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丨賮馗 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 丕氐賱蹖 賲鬲賳 賵 夭蹖亘丕蹖蹖 賳孬乇 賯丿蹖賲蹖賽 賴蹖賵賲貙 丿賱蹖賱蹖鈥屫池� 讴賴 賲鬲乇噩賲 亘乇丕蹖 趩賳蹖賳 爻丕禺鬲丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必�. 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 賴丿賮 丕氐賱蹖 丕夭 禺賵丕賳丿賳 趩賳蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘蹖貙 丌诏丕賴蹖 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屰� 賴蹖賵賲 丕爻鬲貙 賳賴 賱匕鬲 亘乇丿賳 丕夭 賳孬乇 丌賳. 诏乇趩賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 賳孬乇 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屫簇囏� 趩賳丿丕賳 賱匕鬲蹖 乇丕 賲賳鬲賯賱 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
囟賲賳丕賸 亘丕夭 丿乇 賴賲丕賳 賲賯丿賲賴貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 诏賮鬲賴 讴賴 賯氐丿 賳丿丕乇丿 賴蹖趩 噩丕 倬丕賵乇賯蹖 亘诏匕乇丕丿. 賴蹖趩 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賲毓賲賵賱丕賸 鬲賵賯毓 丿丕乇蹖賲 丿乇 倬丕賵乇賯蹖 亘蹖丕蹖丿貙 賳蹖丕賲丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖賽 賴蹖趩 丕爻賲蹖貙 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏� 蹖丕 賲讴丕賳鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 丿乇 賲鬲賳 丕卮丕乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 賴蹖趩 趩蹖夭 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 賲鬲乇噩賲 丿乇 倬丕賵乇賯蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 賲鬲乇噩賲 丿賱蹖賱 乇丕 爻丕丿诏蹖 賲鬲賳 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 亘蹖鈥屬嗃屫ж� 丕夭 卮乇丨 賵 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲 賵 倬丕賵乇賯蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 氐丨蹖丨 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴蹖賵賲 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲诏丕賳 賵 爻丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池� 賵賱蹖 丿爻鬲鈥屭┵� 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿 賮乇賵丕賳蹖貙 賴賲趩賵賳 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖賽 賳丕賲鈥屬囏ж� 賵噩賵丿 倬丕賵乇賯蹖鈥屬囏� 賱丕夭賲 亘賵丿 賵 賳亘賵丿卮丕賳貙 诏乇趩賴 禺賵丕賳卮 乇丕 賳丕賲賲讴賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫池ж藏� 賴賲趩賳丕賳 賳賯氐 丕爻鬲.
禺賱丕氐賴貙 丨蹖賮 丕爻鬲 讴賴 芦讴丕賵賴 賱丕噩賵乇丿蹖賽禄 鬲賵丕賳丕貙 亘丕 丿賵 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 讴賴 亘賴 乇丕丨鬲蹖 賯丕亘賱 噩賱賵诏蹖乇蹖 亘賵丿貙 讴丕乇 亘丕丕乇夭卮卮 乇丕 丿趩丕乇 賳賯氐鈥屬囏й屰� 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲.
倬蹖鈥屬嗁堌簇� 郾:
倬蹖卮鬲乇 倬賱蹖鈥屬勠屫池� 丕夭 蹖賵鬲蹖賵亘 乇丕 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿賲貙 讴賴 卮丕賲賱 鄹郾 噩賱爻賴鈥屰� 鬲賯乇蹖亘丕賸 蹖讴 爻丕毓鬲賴 丕爻鬲 丕夭 讴賱丕爻 丿乇爻蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖. 丕蹖賳 倬賱蹖鈥屬勠屫池� 趩賳丕賳 亘丕 丕乇夭卮 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 亘賴丕賳賴鈥屰� 賴蹖賵賲鈥屫堌з嗃� 丿賵亘丕乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫①堌辟呪€屫ж�:
爻賴 噩賱爻賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賵蹖丿卅賵賴丕貙 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 賴蹖賵賲 丕爻鬲.
倬蹖鈥屬嗁堌簇� 鄄:
丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 卮乇賵毓 讴乇丿賲 亘賴 讴賲蹖 禺賱丕氐賴鈥屬嗁堐屫驰屫� 禺蹖賱蹖 禺賱丕氐賴. 丿乇 賴賲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 丿乇 丕亘鬲丿丕 蹖丕 丕賳鬲賴丕蹖 亘禺卮貙 趩賳丿 禺胤蹖 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫迟�. 丕蹖賳 賲乇賵乇 丿乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲貙 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 禺胤鈥屬囏� 賲蹖鈥屫③屫�. 丕诏乇 賳賯氐蹖 丿丕卮鬲貙 禺亘乇賲 讴賳蹖丿貙 趩賵賳 亘賴 賳蹖賾鬲 丕蹖賳噩丕 丌賲丿賳貙 賳賵卮鬲賴 賳卮丿賴 亘賵丿賴鈥屫з嗀�.
- 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘
賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 睾丕賲囟貙 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 賵丕囟丨
賴蹖賵賲 賮賱爻賮赖 乇丕 亘賴 丿賵 賯爻賲 鬲賯爻蹖賲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�: 睾丕賲囟貙 賵丕囟丨. 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴乇 丿賵 賲賵乇丿賽 賳蹖丕夭 賴爻鬲賳丿. 丕诏乇 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 睾丕賲囟 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 鬲禺氐氐蹖 賳亘丕卮丿貙 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 賵丕囟丨 卮讴賱 賳禺賵丕賴丿 诏乇賮鬲 蹖丕 卮讴賵賮丕 賳禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿. 賮賱爻賮赖鈥� 丕夭 賳馗乇 賴蹖賵賲 亘丕蹖丿 讴丕乇亘乇丿蹖 亘丕卮丿 賵 丿乇 禺丿賲鬲 亘卮乇. 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 讴丕乇亘乇丿蹖 賴賲丕賳 賮爻賱賮賴鈥屰� 賵丕囟丨 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賵爻胤 毓賲賵賲 賲乇丿賲 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲 賵 亘讴丕乇诏蹖乇蹖 丕爻鬲. 賴蹖賵賲 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 亘乇丕蹖 毓賲賵賲 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池� 賵 亘賴 乇丕爻鬲蹖 趩賳蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屰� 賲丕亘毓丿丕賱胤亘蹖毓賴 丕夭 賳馗乇 賴蹖賵賲 賮賱爻賮赖鈥屸€屫й� 睾丕賲囟 賵 賲賴賲賱蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘蹖乇丕賴賴 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌� 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屰� 睾賱胤 賮賱爻賮蹖丿賳 丕爻鬲.
賲賳卮兀 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏�
亘賴 毓賯蹖丿賴鈥屰� 賴蹖賵賲貙 賴乇 賮讴乇 賵 丕蹖丿賴鈥屫й屫� 趩賴 亘爻蹖胤 賵 賲乇讴亘 丕夭 鬲噩乇亘賴 賲蹖鈥屫③屫�. 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏й� 賲乇讴亘貙 丨丕氐賱 倬蹖賵爻鬲賳 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏й� 亘爻蹖胤 賴爻鬲賳丿. 丿乇 鈥屬嗀屫� 賴蹖趩 丕蹖丿賴鈥屰� 賮胤乇蹖鈥屫й� 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 丿乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲 賮讴乇 賵 乇賵丕賳 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 倬爻 丕夭 鬲賵賱丿 賴賲趩賵賳 賱賵丨鈥屬囏й� 爻賮蹖丿蹖鈥� 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 鬲噩乇亘賴 亘乇 丌賳賴丕 趩蹖夭賴丕 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池�.
丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏�
丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 亘賴 爻賴 乇賵卮 賲賲讴賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�: 卮亘丕賴鬲貙 賲噩丕賵乇鬲 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 蹖丕 賲讴丕賳貙 賵 毓賱蹖鬲.
賲賵囟賵毓 讴丕賵卮鈥屬囏й� 亘卮乇蹖: 丨爻丕亘 賵 賴賳丿爻賴貙 丕賲賵乇 賵丕賯毓
賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 讴丕賵卮鈥屬囏й� 亘卮乇蹖 丿賵 賳賵毓 賴爻鬲賳丿. 蹖讴蹖 芦乇賵丕亘胤賽 亘蹖賳 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 讴賴 丕夭 噩賳爻 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 亘乇賴丕賳蹖鈥� 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 丿乇 丨爻丕亘 賵 賴賳丿爻賴 讴丕乇亘乇丿 丿丕乇丿. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賳賵毓 亘乇丕蹖 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屭屫臂� 鬲賳賴丕 賳蹖丕夭 亘賴 讴賳卮鈥屬囏й� 匕賴賳蹖 丿丕乇丿. 賳賵毓 丿賵賲 讴丕賵卮 丿乇 芦丕賲賵乇 賵丕賯毓禄 丕爻鬲. 讴丕賵卮 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲賵乇丿 亘賴 讴賲讴 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 卮讴賱 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟嗀� 賵 賲亘鬲賳蹖 亘乇 毓賱蹖鬲 丕爻鬲. 鬲噩乇亘賴貙 丕蹖賳 賳賵毓 讴丕賵卮 乇丕 禺賵乇丕讴 賲蹖鈥屫囏�.
睾乇蹖夭鈥屬団€屰� 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱
丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 鬲噩乇亘蹖 诏賵賳賴鈥屫й� 賯賵賴鈥屫й� 賲讴丕賳蹖讴蹖 蹖丕 睾乇蹖夭蹖鈥屫池� 讴賴 賳丕禺賵丿丌诏丕賴 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ臂屬�.
毓賱蹖鬲 趩蹖爻鬲責
毓賱蹖鬲 丕夭 賳馗乇 賴蹖賵賲 賯丕亘賱 丕孬亘丕鬲 賳蹖爻鬲. 蹖毓賳蹖 賲丕 賴乇诏夭 賯丕丿乇 亘賴 讴卮賮 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屸€屫й� 賲賱賲賵爻 亘蹖賳 毓賱鬲 賵 賲毓賲賵賱 賳蹖爻鬲蹖賲. 亘賱讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 丕夭 鬲讴乇丕乇 丕鬲賮丕賯丕鬲 賴賲鈥屫操呚з� 賵 亘乇丕爻丕爻 毓丕丿鬲 賵 鬲噩乇亘賴 丨丿爻 賲蹖鈥屫操嗃屬� 讴賴 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屫й� 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 丕爻賲 丌賳 乇丕 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 毓賱賾蹖 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж臂屬�. 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賳賲賵賳賴 丕诏乇 鬲賳賴丕 蹖讴 亘丕乇 爻賯賵胤 卮蹖卅蹖 乇丕 丕夭 亘丕賱丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳 亘亘蹖賳蹖賲貙 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬� 趩蹖夭蹖 乇丕 鬲氐賵乇 讴賳蹖賲 蹖丕 鬲卮禺蹖氐 丿賴蹖賲 亘賴 賳丕賲 噩丕匕亘賴. 賵賱蹖 丕诏乇 丕蹖賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 鬲讴乇丕乇 卮賵丿貙 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 毓賱鬲 乇丕 蹖丕賮鬲賴鈥屫й屬� 賵 丌賳 乇丕 亘丕 丿乇 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘丕 噩爻賲 賵 夭賲蹖賳貙 芦噩丕匕亘賴禄 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呟屬�. 賵賯鬲蹖 鬲賳賴丕 賲賳亘毓 卮賳丕禺鬲 賲丕 鬲噩乇亘賴 丕爻鬲貙 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賲胤賲卅賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 乇賵蹖丿丕丿賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 鬲噩乇亘賴 讴乇丿賴鈥屫й屬呚� 鬲丕 賴賲蹖卮賴 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 賲卮丕亘賴 蹖讴爻丕賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 禺賵丕賴丿 丕賮鬲丕丿.
毓賱蹖鬲貙 亘丕賵乇貙 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲
毓賱蹖鬲 丨丕氐賱 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賳蹖爻鬲貙 丨丕氐賱 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 丕爻鬲. 芦亘丕賵乇禄 丨丕氐賱 丕賵賳爻 賵 毓丕丿鬲 亘賴 鬲讴乇丕乇 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屸€屬囏й� 蹖讴爻丕賳 丕爻鬲. 賵賯鬲蹖 丕夭 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲 氐丨亘鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬呚� 賴賲趩賳丕賳 丕鬲讴丕蹖 賲丕 亘賴 鬲噩乇亘賴 賵 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 丕爻鬲.
囟乇賵乇鬲
丕诏乇 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 芦丕乇鬲亘丕胤 囟乇賵乇蹖禄 賵噩賵丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿貙 趩賳蹖賳 丕乇鬲亘丕胤蹖 睾蹖乇賯丕亘賱 卮賳丕禺鬲 丕爻鬲. 夭蹖乇丕 賴蹖趩 賵賯鬲 亘丕 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屰� 倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 賯丕丿乇 亘賴 賲卮丕賴丿賴鈥屰� 賳蹖乇賵 蹖丕 丕賳乇跇蹖鈥屫й� 賳禺賵丕賴蹖賲 亘賵丿 讴賴 囟乇賵乇鬲丕賸 丕鬲賮丕賯蹖 乇丕 賲賲讴賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 蹖丕 亘丕蹖丿 亘卮賵丿.
賲毓噩夭赖
賲毓噩夭丕鬲 乇丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 倬匕蹖乇賮鬲 [蹖丕 賲賵噩賴 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 亘倬匕蹖乇蹖賲] 趩賵賳 鬲賳賴丕 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 诏賵丕賴蹖 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 亘賴 丕胤賱丕毓 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀�. 賴乇 趩賯丿乇 诏賵丕賴蹖鈥屫囐嗀з嗁� 乇賵蹖丿丕丿賴丕 丕夭 賱丨丕馗 賲讴丕賳蹖 賵 夭賲丕賳蹖 丕夭 賲丕 丿賵乇鬲乇 亘丕卮賳丿貙 诏賵丕賴蹖 丌賳鈥屬囏� 睾蹖乇賯丕亘賱鈥� 丕鬲讴丕鬲乇 丕爻鬲. 賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賲毓賲賵賱丕賸 丕夭 賮蹖賱鬲乇 丌诏丕賴丕賳 賵 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳 诏匕乇 賳讴乇丿賴 賵 丿乇 爻乇夭賲蹖賳 賲乇丿賲丕賳 賳爻亘鬲丕賸 噩丕賴賱 乇賵蹖 丿丕丿賴鈥屫з嗀�. 賴蹖趩 賲毓噩夭赖鈥屫й� 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 賴賲鈥屫操呚з� 鬲賵爻胤 鬲賲丕賲賽 賲乇丿賲賽 蹖讴 毓氐乇貙 蹖丕 丨鬲蹖 鬲賲丕賲 賲乇丿賲丕賳賽 賲丨賱 賲毓噩夭赖 丿乇 丌賳 毓氐乇 鬲丕蹖蹖丿 卮丿賴 亘丕卮丿 賵 賲禺丕賱賮蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿. 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 丕賳爻丕賳蹖貙 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩貙 賵 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲 亘賴 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屭堐屬嗀� 賴乇 賯丿乇 蹖讴 丕鬲賮丕賯 賳丕丿乇鬲乇 賵 禺丕乇賯鈥屫з勜关ж団€屫� 亘丕卮丿貙 讴賲鬲乇 倬匕蹖乇賮鬲賳蹖鈥屫池�. 丿乇 丕賲賵乇 乇賵夭賲乇賴 丕诏乇 亘毓丿 丕夭 賴夭丕乇 亘丕乇 賲卮丕賴丿賴鈥屰� 蹖讴 乇賵蹖丿丕丿 亘賴 卮讴賱蹖 禺丕氐貙 蹖讴 亘丕乇 丌賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 乇賵蹖 丿賴丿貙 亘賴 噩丕蹖 倬匕蹖乇卮 蹖讴 乇賵蹖丿丕丿 禺丕乇賯鈥屫з勜关ж囏� 丕亘鬲丿丕 亘賴 賲卮丕賴丿賴鈥屰� 禺賵丿賲丕賳 卮讴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬呚� 蹖丕 爻毓蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賲丿丕賯賴 讴賳蹖賲 賵 丕丨鬲賲丕賱 賲蹖鈥屫囒屬� 丕蹖賳 亘丕乇 卮丕蹖丿 毓賱鬲蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丿乇 讴丕乇 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 丌賳 亘蹖鈥屫ㄘ臂屬�. 丕诏乇 禺賵丿賲丕賳 丕蹖賳 丕鬲賮丕賯 乇丕 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 乇丕 賲卮丕賴丿賴 賳讴乇丿賴鈥� 亘丕卮蹖賲 賵 鬲賳賴丕 丕夭 胤乇賮 讴爻蹖 诏賵丕賴蹖 卮丿賴 亘丕卮丿貙 亘賴 诏賵丕賴蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 卮讴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬�. 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲毓噩夭丕鬲 賴賲 亘丕蹖丿 趩賳蹖賳 讴賳蹖賲.
氐賮丕鬲 禺丿丕
丕诏乇 亘鬲賵丕賳 毓賱鬲 乇丕 丕夭 蹖讴 賲毓賱賵賱 卮賳丕禺鬲 蹖丕 丨丿爻 夭丿貙 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕賸 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賲卮禺氐丕鬲蹖 乇丕 亘賴 毓賱鬲 賳爻亘鬲 丿丕丿 讴賴 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 賲毓賱賵賱 賯丕亘賱 讴卮賮 亘丕卮丿貙 賳賴 賮乇丕鬲乇 丕夭 丌賳. 賵賱蹖 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 賲匕賴亘蹖 倬丕 乇丕 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賮乇丕鬲乇 賲蹖鈥屭柏必з嗀�. 賳賴 賮賯胤 亘丕 賲卮丕賴丿賴鈥屰� 賲禺賱賵賯丕鬲貙 禺丿丕 乇丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 禺丕賱賯 讴卮賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 亘賱讴賴 氐賮丕鬲 丿蹖诏乇蹖 乇丕 賴賲 賲孬賱 毓丿丕賱鬲 賵 賴丿賮賲賳丿蹖 乇丕 賴賲 亘賴 丌賳 賲賳鬲爻亘 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 蹖讴 丿賱蹖賱 卮丕蹖丿 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 噩丕蹖 禺丿丕 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж辟嗀�. 鬲氐賵乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丕诏乇 丌丿賲蹖 趩賳蹖賳 鬲賵丕賳賲賳丿 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 趩賳蹖賳 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖蹖 乇丕 禺賱賯 讴賳丿貙 丨鬲賲丕賸 毓丕丿賱 丕爻鬲 賵 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 賴丿賮蹖 丿丕乇丿 賵 丕賱蹖 丌禺乇貙 倬爻 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賳鬲蹖噩賴 诏乇賮鬲 讴賴 禺丿丕 賴賲 趩賳蹖賳 丕爻鬲.
丕賳賵丕毓 卮讴丕讴蹖鬲
賴蹖賵賲 丕賳賵丕毓 卮讴丕讴蹖鬲 乇丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 卮讴 丿讴丕乇鬲蹖 乇丕 賲賮蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 賵賱蹖 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇禺賱丕賮 丕丿毓丕蹖 丿讴丕乇鬲貙 丕蹖賳 卮讴 賴賲賴鈥屫з嗀ㄙ� 賵 賵丕賯毓蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 亘賴 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 卮讴 讴乇丿 賵 爻倬爻 蹖讴 賳賯胤賴鈥屰� 丌睾丕夭蹖賳 賵 賯丕亘賱 丕鬲讴丕 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 卮乇賵毓 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿 讴賴 亘蹖鈥屫蹿� 丕夭 賴乇 卮讴蹖 亘賴 丿賵乇 亘丕卮丿 賵 爻倬爻 亘賴 讴卮賮 丕賲賵乇 丿蹖诏乇 倬乇丿丕禺鬲.
爻倬爻 卮讴 丕賮乇丕胤蹖 乇丕 乇丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 卮讴 丕賮乇丕胤蹖 丿乇 亘胤賳 禺賵丿 賲鬲賳丕賯囟 賵 賲賴賲賱 丕爻鬲. 丕诏乇 鬲賱丕卮 讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 孬丕亘鬲 讴賳蹖丿 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 賲卮讴賵讴 丕爻鬲貙 卮讴 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲賳讴乇 卮丿蹖丿. 趩乇丕 讴賴 賲丿毓蹖 賴爻鬲蹖丿 讴賴 芦賲卮讴賵讴 亘賵丿賳 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭禄 噩丕蹖 卮讴 賳丿丕乇丿. 丕蹖賳 卮讴 乇丕賴 亘賴 噩丕蹖蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必� 賵 丨鬲蹖 丕賲賵乇 乇賵夭賲乇賴 賴賲 亘丕 丌賳 倬蹖卮 賳賲蹖鈥屫辟堌�.
鬲賳賴丕 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 丕夭 賳馗乇 賴蹖賵賲 噩丕蹖 卮讴 賳丿丕乇丿貙 乇蹖丕囟蹖 丕爻鬲. 毓賱鬲 賴賲 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 乇蹖丕囟蹖 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賵丕丨丿賴丕蹖 毓丿丿蹖 亘丕 賴賲 蹖讴爻丕賳 賴爻鬲賳丿. 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴貙 賲賯丕蹖爻賴 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屭屫臂� 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲. 賵賱蹖 丿乇 丕賲賵乇 賵丕賯毓 锟斤拷蹖趩 丿賵 趩蹖夭蹖 讴丕賲賱丕賸 蹖讴爻丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿 賵 賴蹖趩 賲賯丕蹖爻賴 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屫й� 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 丿賯蹖賯 賵 亘蹖鈥屫蹿� 丕賳噩丕賲 诏蹖乇丿.
丕賲賵乇 讴賱蹖 賵 噩夭卅蹖
賴賲賴鈥屰� 丕賲賵乇 噩夭卅蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿. 讴賱蹖丕鬲 鬲賳賴丕 賳丕賲鈥屬囏й屰� 賴爻鬲賳丿 亘乇丕蹖 丕賲賵乇 噩夭卅蹖 讴賴 亘賴 卮讴賱蹖 卮亘蹖賴 賴賲 賴爻鬲賳丿. 賴賲賴鈥屰� 毓賱賵賲貙 毓賱賲 亘賴 讴賱蹖丕鬲 賴爻鬲賳丿.
亘賴 丌鬲卮 亘爻倬丕乇蹖丿!
賴蹖賵賲 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 讴鬲丕亘 氐亘賵乇 丕爻鬲. 賵賱蹖 丌賳 乇丕 胤賵賮丕賳蹖 鬲賲丕賲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 賴乇 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丿乇 丿爻鬲 诏乇賮鬲蹖丿 趩賳蹖賳 讴賳蹖丿: 芦亘丕蹖丿 亘倬乇爻蹖賲 丌蹖丕 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱蹖 賲噩乇丿 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 讴賲蹖鬲 蹖丕 毓丿丿 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇 丿丕乇丿責 丌蹖丕 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱蹖 丌夭賲丕蹖卮蹖 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 丕賲乇 賵丕賯毓 賵 賵噩賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇 丿丕乇丿責 賳賴. 倬爻 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 卮毓賱賴鈥屬囏й� 丌鬲卮 亘爻倬乇蹖丿貨 夭蹖乇丕 噩夭 爻賮爻胤賴 賵 鬲賵賴賲 趩蹖夭蹖 丿乇 亘乇 賳鬲賵丕賳丿 丿丕卮鬲.禄
- 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 鬲乇噩賲賴
賲鬲乇噩賲 丿乇 賲賯丿賲賴 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 賯氐丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 賯乇賳 賴噩丿賴賲蹖 賴蹖賵賲 賵賮丕丿丕乇 亘丕卮丿. 丕蹖賳 賵賮丕丿丕乇蹖 亘賴 賳賮毓 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 鬲賲丕賲 賳卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 噩賲賱丕鬲賽 倬乇卮賲丕乇蹖貙 丨鬲蹖 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 讴賱賲丕鬲 睾乇蹖亘賴 賵 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿. 亘賴 噩丕蹖 爻丕禺鬲丕乇賽 賲毓賲賵賱賽 賮丕乇爻蹖 噩賲賱賴 蹖毓賳蹖 賮丕毓賱貙 賲賮毓賵賱 賵 賮毓賱貙 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 蹖毓賳蹖 賮丕毓賱貙 賮毓賱 賵 賲賮毓賵賱 亘賴 讴丕乇 乇賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 賲鬲賳 亘丿賵賳 丿賱蹖賱 賲賵噩賴貙 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 賵 丌夭丕乇丿賴賳丿賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丨賮馗 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 丕氐賱蹖 賲鬲賳 賵 夭蹖亘丕蹖蹖 賳孬乇 賯丿蹖賲蹖賽 賴蹖賵賲貙 丿賱蹖賱蹖鈥屫池� 讴賴 賲鬲乇噩賲 亘乇丕蹖 趩賳蹖賳 爻丕禺鬲丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必�. 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 賴丿賮 丕氐賱蹖 丕夭 禺賵丕賳丿賳 趩賳蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘蹖貙 丌诏丕賴蹖 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屰� 賴蹖賵賲 丕爻鬲貙 賳賴 賱匕鬲 亘乇丿賳 丕夭 賳孬乇 丌賳. 诏乇趩賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 賳孬乇 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屫簇囏� 趩賳丿丕賳 賱匕鬲蹖 乇丕 賲賳鬲賯賱 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
囟賲賳丕賸 亘丕夭 丿乇 賴賲丕賳 賲賯丿賲賴貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 诏賮鬲賴 讴賴 賯氐丿 賳丿丕乇丿 賴蹖趩 噩丕 倬丕賵乇賯蹖 亘诏匕乇丕丿. 賴蹖趩 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賲毓賲賵賱丕賸 鬲賵賯毓 丿丕乇蹖賲 丿乇 倬丕賵乇賯蹖 亘蹖丕蹖丿貙 賳蹖丕賲丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖賽 賴蹖趩 丕爻賲蹖貙 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏� 蹖丕 賲讴丕賳鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 丿乇 賲鬲賳 丕卮丕乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 賴蹖趩 趩蹖夭 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 賲鬲乇噩賲 丿乇 倬丕賵乇賯蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 賲鬲乇噩賲 丿賱蹖賱 乇丕 爻丕丿诏蹖 賲鬲賳 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 亘蹖鈥屬嗃屫ж� 丕夭 卮乇丨 賵 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲 賵 倬丕賵乇賯蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 氐丨蹖丨 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴蹖賵賲 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲诏丕賳 賵 爻丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池� 賵賱蹖 丿爻鬲鈥屭┵� 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿 賮乇賵丕賳蹖貙 賴賲趩賵賳 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖賽 賳丕賲鈥屬囏ж� 賵噩賵丿 倬丕賵乇賯蹖鈥屬囏� 賱丕夭賲 亘賵丿 賵 賳亘賵丿卮丕賳貙 诏乇趩賴 禺賵丕賳卮 乇丕 賳丕賲賲讴賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫池ж藏� 賴賲趩賳丕賳 賳賯氐 丕爻鬲.
禺賱丕氐賴貙 丨蹖賮 丕爻鬲 讴賴 芦讴丕賵賴 賱丕噩賵乇丿蹖賽禄 鬲賵丕賳丕貙 亘丕 丿賵 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 讴賴 亘賴 乇丕丨鬲蹖 賯丕亘賱 噩賱賵诏蹖乇蹖 亘賵丿貙 讴丕乇 亘丕丕乇夭卮卮 乇丕 丿趩丕乇 賳賯氐鈥屬囏й屰� 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲.
倬蹖鈥屬嗁堌簇� 郾:
倬蹖卮鬲乇 倬賱蹖鈥屬勠屫池� 丕夭 蹖賵鬲蹖賵亘 乇丕 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿賲貙 讴賴 卮丕賲賱 鄹郾 噩賱爻賴鈥屰� 鬲賯乇蹖亘丕賸 蹖讴 爻丕毓鬲賴 丕爻鬲 丕夭 讴賱丕爻 丿乇爻蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖. 丕蹖賳 倬賱蹖鈥屬勠屫池� 趩賳丕賳 亘丕 丕乇夭卮 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 亘賴丕賳賴鈥屰� 賴蹖賵賲鈥屫堌з嗃� 丿賵亘丕乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫①堌辟呪€屫ж�:
爻賴 噩賱爻賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賵蹖丿卅賵賴丕貙 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 賴蹖賵賲 丕爻鬲.
倬蹖鈥屬嗁堌簇� 鄄:
丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 卮乇賵毓 讴乇丿賲 亘賴 讴賲蹖 禺賱丕氐賴鈥屬嗁堐屫驰屫� 禺蹖賱蹖 禺賱丕氐賴. 丿乇 賴賲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 丿乇 丕亘鬲丿丕 蹖丕 丕賳鬲賴丕蹖 亘禺卮貙 趩賳丿 禺胤蹖 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫迟�. 丕蹖賳 賲乇賵乇 丿乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲貙 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 禺胤鈥屬囏� 賲蹖鈥屫③屫�. 丕诏乇 賳賯氐蹖 丿丕卮鬲貙 禺亘乇賲 讴賳蹖丿貙 趩賵賳 亘賴 賳蹖賾鬲 丕蹖賳噩丕 丌賲丿賳貙 賳賵卮鬲賴 賳卮丿賴 亘賵丿賴鈥屫з嗀�.
September 27, 2024
Very hard book to get through...but it may be that my 'understanding' is well below the bar Hume set...on further reflection, I am sure that that is the case - after 'empiricisticly' reflecting on my experience it is my level of understanding that made this book hard to get through.
October 1, 2021
Hume is one of the best, most quotable and reasonable philosophers of all time. Besides Schopenhauer and maybe Plato, no one had a greater mind. He was not quite the lucid prosodist Arthur was, and not quite the poet Plato was, but when it comes to directing humanity away from superstition and toward rational thinking, maybe none have done as much. A friend of Rousseau's and a great historian to boot, David Hume's writings deserve our attention.
February 5, 2017
鈥庁堌池з嗁� 诏乇丕賳賯丿乇貙 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 爻賴 讴鬲丕亘賽 丕乇夭卮賲賳丿蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 丿賱賽 賲胤丕賱亘賽 讴鬲丕亘賽 丕氐賱蹖賽 夭賳丿賴 蹖丕丿 <丿蹖賵蹖丿 賴蹖賵賲> 亘夭乇诏鬲乇蹖賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮賽 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳貙 亘丕 毓賳賵丕賳 "丿乇 胤亘蹖毓鬲 丕賳爻丕賳" 亘蹖乇賵賳 丌賲丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕蹖賳诏賵賳賴 亘乇丕蹖 乇蹖賵蹖賵 賳賵蹖爻蹖 賲賳 賳蹖夭 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇 賵 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮賽 禺乇丿诏乇丕貙 亘乇丕蹖鬲丕賳 亘賳賵蹖爻賲
鈥庁关槽屫藏з嗁呚� 賴丿賮賽 <賴蹖賵賲> 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 鬲丕 孬丕亘鬲 讴賳丿 讴賴 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕 丿乇 丕氐賱 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 亘丕 鬲噩乇亘蹖丕鬲 賳丿丕乇賳丿. 趩乇丕讴賴 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖賽 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 丕夭 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖賽 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇 亘蹖乇賵賳 賲蹖 丌蹖賳丿 賵 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖賽 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇 賳蹖夭 丕夭 丕丨爻丕爻丕鬲賽 丨爻蹖 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 賲蹖 丌蹖賳丿
鈥庁操嗀� 蹖丕丿 <賴蹖賵賲> 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 賵賯鬲蹖 丕蹖丿賴 賵 讴丕乇蹖 乇丕 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳 丌卮讴丕乇 賵 乇賵卮賳 丿丕賳爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇爻鬲蹖賽 丌賳 丕夭 乇丕賴 鬲噩乇亘賴 丕孬亘丕鬲 诏乇丿丿 賵 亘賴 賵爻蹖賱賴贁 睾乇蹖夭賴 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賲賵囟賵毓蹖 乇丕 丕孬亘丕鬲 賳賲賵丿
鈥庁迟矩� 丕蹖賳 賲乇丿賽 亘夭乇诏 亘賴 賲賵囟賵毓賽 賵噩賵丿賽 禺丿丕 賵 乇賵丨 賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭丿 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 丕夭 丌賳噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賲乇丿賲 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 賵噩賵丿賽 禺丿丕 乇丕 亘丕 乇賵卮 丌夭賲丕蹖卮 賵 乇賵卮 賴丕蹖 毓賱賲蹖 賵 禺乇丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳賴 丕孬亘丕鬲 讴賳賳丿 賵 丕孬乇蹖 丕夭 乇賵丨 賵 禺丿丕 賵 賲賵賴賵賲丕鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿貙 賱匕丕 丿賱蹖賱蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘賴 禺丿丕 賵 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 讴賴 鬲賵爻胤賽 丿蹖賳讴丕乇丕賳 亘賴 賲乇丿賲 賵毓丿賴 丿丕丿賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿
鈥庁й屬� 賮蹖賱爻賵賮賽 亘夭乇诏貙 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲卮 乇丕 亘丕 亘賴 讴丕乇亘乇丿賳賽 丕亘夭丕乇蹖 賴賲趩賵賳 賲蹖讴乇賵爻讴賵倬 - 鬲蹖睾 - 趩賳诏丕賱.. 讴丕賲賱 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 丕蹖賳诏賵賳賴 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 讴賴 賲丕 亘丕蹖丿 賴賲趩賵賳 丕蹖賳 爻賴 丕亘夭丕乇賽 讴丕乇蹖貙 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘賴 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賵 乇丕爻鬲蹖 倬蹖 亘亘乇蹖賲
****
鈥庂呟屭┴辟堌弛┵堎�: 亘乇丕蹖 賮賴賲 賵 丿乇讴賽 蹖讴 丕蹖丿賴 賵 賳馗乇賽 丕乇丕卅賴 卮丿賴貙 亘丕蹖丿 丌賳 丕蹖丿賴 乇丕 亘賴 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖賽 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇蹖 讴賴 丕噩夭丕蹖賽 爻丕夭賳丿賴贁 丌賳 賴爻鬲賳丿 噩丿丕 讴乇丿賴 賵 蹖讴 亘賴 蹖讴 賲賵乇丿 亘乇乇爻蹖 賯乇丕乇 丿賴蹖賲
****
鈥庁屫�: 亘丕蹖丿 賲賵賴賵賲丕鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 賵 賲匕賴亘蹖 賵 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇 賲爻丕卅賱 賲鬲丕賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 讴賴 丿賱蹖賱 毓賱賲蹖 賵 禺乇丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳賴 亘乇丕蹖 鬲賵噩蹖賴 丌賳 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿 乇丕 亘賴 賵爻蹖賱賴贁 鬲蹖睾 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 丕賮讴丕乇賲丕賳 亘夭丿丕蹖蹖賲 賵 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 亘鬲乇丕卮蹖賲
****
鈥広嗁嗂з�: 亘賴 賵爻蹖賱賴贁 趩賳诏丕賱 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳蹖賲 丨賯丕蹖賯 乇丕 亘賴 丿賵 亘禺卮 鬲賯爻蹖賲 讴賳蹖賲... 丿爻鬲賴贁 丕賵賱賽 丨賯丕蹖賯 亘賴 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕 賵 賳馗乇丕鬲 賴賲趩賵賳 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲賽 丿乇爻鬲賽 乇蹖丕囟蹖 讴賴 亘丕乇賴丕 丕孬亘丕鬲 卮丿賴 丕賳丿貙 丕孬亘丕鬲賽 丌賳賴丕 賴賲蹖卮诏蹖 禺賵丕賴丿 亘賵丿 賵 鬲乇丿蹖丿蹖 丿乇 丌賳賴丕 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿
鈥庁池囐� 丿賵賲貙 乇丕爻鬲蹖 賴丕 賵 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賴丕蹖蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 丕亘鬲丿丕 丿乇 胤亘蹖毓鬲 賵 丿賳蹖丕貙 賴賲蹖卮賴 乇賵蹖 丿丕丿賴 丕賳丿 賵 丿乇爻鬲蹖 丌賳賴丕 孬丕亘鬲 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲
鈥庂呚� 亘丕蹖丿 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賵 丿爻鬲賴 丕夭 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賴丕 讴賴 禺乇丿賽 賲丕 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 賯亘賵賱 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 丕夭 乇丕賴 丿丕賳卮 孬丕亘鬲 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖賲
------------------------------------------------
鈥庁з呟屫堌ж辟� 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 亘乇丕蹖 卮賲丕 禺乇丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳 賲賮蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮丿
鈥庁� 乇蹖賵蹖賵賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 爻毓蹖 賲蹖讴賳賲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕蹖 丕蹖賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮賽 亘夭乇诏貙 亘倬乇丿丕夭賲
鈥�<倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖>
鈥庁关槽屫藏з嗁呚� 賴丿賮賽 <賴蹖賵賲> 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 鬲丕 孬丕亘鬲 讴賳丿 讴賴 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕 丿乇 丕氐賱 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 亘丕 鬲噩乇亘蹖丕鬲 賳丿丕乇賳丿. 趩乇丕讴賴 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖賽 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 丕夭 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖賽 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇 亘蹖乇賵賳 賲蹖 丌蹖賳丿 賵 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖賽 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇 賳蹖夭 丕夭 丕丨爻丕爻丕鬲賽 丨爻蹖 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 賲蹖 丌蹖賳丿
鈥庁操嗀� 蹖丕丿 <賴蹖賵賲> 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 賵賯鬲蹖 丕蹖丿賴 賵 讴丕乇蹖 乇丕 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳 丌卮讴丕乇 賵 乇賵卮賳 丿丕賳爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇爻鬲蹖賽 丌賳 丕夭 乇丕賴 鬲噩乇亘賴 丕孬亘丕鬲 诏乇丿丿 賵 亘賴 賵爻蹖賱賴贁 睾乇蹖夭賴 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賲賵囟賵毓蹖 乇丕 丕孬亘丕鬲 賳賲賵丿
鈥庁迟矩� 丕蹖賳 賲乇丿賽 亘夭乇诏 亘賴 賲賵囟賵毓賽 賵噩賵丿賽 禺丿丕 賵 乇賵丨 賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭丿 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 丕夭 丌賳噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賲乇丿賲 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 賵噩賵丿賽 禺丿丕 乇丕 亘丕 乇賵卮 丌夭賲丕蹖卮 賵 乇賵卮 賴丕蹖 毓賱賲蹖 賵 禺乇丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳賴 丕孬亘丕鬲 讴賳賳丿 賵 丕孬乇蹖 丕夭 乇賵丨 賵 禺丿丕 賵 賲賵賴賵賲丕鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿貙 賱匕丕 丿賱蹖賱蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘賴 禺丿丕 賵 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 讴賴 鬲賵爻胤賽 丿蹖賳讴丕乇丕賳 亘賴 賲乇丿賲 賵毓丿賴 丿丕丿賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿
鈥庁й屬� 賮蹖賱爻賵賮賽 亘夭乇诏貙 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲卮 乇丕 亘丕 亘賴 讴丕乇亘乇丿賳賽 丕亘夭丕乇蹖 賴賲趩賵賳 賲蹖讴乇賵爻讴賵倬 - 鬲蹖睾 - 趩賳诏丕賱.. 讴丕賲賱 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 丕蹖賳诏賵賳賴 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 讴賴 賲丕 亘丕蹖丿 賴賲趩賵賳 丕蹖賳 爻賴 丕亘夭丕乇賽 讴丕乇蹖貙 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘賴 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賵 乇丕爻鬲蹖 倬蹖 亘亘乇蹖賲
****
鈥庂呟屭┴辟堌弛┵堎�: 亘乇丕蹖 賮賴賲 賵 丿乇讴賽 蹖讴 丕蹖丿賴 賵 賳馗乇賽 丕乇丕卅賴 卮丿賴貙 亘丕蹖丿 丌賳 丕蹖丿賴 乇丕 亘賴 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖賽 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇蹖 讴賴 丕噩夭丕蹖賽 爻丕夭賳丿賴贁 丌賳 賴爻鬲賳丿 噩丿丕 讴乇丿賴 賵 蹖讴 亘賴 蹖讴 賲賵乇丿 亘乇乇爻蹖 賯乇丕乇 丿賴蹖賲
****
鈥庁屫�: 亘丕蹖丿 賲賵賴賵賲丕鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 賵 賲匕賴亘蹖 賵 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇 賲爻丕卅賱 賲鬲丕賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 讴賴 丿賱蹖賱 毓賱賲蹖 賵 禺乇丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳賴 亘乇丕蹖 鬲賵噩蹖賴 丌賳 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿 乇丕 亘賴 賵爻蹖賱賴贁 鬲蹖睾 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 丕賮讴丕乇賲丕賳 亘夭丿丕蹖蹖賲 賵 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 亘鬲乇丕卮蹖賲
****
鈥広嗁嗂з�: 亘賴 賵爻蹖賱賴贁 趩賳诏丕賱 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳蹖賲 丨賯丕蹖賯 乇丕 亘賴 丿賵 亘禺卮 鬲賯爻蹖賲 讴賳蹖賲... 丿爻鬲賴贁 丕賵賱賽 丨賯丕蹖賯 亘賴 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕 賵 賳馗乇丕鬲 賴賲趩賵賳 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲賽 丿乇爻鬲賽 乇蹖丕囟蹖 讴賴 亘丕乇賴丕 丕孬亘丕鬲 卮丿賴 丕賳丿貙 丕孬亘丕鬲賽 丌賳賴丕 賴賲蹖卮诏蹖 禺賵丕賴丿 亘賵丿 賵 鬲乇丿蹖丿蹖 丿乇 丌賳賴丕 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿
鈥庁池囐� 丿賵賲貙 乇丕爻鬲蹖 賴丕 賵 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賴丕蹖蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 丕亘鬲丿丕 丿乇 胤亘蹖毓鬲 賵 丿賳蹖丕貙 賴賲蹖卮賴 乇賵蹖 丿丕丿賴 丕賳丿 賵 丿乇爻鬲蹖 丌賳賴丕 孬丕亘鬲 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲
鈥庂呚� 亘丕蹖丿 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賵 丿爻鬲賴 丕夭 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賴丕 讴賴 禺乇丿賽 賲丕 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 賯亘賵賱 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 丕夭 乇丕賴 丿丕賳卮 孬丕亘鬲 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖賲
------------------------------------------------
鈥庁з呟屫堌ж辟� 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 亘乇丕蹖 卮賲丕 禺乇丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳 賲賮蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮丿
鈥庁� 乇蹖賵蹖賵賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 爻毓蹖 賲蹖讴賳賲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕蹖 丕蹖賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮賽 亘夭乇诏貙 亘倬乇丿丕夭賲
鈥�<倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖>
February 7, 2022
S-a 卯nt卯mplat s膬 citesc Critica ra葲iunii pure 卯n anul II de Facultate, cu mult 卯nainte de a citi Cercetare asupra intelectului omenesc. Abia atunci am 卯n葲eles afirma葲ia lui Immanuel Kant c膬 鈥瀉 fost trezit din somnul dogmatic鈥� de Hume. 葮i tot atunci am observat, cu uimire, c膬 卯ntreb膬rile la care a 卯ncercat s膬 r膬spund膬 Immanuel Kant (chiar 葯i ordinea lor) erau, 卯n realitate, 卯ntreb膬rile lui David Hume formulate 卯n Cercetare... A.J. Ayer 卯n consider膬 pe Hume 鈥瀋el mai important filosof britanic鈥�. Nu m膬 卯ndoiesc c膬 este a葯a, de葯i ierarhiile nu prea au sens. Peste tot, atitudinea lui Hume este 鈥瀞ceptic膬鈥�. G卯nditorul sco葲ian a v膬zut 卯n scepticism atitudinea cea mai potrivit膬 卯n abordarea problemelor filosofice. Totul poate fi obiect de 卯ndoial膬. Consider膬 c膬 r膬spunsurile pe care el 卯nsu葯i le ofer膬 trebuie privite m膬car cu un dram de scepticism.
David Hume a fost un om moderat 葯i amabil, vestit pentru noble葲ea 葯i cump膬tarea lui. Dar asta nu l-a 卯mpiedicat s膬 adopte adeseori o atitudine polemic膬. Discu葲ia lui cu privire la 鈥瀖iracole鈥� a r膬mas clasic膬. Mai pu葲ini 葯tiu 卯ns膬 c膬 Hume (ca 葯i Seneca, Montaigne sau Sir Thomas Browne) nu s-a ferit s膬 recomande un soi de 鈥瀒ncendiu al c膬r葲ilor鈥�. Exist膬 c膬r葲i inutile: 鈥濩卯nd parcurgem bibliotecile, p膬trun葯i de aceste principii, ce pr膬p膬d ar trebui s膬 facem? Dac膬 lu膬m 卯n m卯n膬 orice volum de teologie sau de metafizic膬 de 葯coal膬, bun膬oar膬, s膬 ne 卯ntreb膬m: Con葲ine el vreun ra葲ionament abstract privitor la cantitate sau num膬r? Nu. Con葲ine oare el vreun ra葲ionament 卯ntemeiat pe experien葲膬 cu privire la fapte 葯i existen葲膬? Nu. 脦ncredin葲a葲i-l atunci focului, c膬ci nu poate con葲ine nimic altceva dec卯t sofisme 葯i iluzii鈥� (p.225).
A葯 men葲iona dou膬 contribu葲ii esen葲iale ale filosofului englez:
1. Din 鈥瀍ste鈥� nu poate fi dedus niciodat膬 鈥瀟rebuie鈥�.
2. 鈥濸ost hoc ergo propter hoc鈥� este cel mai r膬sp卯ndit sofism. Dac膬 un eveniment succede altuia asta nu 卯nseamn膬 c膬 este efectul celui dint卯i...
David Hume a fost un om moderat 葯i amabil, vestit pentru noble葲ea 葯i cump膬tarea lui. Dar asta nu l-a 卯mpiedicat s膬 adopte adeseori o atitudine polemic膬. Discu葲ia lui cu privire la 鈥瀖iracole鈥� a r膬mas clasic膬. Mai pu葲ini 葯tiu 卯ns膬 c膬 Hume (ca 葯i Seneca, Montaigne sau Sir Thomas Browne) nu s-a ferit s膬 recomande un soi de 鈥瀒ncendiu al c膬r葲ilor鈥�. Exist膬 c膬r葲i inutile: 鈥濩卯nd parcurgem bibliotecile, p膬trun葯i de aceste principii, ce pr膬p膬d ar trebui s膬 facem? Dac膬 lu膬m 卯n m卯n膬 orice volum de teologie sau de metafizic膬 de 葯coal膬, bun膬oar膬, s膬 ne 卯ntreb膬m: Con葲ine el vreun ra葲ionament abstract privitor la cantitate sau num膬r? Nu. Con葲ine oare el vreun ra葲ionament 卯ntemeiat pe experien葲膬 cu privire la fapte 葯i existen葲膬? Nu. 脦ncredin葲a葲i-l atunci focului, c膬ci nu poate con葲ine nimic altceva dec卯t sofisme 葯i iluzii鈥� (p.225).
A葯 men葲iona dou膬 contribu葲ii esen葲iale ale filosofului englez:
1. Din 鈥瀍ste鈥� nu poate fi dedus niciodat膬 鈥瀟rebuie鈥�.
2. 鈥濸ost hoc ergo propter hoc鈥� este cel mai r膬sp卯ndit sofism. Dac膬 un eveniment succede altuia asta nu 卯nseamn膬 c膬 este efectul celui dint卯i...
July 13, 2021
Plumbing the Depths of the Human Mind
Attached Soundtrack :
Quotes:
'In short, all the materials of thinking are derived either from our outward or inward sentiment: the mixture and composition of these belongs alone to the mind and will. Or, to express myself in philosophical language, all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones.'
'The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood.'
'The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain[...] attempt to demonstrate its falsehood.'
[later:]
'We have said that all arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect; that our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience; and that all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past. To endeavour, therefore, the proof of this last supposition by probable arguments, or arguments regarding existence, must be evidently going in a circle, and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question.'
'What is the nature of all our reasonings concerning matter of fact? the proper answer seems to be, that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect. When again it is asked, What is the foundation of all our reasonings and conclusions concerning that relation? it may be replied in one word, Experience. But if we still carry on our sifting humour, and ask, What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience? this implies a new question, which may be of more difficult solution and explication.'
'You say that the one proposition is an inference from the other. But you must confess that the inference is not intuitive; neither is it demonstrative: Of what nature is it, then? To say it is experimental, is begging the question. For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular; that alone, without some new argument or inference, proves not that, for the future, it will continue so. In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience. Their secret nature, and consequently all their effects and influence, may change, without any change in their sensible qualities. This happens sometimes, and with regard to some objects: Why may it not happen always, and with regard to all objects? What logic, what process of argument secures you against this supposition? My practice, you say, refutes my doubts. But you mistake the purport of my question. As an agent, I am quite satisfied in the point; but as a philosopher, who has some share of curiosity, I will not say scepticism, I want to learn the foundation of this inference. No reading, no enquiry has yet been able to remove my difficulty, or give me satisfaction in a matter of such importance. Can I do better than propose the difficulty to the public, even though, perhaps, I have small hopes of obtaining a solution? We shall at least, by this means, be sensible of our ignorance, if we do not augment our knowledge.'
'Thus, according to these philosophers, every thing is full of God. Not content with the principle, that nothing exists but by his will, that nothing possesses any power but by his concession: They rob nature, and all created beings, of every power, in order to render their dependence on the Deity still more sensible and immediate. They consider not that, by this theory, they diminish, instead of magnifying, the grandeur of those attributes, which they affect so much to celebrate.'
'It may be said [...] that, if voluntary actions be subjected to the same laws of necessity with the operations of matter, there is a continued chain of necessary causes, preordained and pre-determined, reaching from the original cause of all to every single volition of every human creature. No contingency anywhere in the universe; no indifference; no liberty. While we act, we are, at the same time, acted upon.'
'[...] the experimental reasoning itself, which we possess in common with beasts, and on which the whole conduct of life depends, is nothing but a species of instinct or mechanical power, that acts in us unknown to ourselves; and in its chief operations, is not directed by any such relations or comparisons of ideas, as are the proper objects of our intellectual faculties. Though the instinct be different, yet still it is an instinct, which teaches a man to avoid the fire; as much as that, which teaches a bird, with such exactness, the art of incubation, and the whole economy and order of its nursery.'
'It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend received opinions.'
Also see:
Attached Soundtrack :
Quotes:
'In short, all the materials of thinking are derived either from our outward or inward sentiment: the mixture and composition of these belongs alone to the mind and will. Or, to express myself in philosophical language, all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones.'
'The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood.'
'The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain[...] attempt to demonstrate its falsehood.'
[later:]
'We have said that all arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect; that our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience; and that all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past. To endeavour, therefore, the proof of this last supposition by probable arguments, or arguments regarding existence, must be evidently going in a circle, and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question.'
'What is the nature of all our reasonings concerning matter of fact? the proper answer seems to be, that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect. When again it is asked, What is the foundation of all our reasonings and conclusions concerning that relation? it may be replied in one word, Experience. But if we still carry on our sifting humour, and ask, What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience? this implies a new question, which may be of more difficult solution and explication.'
'You say that the one proposition is an inference from the other. But you must confess that the inference is not intuitive; neither is it demonstrative: Of what nature is it, then? To say it is experimental, is begging the question. For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular; that alone, without some new argument or inference, proves not that, for the future, it will continue so. In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience. Their secret nature, and consequently all their effects and influence, may change, without any change in their sensible qualities. This happens sometimes, and with regard to some objects: Why may it not happen always, and with regard to all objects? What logic, what process of argument secures you against this supposition? My practice, you say, refutes my doubts. But you mistake the purport of my question. As an agent, I am quite satisfied in the point; but as a philosopher, who has some share of curiosity, I will not say scepticism, I want to learn the foundation of this inference. No reading, no enquiry has yet been able to remove my difficulty, or give me satisfaction in a matter of such importance. Can I do better than propose the difficulty to the public, even though, perhaps, I have small hopes of obtaining a solution? We shall at least, by this means, be sensible of our ignorance, if we do not augment our knowledge.'
'Thus, according to these philosophers, every thing is full of God. Not content with the principle, that nothing exists but by his will, that nothing possesses any power but by his concession: They rob nature, and all created beings, of every power, in order to render their dependence on the Deity still more sensible and immediate. They consider not that, by this theory, they diminish, instead of magnifying, the grandeur of those attributes, which they affect so much to celebrate.'
'It may be said [...] that, if voluntary actions be subjected to the same laws of necessity with the operations of matter, there is a continued chain of necessary causes, preordained and pre-determined, reaching from the original cause of all to every single volition of every human creature. No contingency anywhere in the universe; no indifference; no liberty. While we act, we are, at the same time, acted upon.'
'[...] the experimental reasoning itself, which we possess in common with beasts, and on which the whole conduct of life depends, is nothing but a species of instinct or mechanical power, that acts in us unknown to ourselves; and in its chief operations, is not directed by any such relations or comparisons of ideas, as are the proper objects of our intellectual faculties. Though the instinct be different, yet still it is an instinct, which teaches a man to avoid the fire; as much as that, which teaches a bird, with such exactness, the art of incubation, and the whole economy and order of its nursery.'
'It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend received opinions.'
Also see:
June 19, 2011
Returning to an old friend! The first text I was given to study as a philosophy undergraduate, and what pleasure to revisit.
I'm not sure that Hume changed my thinking as a young man so much as brought the delight of recognition. The sweeping away of superstition, fantasy systems, spiritual mumbo jumbo and so on has never for me disabled a propensity towards reflection or deep attachment to a cleaner, less encumbered mystery. Kant, too, found his religious faith strengthened by such clarity.
I was taught philosophy very much in the empiricist and positivist traditions, and whatever crude antagonisms to these have arisen among defenders of this or that faith, have found no difficulty whatsoever in reconciling particular modes of 'philosophical' thinking with poetic, aesthetic and, yes, spiritual modes. Indeed, reading Hume is its own reward for the pleasure of the text!
There is nothing but clarity and wisdom in Hume. One has to be one's own conclusion and wisdom in considering the place of closed systems (such as language, or in this case the various Hume-given patterns) and any approach to ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, 'reality', spirit etc. (the 'noumenal') but you'd be indeed in a deep dogmatic slumber if you didn't appreciate the concision of Hume as probably the greatest help of all in beginning philosophy today.
I'm not sure that Hume changed my thinking as a young man so much as brought the delight of recognition. The sweeping away of superstition, fantasy systems, spiritual mumbo jumbo and so on has never for me disabled a propensity towards reflection or deep attachment to a cleaner, less encumbered mystery. Kant, too, found his religious faith strengthened by such clarity.
I was taught philosophy very much in the empiricist and positivist traditions, and whatever crude antagonisms to these have arisen among defenders of this or that faith, have found no difficulty whatsoever in reconciling particular modes of 'philosophical' thinking with poetic, aesthetic and, yes, spiritual modes. Indeed, reading Hume is its own reward for the pleasure of the text!
There is nothing but clarity and wisdom in Hume. One has to be one's own conclusion and wisdom in considering the place of closed systems (such as language, or in this case the various Hume-given patterns) and any approach to ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, 'reality', spirit etc. (the 'noumenal') but you'd be indeed in a deep dogmatic slumber if you didn't appreciate the concision of Hume as probably the greatest help of all in beginning philosophy today.
August 27, 2018
"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: (*) For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." (p.120)
(*) Burning had long been a common fate of atheistic books. Perhaps Hume is suggesting here that the wrong books have been destroyed... (from the notes by Peter Millican)
(*) Burning had long been a common fate of atheistic books. Perhaps Hume is suggesting here that the wrong books have been destroyed... (from the notes by Peter Millican)
May 4, 2016
Addition since my first review: The is always something to keep in mind, for we humans are used to finding a solid ground to maintain a sense of certainty on the events of the outside world. What reasons are we to justify that what we repeatedly experienced in the past will still continue to happen until the present or future? Where do we get that certainty? Is it reliable or is only a human need to make sense of a world that in many ways is beyond our control? And why should we make a general law out of a single or isolated event?
___
This was my first whole reading of an actual work by David Hume and it is such an experience to have read something straight from the actual philosopher instead of bits and pieces of biography or explanation of his ideas. This book was a revised form of his first work, A Treatise of Human Nature, which was not received with eagerness by the public upon its first publication.
First, my impression of Hume鈥檚 style was that he was frank to the point of being humorous at times with how he pokes at the way people think, behave and react within themselves and their environment. His choice of words and the presentation of ideas were presented in a clear and logical style. Just like any thinker, he considered himself unrestrained in going against what he thought were unreasonable beliefs, superstitions, and reinforced dogmatism, and as such, allowed himself to go deep in continuous process of questioning in matters of human thought and reaction, events, and the material world.
It is only experience, which teaches us the nature and bounds of cause and effect, and enables us to infer the existence of one object from that of another. Such is the foundation of moral reasoning, which forms the greater part of human knowledge, and is the source of all human action and behaviour.
He employed a rigorous style of empirical thinking and the way he deduced what he advocated to be the way to having correct understanding of things is through reasoning by analogy. All throughout the book, the theme of cause and effect resulting to experience, recurred in all of his ideas, and it is through this means of analogy, by applying ones understanding of experience to something newly encountered, that he applied what he thought was the correctness of knowledge in human thought and the natural world.
In this book, (though I may consider giving it a second reading), I found two striking arguments that Hume made: concerning the existence of God, and that of the material world.
In the first pages, he acknowledged the existence of a Creator by whom everything in the universe is dependent upon. But in the middle of the book, he went on to apply his method of analogy and causation to God. According to him, every effect must have a cause that brought it to existence. For example, the footprint on the sand near the sea must have been caused by a person who walked on the sand. What made us to arrive at such a conclusion was we had been taught by prior experience that such a cause (a person walking) led to an effect (footprint on the sand), and therefore, we gain an understanding of the effect simply of our previous experience of actually perceiving the cause. This was his way of rigorously applying his empirical thinking which is limited to what is 鈥榦bserved and experienced鈥� and then to discard everything that does not conform to this method. But then, he went on to say that the existence of God cannot be justified because even though we see the creation (which is the effect), we had no direct actual experience of its Cause (God), so how can we prove the logic of His existence?
This is where the limitation of logic and rigid empiricism is shown, though Hume will not accept it. Reason will always have its limitation, as much as Faith as how Hume subjected it with criticism will have its limitation as well. Now that in this book, Hume established how human understanding can be subjected to many factors that will deem it susceptible to many kinds of errors, so too, does his method of reasoning by experience and analogy can be subjected to similar flaws. Despite the comparison of what we know of objects and experiences applied to newly encountered objects and experiences, that does not negate the fact that each are distinct from the other with their own unique qualities. In the case of the Creator - he applies analogy, but he disregards that the Creator is distinct and His Attributes are different from His creation, and therefore for him to make an analogy in the context of the creation is unreasonable. Thus, Hume becomes a victim of logic by the fact that he failed to see the difference between what and whom he is trying to compare, because he reduced the notion of 鈥榪ualities鈥� to abstract ideas existing only in the human mind.
Much criticism can be attributed to religious interpretations as practiced by so-called religious people, but the depth of faith and wisdom coming from a belief on a Creator will always make a logical sense to humanity. What Hume dealt with is narrowly confined to issues of language, but the expression of language cannot be rid of its subjectivity and sophistry on the part of human beings with the way they express and understand it, in contrast to what reality and the actual world really is.
Human understanding can indeed be flawed, but this flaw allows room for humanity to adapt to an ever-changing world. It has to grapple with continuous change, which may lead to a downward spiral of conflict and chaos or growth, since the way humans think (as influenced both by their innate nature and outside forces) lead them to act on many different ways towards their fellow beings and with the world around them. On the other hand, if empirical thinking, as what Hume employed in this book is applied in an absolutist sense and make it manifest not only in human thought but in belief, and then subject everything to the limited role of language and reasoning by analogy, including the understanding of the Creator Himself, humanity will be devoid of values and depth of wisdom. Language, thought, and experience are thus, among many, are only parts of a complex reality that humans possess, and irrespective of the perception and resulting expression of these human faculties, there is an external world that exist independent of human beings. Hume, in this book failed to make a distinction between the perceiver and the perceived. And this alludes to the second point.
The second subject was Hume鈥檚 argument on the perception of the material world. In this book, he did not go at great lengths in discussing it, although his ideas are particularly insightful in the philosophical sense:
It is universally allowed by modern enquirers, that all the sensible qualities of objects, such as hard, soft, hot, cold, white, black, etc are merely secondary, and exist not in the objects themselves, but are perceptions of the mind, without any external archetype or model, which they represent. If this be allowed, with regard to secondary qualities, it must also follow with regard to the supposed primary qualities of extension and solidity; nor can the latter be any more entitled to that denomination than the former. The idea of extension is entirely acquired from the senses of sight and feeling; and if all the qualities, perceived by the senses, be in the mind, not in the object, the same conclusion must reach the idea of extension which is wholly dependent on the sensible ideas or the ideas of secondary qualities. Nothing can save us from this conclusion, but the asserting, that the ideas of those primary qualities are attained by Abstraction, an opinion, which, if we examine it accurately, we shall find to be unintelligible, and even absurd. An extension, that is neither tangible nor visible, cannot possibly be conceived: and a tangible or visible extension, which is neither hard nor soft, black nor white, is equally beyond the reach of human conception.
Bereave matter of all its intelligible qualities, both primary and secondary, you in a manner annihilate it, and leave only a certain unknown, inexplicable something, as the cause of our perceptions; a notion so imperfect, that no sceptic will think it worthwhile to contend against it.
Hume was pointing that the material world cannot possibly exist without human perception consisting of a collection of qualities which were acquired through experience. These qualities are described to objects perceived in the material world, but at the same time, they are abstract in nature and only exist in the mind. Hume contends that the perceived world is only a collection of qualities that humans attribute to what they perceive, and the independence of the external world as existing apart from the perceiver seems to be only an illusion. This reminds me of another passage from a book entitled Consciousness by a Neuroscientist, J. Allan Hobson,
If a tree falls in the middle of a forest, does it make a sound? - George Berkeley
The immediate answer will be 鈥榶es鈥�, but, 鈥榳hat sound does it make if there is nobody to hear it?鈥� So in this case, we have a world which is centered and continuously subjected to human perception - that in Hume鈥檚 book, is not acknowledged to be existing as independent of human, nevertheless flawed perception and understanding.
David Hume, in this book, allowed me to re-evaluate and re-confirm on a much investigative level, the ways and the limitations of human understanding. He was a frank and brutally to-the-point writer, certainly unconventional, not afraid to present alternative modes of thinking and looking at things, and he has to be commended on his empirical method which is useful in the Science disciplines.
Unfortunately, regardless of how it is presented as an objective/systematic manner, Empiricism has its own limitations like human understanding, and cannot apply in an absolutist sense on matters existing beyond the capability and scope of reason and observable experience.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 3, 2023
That was not an easy read for me, especially the first part of the 'An Enquiry..' referring to the origin and association of ideas and the operations of the understanding.
'Thought can in an instant transport us into the most distant regions of the universe; or even beyond the universe, into the unbounded chaos, where nature is supposed to lie in total confusion.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' All ideas, especially abstract ones, are naturally faint and obscure: the mind has but slender hold of them: they are apt to be confounded with other resembling ideas; and when we have often employed any term, though without a distinct meaning, we are apt to imagine it has a determinate idea annexed to it.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'The same motives always produce the same actions; the same events follow from the same causes. Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit: these passions, mixed in various degrees, and distributed through society, have been, from the beginning of the world, and still are, the source of all actions and enterprises, which have ever been observed among mankind.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Men are less blamed for such actions as they perform hastily and unpremeditatedly than as such as proceed from deliberation. For what reason? but because a hasty temper, though a constant cause or principle in the mind, operates only by intervals, and infects not the whole character.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Liberty... is also essential to morality, and... no human actions, where it is wanting, are susceptible to any moral qualities, or can be the objects either of approbation or dislike. For as actions are objects of our moral sentiment, so far only as they are indications of the internal character, passions, and affections; it is impossible that they can give rise either to praise of blame, where they proceed not from these principles, but are derived altogether from external violence.'
'Thought can in an instant transport us into the most distant regions of the universe; or even beyond the universe, into the unbounded chaos, where nature is supposed to lie in total confusion.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' All ideas, especially abstract ones, are naturally faint and obscure: the mind has but slender hold of them: they are apt to be confounded with other resembling ideas; and when we have often employed any term, though without a distinct meaning, we are apt to imagine it has a determinate idea annexed to it.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'The same motives always produce the same actions; the same events follow from the same causes. Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit: these passions, mixed in various degrees, and distributed through society, have been, from the beginning of the world, and still are, the source of all actions and enterprises, which have ever been observed among mankind.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Men are less blamed for such actions as they perform hastily and unpremeditatedly than as such as proceed from deliberation. For what reason? but because a hasty temper, though a constant cause or principle in the mind, operates only by intervals, and infects not the whole character.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Liberty... is also essential to morality, and... no human actions, where it is wanting, are susceptible to any moral qualities, or can be the objects either of approbation or dislike. For as actions are objects of our moral sentiment, so far only as they are indications of the internal character, passions, and affections; it is impossible that they can give rise either to praise of blame, where they proceed not from these principles, but are derived altogether from external violence.'
October 19, 2016
鬲丕 鬲賵賳爻鬲賲 讴賽卮卮 丿丕丿賲貙 賵賱蹖 禺亘 鬲賲賵賲 卮丿 賲鬲兀爻賮丕賳賴! 賲鬲賳 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 賳蹖爻鬲 賵 丌爻丕賳鈥屬佡囐� 丕爻鬲. 亘賴 睾蹖乇 丕夭 亘禺卮 丕賵賱 讴鬲丕亘貙 讴賴 賮讴乇 讴賳賲 禺賵丿賽 賴蹖賵賲 賴賲 禺蹖賱蹖 丿賵爻鬲鈥屫ж� 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賴貙 亘賯蹖賴鈥屰� 亘禺卮鈥屬囏� 毓丕賱蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿. 亘丨孬 賲毓乇賵賮 毓賱蹖鬲 賴賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丌賲丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 亘禺卮 丿賴 丿乇 乇丿 賲毓噩夭赖 亘丨孬 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺亘 噩丕賱亘 亘賵丿. 禺賵丕賳丿賳鈥屫ж� 乇賵 亘賴 賴乇讴爻蹖 讴賴 蹖賴 匕乇賴 毓賱丕賯賴 亘賴 賮賱爻賮赖 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賴 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�. 賲禺氐賵氐丕賸 丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 禺蹖賱蹖 禺賵亘蹖 賴賲 丿丕乇賴. (賯亘賱丕賸 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賲 讴鬲丕亘 丕禺賱丕賯 賴蹖賵賲 乇賵 亘賴 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 亘禺賵賳賲. 賵 亘毓丿 丕夭 爻賴 氐賮丨賴 賲賳氐乇賮 卮丿賲. 賮賴賲蹖丿賳 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 賯乇賳 賴噩丿賴賲蹖 禺蹖賱蹖 爻禺鬲 丕爻鬲.)丕
July 5, 2019
Hayat谋 do臒ru ya艧aman谋n merkezine hisleri ve deneyimi koyarak felsefe alan谋nda devrim yaratan "陌nsan谋n Anlama Yetisi 脺zerine Bir Soru艧turma / An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding" eseriyle 陌sko莽 filozof David Hume, zihnin hislerin bir k枚lesi oldu臒unun vurgusunu yap谋yor. Ald谋臒谋m谋z kararlarda mant谋ktan daha 莽ok duygular谋m谋z谋n esiri oldu臒umuzu s枚yleyen Hume鈥檜n belirtti臒i 艧ey do臒ru karar verebilmemiz i莽in duygular谋m谋z谋 e臒itmemiz gerekti臒i. K谋saca, insanlar谋 ikna etmek i莽in mant谋臒谋n yeterli olmad谋臒谋n谋, 枚ncelikli olarak sempati, te艧vik ve sanat谋 kullanmam谋z, ard谋ndan ise bunlar谋 mant谋kla desteklememiz gerekti臒ini s枚yl眉yor. Bunu yaparken de deneyimlerimizin b眉y眉k bir rol oynad谋臒谋n谋n defalarca alt谋n谋 莽izen 眉nl眉 filozofun as谋l olay谋 ise din kavram谋n谋n mant谋kl谋 hi莽bir taraf谋n谋n bulunmad谋臒谋n谋 belirtmesi. Davran谋艧lar谋m谋z谋n nedeninin sorumlusu Tanr谋鈥檡sa k枚t眉 davran谋艧lar谋m谋z谋n su莽 orta臒谋n谋n Tanr谋 oldu臒unu yazan Hume, b枚yle bir 艧eyin ne kadar mant谋ks谋z oldu臒unu ve bunun sonucunda Tanr谋 kavram谋n谋n yanl谋艧 anla艧谋ld谋臒谋n谋 s枚yl眉yor. 陌nsanlar谋n bilgisizlikten ola臒an眉st眉 gibi g枚rd眉臒眉 olaylar sebebiyle mucize kavram谋n谋n ortaya 莽谋kt谋臒谋n谋 da okuma 艧ans谋 buldu臒umuz kitapta Spinoza benzeri bir yakla艧谋m g枚rmek m眉mk眉n. Din gibi rasyonel kavramlar谋n ihtiya莽 sebebiyle al谋艧kanl谋臒a d枚n眉艧t眉臒眉n眉 ima eden Hume鈥檜n as谋l vermek istedi臒i en 枚nemli mesaj ise g枚zlerimizdeki perdeyi kald谋ran bilginin 枚nemi. Okuduk莽a alt谋n谋 莽izmekten kendinizi alamayaca臒谋n谋z olduk莽a 枚nemli felsefi eserlerden biri olan "陌nsan谋n Anlama Yetisi 脺zerine Bir Soru艧turma" finali ise 莽ok vurucu: Nicelik ya da say谋yla alakal谋 soyut veya olgusal durum ve var olu艧 hakk谋nda deneysel bir muhakeme i莽ermeyen 艧eyleri yak谋n gitsin, zira i莽inde safsata ve yan谋lsamadan ba艧ka bir 艧ey yok demektir.
陌stanbul, T眉rkiye
07.06.2019
Alp Turgut
陌stanbul, T眉rkiye
07.06.2019
Alp Turgut
February 26, 2017
A few years ago I had, for lack of a better term, an existential crisis. I was completely unsatisfied with the explanations for existence/purpose that I had been given by parents/teachers/friends. It terrified me that no one had ever written about this concerns (obviously people had, I was just never introduced to them). I felt like an idiot for allowing my mind to dwell on concepts such as the basis of human understanding.
It's nice, it's calming to know that extremely intelligent people, and many of them, have been concerned with the basis of human knowledge - and a few of them were as skeptical as I was.
Hume is a beautiful person. He allows us to move past complete skepticism without the need to blindly ignore the fact that complete skepticism is a genuine concern. And he did this hundreds of years ago, under the pressures of being called an 'atheist' and other bad things that could ruin his reputation and his life. I was afraid to explore these concepts in the 21st century for fear of being called weird and depressing.
It's nice, it's calming to know that extremely intelligent people, and many of them, have been concerned with the basis of human knowledge - and a few of them were as skeptical as I was.
Hume is a beautiful person. He allows us to move past complete skepticism without the need to blindly ignore the fact that complete skepticism is a genuine concern. And he did this hundreds of years ago, under the pressures of being called an 'atheist' and other bad things that could ruin his reputation and his life. I was afraid to explore these concepts in the 21st century for fear of being called weird and depressing.
March 20, 2013
I enjoyed the straightforward, no-nonsense style of this famous philosopher. Good though he is, however, his vision of life is that of pure empiricism - that all real knowledge is gained only through sense contact. In other words he appears to completely disregard a vital aspect of the human consciousness, i.e. the possibility of gaining knowledge through contemplating the mind itself, for instance through the practice of mindfulness and meditation. Furthermore he discounts the possibility of recognizing causality, asserting that we only know that 'b' follows 'a'; we cannot know, he asserts, that 'b' is caused by 'a', or that in the presence of 'a', 'b' always arises, and in 'a's absence it does not. He thus demolishes the whole basis of modern science, together with the most basic formulation of the understanding of what it is to be a wise human being able to affirm the knowledge that flows from a healthy mind untramelled by scepticism.
April 20, 2019
An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
David Hume (1711-1776)
Hume鈥檚 philosophy on understanding is based on reasoning from experimental experience, but also from knowledge gained from tradition and customary behaviour.
He visibly draws on knowledge of a wide range of classical and contemporary thinkers, whose views are often interwoven and more easily assimilated in combination.
Hume declined any resemblance to religious school metaphysics and favoured a limited sceptic approach to science depending on circumstances.
His writings are composed in an elegantly simple style, full of common sense and would likely be accepted in modern lives understanding of natural philosophy.
David Hume (1711-1776)
Hume鈥檚 philosophy on understanding is based on reasoning from experimental experience, but also from knowledge gained from tradition and customary behaviour.
He visibly draws on knowledge of a wide range of classical and contemporary thinkers, whose views are often interwoven and more easily assimilated in combination.
Hume declined any resemblance to religious school metaphysics and favoured a limited sceptic approach to science depending on circumstances.
His writings are composed in an elegantly simple style, full of common sense and would likely be accepted in modern lives understanding of natural philosophy.
November 20, 2016
鬲乇噩賲賴 卮丕蹖丿 丿賯蹖賯貙 賵賱蹖 丌夭丕乇賳丿賴 爻鬲! 噩賲賱丕鬲 亘爻 讴賴 胤賵賱丕賳蹖 丕賳丿 丌丿賲 丕賵賱 噩賲賱賴 乇丕 賮乇丕賲賵卮 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 鬲賱丕卮 卮丿賴 丕爻賱賵亘 賳诏丕乇卮 賵 爻亘讴 丕丿亘蹖 賴蹖賵賲 亘賴 賮丕乇爻蹖 賲賳鬲賯賱 卮賵丿. 丕蹖賳貙 禺賵丕賳卮 乇丕 爻禺鬲 讴乇丿賴. 亘丕蹖丿 丿爻鬲 讴賲 丿賵 亘丕乇 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 亘賴 丿賯鬲 禺賵丕賳丿 賵 亘毓丿貙 丕夭 丿賮毓賴 爻賵賲 亘賴 賮賴賲 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賴丕蹖 賴蹖賵賲 倬乇丿丕禺鬲.
賮賵賳鬲 讴鬲丕亘貙 氐賮丨賴 亘賳丿蹖貙 賵 睾蹖乇賴 禺蹖賱蹖 毓丕賱蹖 丕爻鬲. 丕賲丕 讴丕卮 賲鬲乇噩賲 鬲賱丕卮 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 亘乇丕蹖 亘乇诏乇丿丕賳丿賳 丕爻賱賵亘 賳诏丕乇卮 賴蹖賵賲 亘賴 丕爻賱賵亘 賮丕乇爻蹖 賲蹖 讴乇丿 鬲丕 賲胤丕賱毓賴 丕孬乇 丌爻丕賳 鬲乇 卮賵丿.
賮賵賳鬲 讴鬲丕亘貙 氐賮丨賴 亘賳丿蹖貙 賵 睾蹖乇賴 禺蹖賱蹖 毓丕賱蹖 丕爻鬲. 丕賲丕 讴丕卮 賲鬲乇噩賲 鬲賱丕卮 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 亘乇丕蹖 亘乇诏乇丿丕賳丿賳 丕爻賱賵亘 賳诏丕乇卮 賴蹖賵賲 亘賴 丕爻賱賵亘 賮丕乇爻蹖 賲蹖 讴乇丿 鬲丕 賲胤丕賱毓賴 丕孬乇 丌爻丕賳 鬲乇 卮賵丿.
October 11, 2020
Felsefe'nin dip ve farkl谋l谋艧an t眉rlerine H没me'un penceresinden bakmak biraz a臒谋r oldu 莽眉nk眉 genel ve evrensel felsefe ilkelerine h芒kim olmakla birlikte kavramlar ve s枚ylemler bir s眉re sonra a臒谋rla艧maya ba艧lad谋.
脰zellikle Anlama yetisi 眉zerine, olas谋l谋k ve Hayvanlar谋n akl谋 hakk谋nda olan b枚l眉mlerle her okurun bir 艧ekilde ili艧ki kuraca臒谋n谋 d眉艧眉n眉yorum.
脰zellikle Anlama yetisi 眉zerine, olas谋l谋k ve Hayvanlar谋n akl谋 hakk谋nda olan b枚l眉mlerle her okurun bir 艧ekilde ili艧ki kuraca臒谋n谋 d眉艧眉n眉yorum.
June 3, 2010
Bertrand Russell famously summarized Hume's contribution to philosophy, saying that he "developed to its logical conclusion the empiricist philosophy of Locke and Berkeley, and by making it self-consistent made it incredible." Hume is remarkable in that he does not shy away from conclusions that might seem unlikely or unreasonable. Ultimately, he concludes that we have no good reason to believe almost everything we believe about the world, but that this is not such a bad thing. Nature helps us to get by where reason lets us down.
Hume is unquestionably an empiricist philosopher, and he strives to bring the rigor of scientific methodology to bear on philosophical reasoning. His distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact is absolutely crucial in this respect. Anything we can say about the world is a matter of fact, and thus can be justified only through experience and can be denied without contradiction. Relations of ideas can teach us about mathematical truths, but cannot, as some rationalist philosophers would have, teach us about the existence of our selves, an external world, or God.
If we are left with only matters of fact to get us by in the world, however, we find ourselves greatly limited. How can past experience teach me anything about the future? Even to infer without circularity that future experience will resemble past experience requires some principle that cannot be grounded in past experience. Without that principle, our ability to reason according to cause and effect, and thus the greater part of our ability to reason with matters of fact, is sharply curtailed.
We should be careful to note the tone Hume's skepticism takes here, however. Rather than conclude that we cannot know anything about future events or the external world, he concludes that we are not rationally justifiedin believing the things we do. Hume does not deny that we make certain inferences based on causal reasoning, and indeed insists that we would be unable to live if we didn't do so. His point is simply that we are mistaken if we think that these inferences are in any way justified by reason. That is, there are no grounds for certainty or proof of these inferences.
Hume is a naturalist because he suggests that nature, and not reason, leads us to believe the things we do. Habit has taught us that we are safe in making certain inferences and believing certain things, and so we don't normally worry about them too much. We cannot prove that there is a world external to our senses, but it seems to be a relatively safe assumption by which to live. Rather than try to justify our beliefs or identify the truth, Hume seeks simply to explain why we believe what we believe.
The Enquiry is decidedly a book about epistemology and not about metaphysics. That is, Hume is concerned about what and how we know, and not at all about what is actually the case. For instance, he does not deal with the question of whether there actually are necessary connections between events, he simply asserts that we cannot perceive them. Or perhaps more accurately, Hume argues that, because we cannot perceive necessary connections between events, the question of whether or not they actually exist is irrelevant and meaningless.
Hume is an ardent opponent of rationalist metaphysics, which seeks to answer questions such as whether or not God exists, what the nature or matter and soul is, or whether the soul is immortal. The mind, according to Hume, is not a truth-tracking device, and we misuse it if we think it can bring us to metaphysical conclusions. A Humean science of the mind can describe how the mind works and why it reaches the conclusions it does, but it cannot take us beyond the confines of our own, natural, reason.
Hume's stated method is scientific, of careful observation and inference from particular instances to general principles. The drive of scientific inquiry is to dig deeper and deeper so as to uncover a very few, very simple principles that govern all the complexities that we observe. Newton's genius gives us three very simple laws that can explain and predict all physical phenomena. Hume wishes to perform a similar feat for human understanding (the word "understanding" is used by Hume to describe most broadly the several faculties of human reason). The hope is that Hume will derive a similarly small and simple number of principles that can explain and predict the processes of human thought. His method will be to proceed from simple observation of how the mind works and how we use it in everyday life, and to infer from his observations increasingly general principles that govern our understanding until he reaches a bedrock of simplicity and clarity.
In this respect, Hume follows very much in the empiricist vein of philosophy and owes a large debt to 鈥淛ohn Locke鈥�. Locke moved against rationalist philosophy, best exemplified by 鈥淒escartes鈥�, which relies heavily upon rational intuition. The empiricist tradition asserts that experience, and not reason, should serve as the basis of philosophical reasoning.
The motivation for Hume's project is made apparent in his complaint that the "accurate and abstract" metaphysics that he is pursuing is frequently looked down upon and disdained. The difficulty and counter-intuitive nature of these inquiries often lead to errors that may seem absurd and prejudicial to future generations. Even today, there is a great deal of debate as to whether there has been any real "progress" in philosophy: we may have refined our discussions and dismissed some bad ideas, but in essence we are still mulling over the same problems that concerned Plato and Aristotle. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that we are no nearer a satisfactory and final answer than the ancient Greeks. Hume hopes that scientific observation can uncover the principles that underlie our reasoning so that we can be more immediately aware of faulty logic and more easily guided along the correct path.
Ever since the scientific revolution of Newton, Galileo, and others, science has been held up as a paradigm of fruitful reasoning. In science, there is a carefully defined methodology that precisely details how we can test a theory and determine whether it is right or wrong. Though it is often difficult to determine the right answer, the scientific method usually prevents us from arriving at answers that are far from the mark. Philosophy lacks any such determinate method, and philosophers are continually taking up conflicting views. For instance, Hume's emphasis on observation goes directly against Descartes' rationalism, which disparages observation in favor of pure reason. Hume hopes that his empiricism will open the way for a carefully defined method that will not allow for such disparity amongst philosophers.
Hume also suggests that his work must be epistemically (epistemic: of, relating to, or involving knowledge; cognitive) prior to the new science that he so lauds. The scientific method is a product of careful reasoning, and is thus subject to the laws of human understanding. While science seems to be in far better shape than philosophy, it too can benefit from his work. In this way, Hume differs from his predecessor, Locke. Locke sees himself as laboring on behalf of the new science, clearing away some of the linguistic rubble that might lead to confusion. While Locke humbly sees himself as simply clearing a path for science, Hume believes that his own work must lay the groundwork upon which science can rest. If he can uncover the precise laws that govern our reasoning and inferences, this should help us draw the right conclusions in our scientific investigations.
Hume brings to bear three important distinctions. The first, and most important, is the distinction between ideas and impressions. This distinction is original to Hume and solves a number of difficulties encountered by Locke. A proper discussion of Hume's footnote would take us too far afield, but we should remark that Hume's criticism of Locke is exact and powerful. The distinction between impressions and ideas might seem quite obvious and of no great importance, but Hume is quite clever to identify the full importance of this distinction. An empirical philosophy asserts that all knowledge comes from experience. For Hume, this would suggest that all knowledge comes from impressions, and so ideas are set up as secondary to impressions.
The second distinction, between complex and simple impressions or ideas, helps draw out further the power of the first distinction. A simple impression might be seeing the color red, while a complex impression might be seeing the totality of what I see right now. A simple idea might be the memory of being angry while a complex idea might be the idea of a unicorn (composed of the idea of a horse and the idea of a horn). Complex ideas and impressions are compounded out of the simple ones.
With these first two distinctions, Hume is creating a hierarchy of mental phenomena. Since the complex is compounded out of the simple and ideas are derived from impressions, everything in our mind is based ultimately upon simple impressions. A complex idea is compounded out of several simple ideas, which are in turn derived from several corresponding simple impressions. Hume thus suggests that a term can only be meaningful if it can be connected with an idea that we can associate with some simple impressions. Hume, we should note, is silently implying that every term must be connected with some idea. In the eighteenth century the philosophy of language had not yet flourished, and it was not clear how difficult it might be to determine precisely how words, ideas, and reality link up. Hume's suggestion that all terms can be analyzed into simple impressions anticipates Russell, who argues that we can analyze all terms into simple demonstratives like "this" or "that." Hume's suggestion comprehends a picture of language according to which the words we use are a complex and opaque expression of a simpler underlying language which proper analysis can bring out.
The third distinction is the three laws of association. If the previous two distinctions give us a geography of the mind, describing its different faculties, this distinction gives us a dynamics of the mind, explaining its movement. According to Hume, any given thought is somehow related to adjacent thoughts just as any given movement in the physical world is somehow related to adjacent moving bodies. His three laws of association, then, might be seen as equivalent to Newton's three laws of motion. With them, Hume hopes to have described fully the dynamics of the mind.
There are a number of objections we might want to raise to Hume's distinctions and the way they are introduced, but we will touch on only a few briefly. First, we might ask how strictly we can distinguish between impressions. Hume argues that ideas can be vague, but that impressions are exact and that the boundaries between them are clearly defined. Is the boundary between the impression of a 57" stick and a 58" stick that clearly defined? There is some level of vagueness in our impressions that Hume does not acknowledge. We could also point out that while we are experienced in distinguishing colors, we are not so good with some other sensations. For instance, we often have trouble distinguishing between tastes.
Second, we might object to Hume's implicit philosophy of language. It seems closely linked to the idea that simple impressions are clearly defined and infallible. It is far from clear, however, why it should be desirable or possible to reduce all our language to simple impressions. What, we might ask, is the simple impression from which is derived the word "sake," for example?
Third, we might ask Hume to be clearer in his distinctions. For instance, are dream images impressions or ideas? Most likely they are ideas, since they consist of a mixture of imagination and memory. However, dreams are (arguably) phenomenally indistinguishable from waking experience: we cannot prove that we are dreaming from within a dream. Thus, all our impressions from within a dream are as real to us as we dream them as waking impressions are to us when we experience them.
Hume is unquestionably an empiricist philosopher, and he strives to bring the rigor of scientific methodology to bear on philosophical reasoning. His distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact is absolutely crucial in this respect. Anything we can say about the world is a matter of fact, and thus can be justified only through experience and can be denied without contradiction. Relations of ideas can teach us about mathematical truths, but cannot, as some rationalist philosophers would have, teach us about the existence of our selves, an external world, or God.
If we are left with only matters of fact to get us by in the world, however, we find ourselves greatly limited. How can past experience teach me anything about the future? Even to infer without circularity that future experience will resemble past experience requires some principle that cannot be grounded in past experience. Without that principle, our ability to reason according to cause and effect, and thus the greater part of our ability to reason with matters of fact, is sharply curtailed.
We should be careful to note the tone Hume's skepticism takes here, however. Rather than conclude that we cannot know anything about future events or the external world, he concludes that we are not rationally justifiedin believing the things we do. Hume does not deny that we make certain inferences based on causal reasoning, and indeed insists that we would be unable to live if we didn't do so. His point is simply that we are mistaken if we think that these inferences are in any way justified by reason. That is, there are no grounds for certainty or proof of these inferences.
Hume is a naturalist because he suggests that nature, and not reason, leads us to believe the things we do. Habit has taught us that we are safe in making certain inferences and believing certain things, and so we don't normally worry about them too much. We cannot prove that there is a world external to our senses, but it seems to be a relatively safe assumption by which to live. Rather than try to justify our beliefs or identify the truth, Hume seeks simply to explain why we believe what we believe.
The Enquiry is decidedly a book about epistemology and not about metaphysics. That is, Hume is concerned about what and how we know, and not at all about what is actually the case. For instance, he does not deal with the question of whether there actually are necessary connections between events, he simply asserts that we cannot perceive them. Or perhaps more accurately, Hume argues that, because we cannot perceive necessary connections between events, the question of whether or not they actually exist is irrelevant and meaningless.
Hume is an ardent opponent of rationalist metaphysics, which seeks to answer questions such as whether or not God exists, what the nature or matter and soul is, or whether the soul is immortal. The mind, according to Hume, is not a truth-tracking device, and we misuse it if we think it can bring us to metaphysical conclusions. A Humean science of the mind can describe how the mind works and why it reaches the conclusions it does, but it cannot take us beyond the confines of our own, natural, reason.
Hume's stated method is scientific, of careful observation and inference from particular instances to general principles. The drive of scientific inquiry is to dig deeper and deeper so as to uncover a very few, very simple principles that govern all the complexities that we observe. Newton's genius gives us three very simple laws that can explain and predict all physical phenomena. Hume wishes to perform a similar feat for human understanding (the word "understanding" is used by Hume to describe most broadly the several faculties of human reason). The hope is that Hume will derive a similarly small and simple number of principles that can explain and predict the processes of human thought. His method will be to proceed from simple observation of how the mind works and how we use it in everyday life, and to infer from his observations increasingly general principles that govern our understanding until he reaches a bedrock of simplicity and clarity.
In this respect, Hume follows very much in the empiricist vein of philosophy and owes a large debt to 鈥淛ohn Locke鈥�. Locke moved against rationalist philosophy, best exemplified by 鈥淒escartes鈥�, which relies heavily upon rational intuition. The empiricist tradition asserts that experience, and not reason, should serve as the basis of philosophical reasoning.
The motivation for Hume's project is made apparent in his complaint that the "accurate and abstract" metaphysics that he is pursuing is frequently looked down upon and disdained. The difficulty and counter-intuitive nature of these inquiries often lead to errors that may seem absurd and prejudicial to future generations. Even today, there is a great deal of debate as to whether there has been any real "progress" in philosophy: we may have refined our discussions and dismissed some bad ideas, but in essence we are still mulling over the same problems that concerned Plato and Aristotle. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that we are no nearer a satisfactory and final answer than the ancient Greeks. Hume hopes that scientific observation can uncover the principles that underlie our reasoning so that we can be more immediately aware of faulty logic and more easily guided along the correct path.
Ever since the scientific revolution of Newton, Galileo, and others, science has been held up as a paradigm of fruitful reasoning. In science, there is a carefully defined methodology that precisely details how we can test a theory and determine whether it is right or wrong. Though it is often difficult to determine the right answer, the scientific method usually prevents us from arriving at answers that are far from the mark. Philosophy lacks any such determinate method, and philosophers are continually taking up conflicting views. For instance, Hume's emphasis on observation goes directly against Descartes' rationalism, which disparages observation in favor of pure reason. Hume hopes that his empiricism will open the way for a carefully defined method that will not allow for such disparity amongst philosophers.
Hume also suggests that his work must be epistemically (epistemic: of, relating to, or involving knowledge; cognitive) prior to the new science that he so lauds. The scientific method is a product of careful reasoning, and is thus subject to the laws of human understanding. While science seems to be in far better shape than philosophy, it too can benefit from his work. In this way, Hume differs from his predecessor, Locke. Locke sees himself as laboring on behalf of the new science, clearing away some of the linguistic rubble that might lead to confusion. While Locke humbly sees himself as simply clearing a path for science, Hume believes that his own work must lay the groundwork upon which science can rest. If he can uncover the precise laws that govern our reasoning and inferences, this should help us draw the right conclusions in our scientific investigations.
Hume brings to bear three important distinctions. The first, and most important, is the distinction between ideas and impressions. This distinction is original to Hume and solves a number of difficulties encountered by Locke. A proper discussion of Hume's footnote would take us too far afield, but we should remark that Hume's criticism of Locke is exact and powerful. The distinction between impressions and ideas might seem quite obvious and of no great importance, but Hume is quite clever to identify the full importance of this distinction. An empirical philosophy asserts that all knowledge comes from experience. For Hume, this would suggest that all knowledge comes from impressions, and so ideas are set up as secondary to impressions.
The second distinction, between complex and simple impressions or ideas, helps draw out further the power of the first distinction. A simple impression might be seeing the color red, while a complex impression might be seeing the totality of what I see right now. A simple idea might be the memory of being angry while a complex idea might be the idea of a unicorn (composed of the idea of a horse and the idea of a horn). Complex ideas and impressions are compounded out of the simple ones.
With these first two distinctions, Hume is creating a hierarchy of mental phenomena. Since the complex is compounded out of the simple and ideas are derived from impressions, everything in our mind is based ultimately upon simple impressions. A complex idea is compounded out of several simple ideas, which are in turn derived from several corresponding simple impressions. Hume thus suggests that a term can only be meaningful if it can be connected with an idea that we can associate with some simple impressions. Hume, we should note, is silently implying that every term must be connected with some idea. In the eighteenth century the philosophy of language had not yet flourished, and it was not clear how difficult it might be to determine precisely how words, ideas, and reality link up. Hume's suggestion that all terms can be analyzed into simple impressions anticipates Russell, who argues that we can analyze all terms into simple demonstratives like "this" or "that." Hume's suggestion comprehends a picture of language according to which the words we use are a complex and opaque expression of a simpler underlying language which proper analysis can bring out.
The third distinction is the three laws of association. If the previous two distinctions give us a geography of the mind, describing its different faculties, this distinction gives us a dynamics of the mind, explaining its movement. According to Hume, any given thought is somehow related to adjacent thoughts just as any given movement in the physical world is somehow related to adjacent moving bodies. His three laws of association, then, might be seen as equivalent to Newton's three laws of motion. With them, Hume hopes to have described fully the dynamics of the mind.
There are a number of objections we might want to raise to Hume's distinctions and the way they are introduced, but we will touch on only a few briefly. First, we might ask how strictly we can distinguish between impressions. Hume argues that ideas can be vague, but that impressions are exact and that the boundaries between them are clearly defined. Is the boundary between the impression of a 57" stick and a 58" stick that clearly defined? There is some level of vagueness in our impressions that Hume does not acknowledge. We could also point out that while we are experienced in distinguishing colors, we are not so good with some other sensations. For instance, we often have trouble distinguishing between tastes.
Second, we might object to Hume's implicit philosophy of language. It seems closely linked to the idea that simple impressions are clearly defined and infallible. It is far from clear, however, why it should be desirable or possible to reduce all our language to simple impressions. What, we might ask, is the simple impression from which is derived the word "sake," for example?
Third, we might ask Hume to be clearer in his distinctions. For instance, are dream images impressions or ideas? Most likely they are ideas, since they consist of a mixture of imagination and memory. However, dreams are (arguably) phenomenally indistinguishable from waking experience: we cannot prove that we are dreaming from within a dream. Thus, all our impressions from within a dream are as real to us as we dream them as waking impressions are to us when we experience them.
February 23, 2022
賲丕 賴賵 丕賱賷賯賷賳 丕賱亘卮乇賶 責責 廿賳賴 丕賱爻乇丕亘 . 丕賱爻乇丕亘 丕賱匕賶 爻賷馗賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷爻毓賶 賵乇丕卅賴 賵廿賳 毓丿丿 兀爻賲丕卅賴 賮賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賴賵 丕賱賲胤賱賯 兀賵 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 兀賵 丕賱賱丕賳賴丕卅賶 ......
賱賰賳 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賷賯賷賳 爻乇丕亘丕 賮賲丕匕丕 賷賮毓賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 責 賴匕丕 賴賵 噩賵賴乇 賲丕 賷乇賲賶 廿賱賷賴 賴賷賵賲 賮賶 賴匕丕 丕賱亘丨孬 丨爻亘 廿爻鬲賳鬲丕噩賶 賵賮賴賲賶 .
賷亘丿兀 賴賷賵賲 賲賮賳丿丕賸 賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賵賯丿乇丕鬲賴丕 賵丨丿賵丿賴丕 孬賲 賷賵囟丨 丿賵乇 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 賱賷囟毓 賱賴丕 丨丿賵丿丕 賱丕 賱鬲賰賵賳 賴賶 丕賱兀爻丕爻 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賱賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賰賲丕 賷夭毓賲 賱賵賰 賵睾賷乇賴 賲賳 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷賷賳 . 賵賱賰賳 賱鬲賰賵賳 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賯賱 丕賱兀爻丕爻 丕賱毓賲賱賶 賱賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞
賵賰匕賱賰 賳噩丿賴 賷賮賳丿 賯氐賵乇 丕賱卮賰 丕賱賲胤賱賯 丕賱丿賷賰丕乇鬲賶 賵丕賱乇賷亘賷丞 丕賱亘乇賵賳賷丞 賵兀鬲亘丕毓賴丕 賵丕賱鬲賶 賯丿 鬲爻亘亘 噩賲賵丿 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賶 賵鬲賵賯賮 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱毓賱賲賶 賱兀賳賴丕 亘丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 爻鬲氐賷亘 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賶 亘丕賱廿丨亘丕胤 丕賱鬲丕賲 廿賳 賱賲 賳鬲胤乇賮 賮賶 賴匕丕 丕賱廿爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 丕賱囟乇賵乇賶 賵丕賱匕賶 爻賷賱睾賶 丿賵乇 丕賱毓賯賱 賲賳 丕賱兀爻丕爻 . 孬賲 賳噩丿賴 賲乇丞 兀禺乇賶 賷丨丿丿 丿賵乇 丕賱卮賰 賵兀賴賲賷鬲賴 賵丨丿賵丿 賲丿丕賴 .
賵賱賴匕丕 丕賱丨賷丕丿 賵賱賴匕賴 丕賱毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賰丕賳 兀賰亘乇 廿毓噩丕亘賶 亘賴匕丕 丕賱亘丨孬 丕賱匕賶 賷賴鬲賲 賮 丕賱兀爻丕爻 亘丕賱賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱廿亘爻鬲賷賲賵賱賵噩賷丞 .
賮毓賱賶 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賳 賷噩乇亘 賵賷爻鬲賳鬲噩 賱賰賳賴 賱丕 賷噩賵夭 賱賴 兀賳 賷噩毓賱 賲賳 丕賱鬲噩乇亘賴 丕賱賯丕毓丿丞 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞 賵丕賱兀賵賱賶 賮賶 毓賲賱賷鬲賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮賷丞 賵賲賳 賴賳丕 賷亘丿兀 賮賶 賳賯丿賴 賱賱鬲噩乇賷丿 賵丕賱氐賵乇 丕賱噩賵賴乇賷丞 賮賶 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賵丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 . 賮廿賳 賰賳丕 賳毓鬲乇賮 亘兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 廿賱丕 兀賳 賱賱毓賯賱 丿賵乇 賰亘賷乇 賮賶 廿爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賵丕賱鬲噩乇賷丿 賵賱賰賳 匕賱賰 丕賱鬲噩乇賷丿 賱丕 賷賱夭賲賳丕 賵賱丕 賷亘丿賶 兀賶 囟乇賵乇丞 賱賱賲賳丕丿丕丞 亘賵噩賵丿 氐賵乇 噩賵賴乇賷丞 賱賴丕 賵噩賵丿 丨賯賷賯賶 亘賲毓夭賱 毓賳 丕賱賵丕賯毓 賵賲賳賴 賷賳鬲賯賱 廿賱賶 廿丨亘丕胤 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賶 賮賶 賲丨丕賵賱鬲賴 賱鬲氐賵乇 丕賱賱丕賳賴丕卅賶 兀賵 鬲氐賵乇 氐賮丕鬲賴 賱兀賳賴 賱丕 賷噩賵夭 賱賱毓賯賱 兀賳 賷夭賷丿 毓賱賶 氐賮丕鬲 丕賱賵噩賵丿 兀賵 賷胤賱賯 賱賴丕 丕賱賲丿賶 廿賱丕 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賷乇賶 賲賳 丨賯賷賯鬲賴丕 丕賱賵丕賯毓丞 賵兀賳賴 賱丕 噩丿賵賶 賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 鬲賮爻賷乇 睾丕賷丕鬲賴 兀賵 亘賲毓賳賶 兀丿賯 鬲亘乇賷乇賴丕 賱兀賳 賰賱 丕賱丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩丕鬲 鬲爻鬲睾賱賯 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賴賲 丕賱亘卮乇賶 . 賰匕賱賰 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賳鬲禺賷賱 賱賴 賲賳 丕賱氐賮丕鬲 賲丕 賱賲 賷賯毓 鬲丨鬲 鬲噩乇亘鬲賳丕 丕賵 賲丕 賱賲 賳賰賵賳 毓賳賴 賮賰乇丞 賲丕 賮賶 兀賶 賵賯鬲 爻丕亘賯 賵賱丕 爻鬲賰賵賳 賱賳丕 毓賳賴 賮賰乇丞 賮賶 賵賯鬲賺 賱丕丨賯 .
賵乇睾賲 匕賱賰 賮賶 乇兀賶 賴賷賵賲 賮賱丕 賷丨賯 賱兀賶 廿賳爻丕賳 兀賳 賷賳賰乇 賵噩賵丿 禺丕賱賯 賯丿賷乇 賲亘丿毓 賱賴匕丕 丕賱賳馗丕賲 賵賴匕丕 丕賱廿鬲夭丕賳 丕賱匕賶 賷毓噩夭 丕賱毓賯賱 毓賳 亘賱賵睾 賲丿丕賴 賵賰匕賱賰 賮賱丕 賷噩亘 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賳 賷賯賮 噩丕賲丿丕 兀賲丕賲 丿賵丕卅乇 丕賱賲睾賱賯丞 賵丕賱丨賷乇丞 丕賱賲爻鬲賲乇丞 賵丕賱卮賰 丕賱賯丕亘賱 賱賱廿胤賱丕賯 賵賱賰賳 賰匕賱賰 賱丕 賷賳亘睾賶 丕賳 賳孬賯 賮賶 丕賶 賲爻兀賱丞 孬賯丞 毓賲賷丕亍 丕賵 囟乇賵乇賷丞 賮丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 丕賱賲爻鬲賲乇丞 丕賱鬲賶 鬲孬亘鬲 廿賯鬲乇丕賳 丕賱爻亘亘 賵丕賱賲賮毓賵賱 丕賱賲爻鬲賲乇賷賳 賱丕 鬲丨賲賱 賮賶 匕丕鬲賴丕 兀賶 囟乇賵乇丞 賲賳胤賯賷丞 鬲爻鬲賱夭賲 廿爻鬲賲乇丕乇 賴匕丕 丕賱廿賯鬲乇丕賳 賮賶 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賮丕賱禺丕賱賯 賵丨丿賴 賴賵 爻乇 賵噩賵丿 賲孬賱 賴匕賴 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱鬲賶 賷兀賱賮賴丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵賷毓鬲賯丿 丕賳賴丕 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賮賯胤 賱賲噩乇丿 鬲噩乇亘鬲賴 丕賱賲爻鬲賲乇丞 賱賴丕 .
賵賱賯丕乇賶 賴匕丕 丕賱亘丨孬 丕賱賲鬲賲毓賳 丕賳 賷爻鬲賳鬲噩 鬲兀孬乇 丿賷賮賷丿 賴賷賵賲 兀賷賲丕 鬲兀孬賷乇 亘丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱賲丨丿孬賷賳 賲賳 夭賲賳賴 賵亘禺丕氐丞 噩賵乇噩 亘丕乇賰賱賶 賮賶 乇賷亘賷鬲賴 丕賱鬲賶 亘丿賱丕 賲賳 兀賳 賷賳賰乇賴丕 賵胤丿 丿毓丕卅賲賴丕 賵賮賷賱賴賱賲 賱丕賷亘賳鬲夭 賮賶 賲賵賳丕丿丕鬲賴 丕賱賲爻鬲賯賱丞 賵丕賱鬲賶 鬲鬲賮丕毓賱 賲毓 亘毓囟賴丕 賱丕 胤亘賯丕 賱賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賲賷賰丕賳賷賰賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 賱丕 鬲賲賱賰 賮賶 匕丕鬲賴丕 兀賶 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賵廿賳賲丕 胤亘賯丕 賱廿乇丕丿丞 禺丕賱賯賴丕 丕賱賲胤賱賯 丕賱賯丿乇丞 .
賰丕賳 亘丨孬丕賸 賮賱爻賮賷丕 噩賷丿丕賸 賲孬賷乇丕 賱賱匕賴賳 賵賲賵爻毓丕賸 賱兀賮賯 丕賱賮賰乇 賵賴賵 兀賴賲 賲丕 賷賳鬲馗乇賴 賯丕乇賶亍 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 賳賯丕胤 丕賱廿鬲賮丕賯 賵丕賱廿禺鬲賱丕賮 .
賱賰賳 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賷賯賷賳 爻乇丕亘丕 賮賲丕匕丕 賷賮毓賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 責 賴匕丕 賴賵 噩賵賴乇 賲丕 賷乇賲賶 廿賱賷賴 賴賷賵賲 賮賶 賴匕丕 丕賱亘丨孬 丨爻亘 廿爻鬲賳鬲丕噩賶 賵賮賴賲賶 .
賷亘丿兀 賴賷賵賲 賲賮賳丿丕賸 賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賵賯丿乇丕鬲賴丕 賵丨丿賵丿賴丕 孬賲 賷賵囟丨 丿賵乇 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 賱賷囟毓 賱賴丕 丨丿賵丿丕 賱丕 賱鬲賰賵賳 賴賶 丕賱兀爻丕爻 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賱賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賰賲丕 賷夭毓賲 賱賵賰 賵睾賷乇賴 賲賳 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷賷賳 . 賵賱賰賳 賱鬲賰賵賳 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賯賱 丕賱兀爻丕爻 丕賱毓賲賱賶 賱賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞
賵賰匕賱賰 賳噩丿賴 賷賮賳丿 賯氐賵乇 丕賱卮賰 丕賱賲胤賱賯 丕賱丿賷賰丕乇鬲賶 賵丕賱乇賷亘賷丞 丕賱亘乇賵賳賷丞 賵兀鬲亘丕毓賴丕 賵丕賱鬲賶 賯丿 鬲爻亘亘 噩賲賵丿 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賶 賵鬲賵賯賮 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱毓賱賲賶 賱兀賳賴丕 亘丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 爻鬲氐賷亘 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賶 亘丕賱廿丨亘丕胤 丕賱鬲丕賲 廿賳 賱賲 賳鬲胤乇賮 賮賶 賴匕丕 丕賱廿爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 丕賱囟乇賵乇賶 賵丕賱匕賶 爻賷賱睾賶 丿賵乇 丕賱毓賯賱 賲賳 丕賱兀爻丕爻 . 孬賲 賳噩丿賴 賲乇丞 兀禺乇賶 賷丨丿丿 丿賵乇 丕賱卮賰 賵兀賴賲賷鬲賴 賵丨丿賵丿 賲丿丕賴 .
賵賱賴匕丕 丕賱丨賷丕丿 賵賱賴匕賴 丕賱毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賰丕賳 兀賰亘乇 廿毓噩丕亘賶 亘賴匕丕 丕賱亘丨孬 丕賱匕賶 賷賴鬲賲 賮 丕賱兀爻丕爻 亘丕賱賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱廿亘爻鬲賷賲賵賱賵噩賷丞 .
賮毓賱賶 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賳 賷噩乇亘 賵賷爻鬲賳鬲噩 賱賰賳賴 賱丕 賷噩賵夭 賱賴 兀賳 賷噩毓賱 賲賳 丕賱鬲噩乇亘賴 丕賱賯丕毓丿丞 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞 賵丕賱兀賵賱賶 賮賶 毓賲賱賷鬲賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮賷丞 賵賲賳 賴賳丕 賷亘丿兀 賮賶 賳賯丿賴 賱賱鬲噩乇賷丿 賵丕賱氐賵乇 丕賱噩賵賴乇賷丞 賮賶 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賵丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 . 賮廿賳 賰賳丕 賳毓鬲乇賮 亘兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 廿賱丕 兀賳 賱賱毓賯賱 丿賵乇 賰亘賷乇 賮賶 廿爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賵丕賱鬲噩乇賷丿 賵賱賰賳 匕賱賰 丕賱鬲噩乇賷丿 賱丕 賷賱夭賲賳丕 賵賱丕 賷亘丿賶 兀賶 囟乇賵乇丞 賱賱賲賳丕丿丕丞 亘賵噩賵丿 氐賵乇 噩賵賴乇賷丞 賱賴丕 賵噩賵丿 丨賯賷賯賶 亘賲毓夭賱 毓賳 丕賱賵丕賯毓 賵賲賳賴 賷賳鬲賯賱 廿賱賶 廿丨亘丕胤 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賶 賮賶 賲丨丕賵賱鬲賴 賱鬲氐賵乇 丕賱賱丕賳賴丕卅賶 兀賵 鬲氐賵乇 氐賮丕鬲賴 賱兀賳賴 賱丕 賷噩賵夭 賱賱毓賯賱 兀賳 賷夭賷丿 毓賱賶 氐賮丕鬲 丕賱賵噩賵丿 兀賵 賷胤賱賯 賱賴丕 丕賱賲丿賶 廿賱丕 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賷乇賶 賲賳 丨賯賷賯鬲賴丕 丕賱賵丕賯毓丞 賵兀賳賴 賱丕 噩丿賵賶 賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 鬲賮爻賷乇 睾丕賷丕鬲賴 兀賵 亘賲毓賳賶 兀丿賯 鬲亘乇賷乇賴丕 賱兀賳 賰賱 丕賱丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩丕鬲 鬲爻鬲睾賱賯 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賴賲 丕賱亘卮乇賶 . 賰匕賱賰 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賳鬲禺賷賱 賱賴 賲賳 丕賱氐賮丕鬲 賲丕 賱賲 賷賯毓 鬲丨鬲 鬲噩乇亘鬲賳丕 丕賵 賲丕 賱賲 賳賰賵賳 毓賳賴 賮賰乇丞 賲丕 賮賶 兀賶 賵賯鬲 爻丕亘賯 賵賱丕 爻鬲賰賵賳 賱賳丕 毓賳賴 賮賰乇丞 賮賶 賵賯鬲賺 賱丕丨賯 .
賵乇睾賲 匕賱賰 賮賶 乇兀賶 賴賷賵賲 賮賱丕 賷丨賯 賱兀賶 廿賳爻丕賳 兀賳 賷賳賰乇 賵噩賵丿 禺丕賱賯 賯丿賷乇 賲亘丿毓 賱賴匕丕 丕賱賳馗丕賲 賵賴匕丕 丕賱廿鬲夭丕賳 丕賱匕賶 賷毓噩夭 丕賱毓賯賱 毓賳 亘賱賵睾 賲丿丕賴 賵賰匕賱賰 賮賱丕 賷噩亘 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賳 賷賯賮 噩丕賲丿丕 兀賲丕賲 丿賵丕卅乇 丕賱賲睾賱賯丞 賵丕賱丨賷乇丞 丕賱賲爻鬲賲乇丞 賵丕賱卮賰 丕賱賯丕亘賱 賱賱廿胤賱丕賯 賵賱賰賳 賰匕賱賰 賱丕 賷賳亘睾賶 丕賳 賳孬賯 賮賶 丕賶 賲爻兀賱丞 孬賯丞 毓賲賷丕亍 丕賵 囟乇賵乇賷丞 賮丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 丕賱賲爻鬲賲乇丞 丕賱鬲賶 鬲孬亘鬲 廿賯鬲乇丕賳 丕賱爻亘亘 賵丕賱賲賮毓賵賱 丕賱賲爻鬲賲乇賷賳 賱丕 鬲丨賲賱 賮賶 匕丕鬲賴丕 兀賶 囟乇賵乇丞 賲賳胤賯賷丞 鬲爻鬲賱夭賲 廿爻鬲賲乇丕乇 賴匕丕 丕賱廿賯鬲乇丕賳 賮賶 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賮丕賱禺丕賱賯 賵丨丿賴 賴賵 爻乇 賵噩賵丿 賲孬賱 賴匕賴 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱鬲賶 賷兀賱賮賴丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵賷毓鬲賯丿 丕賳賴丕 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賮賯胤 賱賲噩乇丿 鬲噩乇亘鬲賴 丕賱賲爻鬲賲乇丞 賱賴丕 .
賵賱賯丕乇賶 賴匕丕 丕賱亘丨孬 丕賱賲鬲賲毓賳 丕賳 賷爻鬲賳鬲噩 鬲兀孬乇 丿賷賮賷丿 賴賷賵賲 兀賷賲丕 鬲兀孬賷乇 亘丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱賲丨丿孬賷賳 賲賳 夭賲賳賴 賵亘禺丕氐丞 噩賵乇噩 亘丕乇賰賱賶 賮賶 乇賷亘賷鬲賴 丕賱鬲賶 亘丿賱丕 賲賳 兀賳 賷賳賰乇賴丕 賵胤丿 丿毓丕卅賲賴丕 賵賮賷賱賴賱賲 賱丕賷亘賳鬲夭 賮賶 賲賵賳丕丿丕鬲賴 丕賱賲爻鬲賯賱丞 賵丕賱鬲賶 鬲鬲賮丕毓賱 賲毓 亘毓囟賴丕 賱丕 胤亘賯丕 賱賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賲賷賰丕賳賷賰賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 賱丕 鬲賲賱賰 賮賶 匕丕鬲賴丕 兀賶 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賵廿賳賲丕 胤亘賯丕 賱廿乇丕丿丞 禺丕賱賯賴丕 丕賱賲胤賱賯 丕賱賯丿乇丞 .
賰丕賳 亘丨孬丕賸 賮賱爻賮賷丕 噩賷丿丕賸 賲孬賷乇丕 賱賱匕賴賳 賵賲賵爻毓丕賸 賱兀賮賯 丕賱賮賰乇 賵賴賵 兀賴賲 賲丕 賷賳鬲馗乇賴 賯丕乇賶亍 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 賳賯丕胤 丕賱廿鬲賮丕賯 賵丕賱廿禺鬲賱丕賮 .
September 26, 2021
讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丕蹖 毓賲賵賲 禺賵丕賳賳丿诏丕賳 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 賵 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 亘賴 丌爻丕賳蹖 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲 賴爻鬲賳丿.
亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 诏丕賲 亘毓丿 丕夭 丿讴丕乇鬲 賵 賮賱爻賮赖 卮讴丕讴貙 賴蹖賵賲 賵 賮賱爻賮赖 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屭必� 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賲賳丕爻亘蹖 亘賵丿.
丿乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴鬲丕亘貙 亘丕蹖丿 亘诏賲 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘賴 爻亘讴 賳诏丕乇卮蹖 賴蹖賵賲 賵賮丕丿丕乇 賲丕賳丿賴 丕爻鬲. 賳爻禺賴 賲賳 丨丿賵丿 14 氐賮丨賴 鬲讴乇丕乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲 讴賴 賲噩亘賵乇 卮丿賲 丌賳 賯爻賲鬲 乇賵 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 亘禺賵賳賲. 賲鬲乇噩賲 賮丕乇爻蹖 賴賲賴 賵蹖乇诏賵賱 賴丕貙 丿賵 賳賯胤賴 賴丕 賵 賳賯胤賴 賵蹖乇诏賵賱賴丕 賵 丨鬲蹖 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 噩賲賱賴 亘賳丿蹖 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 亘丿賵賳 賴蹖趩 鬲睾蹖蹖乇蹖 亘賴 賮丕乇爻蹖 亘乇诏乇丿丕賳丿賴 丕爻鬲.
鬲氐賲蹖賲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕蹖賳 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賲賳丕爻亘 亘賵丿賴 蹖丕 賳賴 亘乇毓賴丿賴 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 丕爻鬲. 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 亘賴 卮禺氐賴 賵 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳讴賴 夭亘丕賳 賮丕乇爻蹖 乇賵 亘乇丕蹖 賲胤丕賱亘 毓賱賲蹖 賵 賮賱爻賮蹖 倬乇 丕夭 丕蹖賴丕賲 賵 爻禺鬲 禺賵丕賳 賲蹖 丿賵賳賲貙 噩丕賱亘 賳亘賵丿 丕蹖賳 丕賳鬲禺丕亘.
亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 诏丕賲 亘毓丿 丕夭 丿讴丕乇鬲 賵 賮賱爻賮赖 卮讴丕讴貙 賴蹖賵賲 賵 賮賱爻賮赖 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屭必� 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賲賳丕爻亘蹖 亘賵丿.
丿乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴鬲丕亘貙 亘丕蹖丿 亘诏賲 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘賴 爻亘讴 賳诏丕乇卮蹖 賴蹖賵賲 賵賮丕丿丕乇 賲丕賳丿賴 丕爻鬲. 賳爻禺賴 賲賳 丨丿賵丿 14 氐賮丨賴 鬲讴乇丕乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲 讴賴 賲噩亘賵乇 卮丿賲 丌賳 賯爻賲鬲 乇賵 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 亘禺賵賳賲. 賲鬲乇噩賲 賮丕乇爻蹖 賴賲賴 賵蹖乇诏賵賱 賴丕貙 丿賵 賳賯胤賴 賴丕 賵 賳賯胤賴 賵蹖乇诏賵賱賴丕 賵 丨鬲蹖 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 噩賲賱賴 亘賳丿蹖 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 亘丿賵賳 賴蹖趩 鬲睾蹖蹖乇蹖 亘賴 賮丕乇爻蹖 亘乇诏乇丿丕賳丿賴 丕爻鬲.
鬲氐賲蹖賲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕蹖賳 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賲賳丕爻亘 亘賵丿賴 蹖丕 賳賴 亘乇毓賴丿賴 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 丕爻鬲. 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 亘賴 卮禺氐賴 賵 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳讴賴 夭亘丕賳 賮丕乇爻蹖 乇賵 亘乇丕蹖 賲胤丕賱亘 毓賱賲蹖 賵 賮賱爻賮蹖 倬乇 丕夭 丕蹖賴丕賲 賵 爻禺鬲 禺賵丕賳 賲蹖 丿賵賳賲貙 噩丕賱亘 賳亘賵丿 丕蹖賳 丕賳鬲禺丕亘.
September 16, 2019
鈥淚n our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence."
Best summary I've seen:
*As intriguing today as when it was first published, Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a fascinating exploration into the nature of human knowledge. Using billiard balls, candles and other colorful examples, Hume conveys the core of his empiricism鈥攖hat true knowledge can only be gained through sensory experience. No other philosopher has been at the forefront of the mind than David Hume; physics, psychology, neuroscience鈥攃onnections to Hume are everywhere. Here is the book that Immanuel Kant confessed to have awoken him from his "dogmatic slumber."*
In a way, it reminded me of A BriefER History of Time as Hawking also used billiard balls as explanatory props.
Especially loved the ending:
"If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.鈥�
Best summary I've seen:
*As intriguing today as when it was first published, Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a fascinating exploration into the nature of human knowledge. Using billiard balls, candles and other colorful examples, Hume conveys the core of his empiricism鈥攖hat true knowledge can only be gained through sensory experience. No other philosopher has been at the forefront of the mind than David Hume; physics, psychology, neuroscience鈥攃onnections to Hume are everywhere. Here is the book that Immanuel Kant confessed to have awoken him from his "dogmatic slumber."*
In a way, it reminded me of A BriefER History of Time as Hawking also used billiard balls as explanatory props.
Especially loved the ending:
"If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.鈥�
Read
June 9, 2011What I like about Hume is the skepticism and empiricism. What I don't like about Hume is the doubting of causality. Too bad this is pretty much thought of as the Hume thing.
Hume was a very, very necessary step in the evolution of philosophy. He overcame the irrational rationalism of Descartes and Berkeley, and paved the way for German idealism, which of course led to Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, etc. And really, I find Hume's brand of Enlightenment thought so much more palatable than Kant's or Hegel's.
And, other than the causality thing, it's really a very well-reasoned epistemology by my book-- most human knowledge among most humans is ultimately derived from habit and impulse rather than rational decision-making and inquiry. i can only imagine how refreshing this must have been when it was first published.
Hume was a very, very necessary step in the evolution of philosophy. He overcame the irrational rationalism of Descartes and Berkeley, and paved the way for German idealism, which of course led to Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, etc. And really, I find Hume's brand of Enlightenment thought so much more palatable than Kant's or Hegel's.
And, other than the causality thing, it's really a very well-reasoned epistemology by my book-- most human knowledge among most humans is ultimately derived from habit and impulse rather than rational decision-making and inquiry. i can only imagine how refreshing this must have been when it was first published.
October 17, 2019
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) was David Hume's second attempt to offer readers his view on epistemology. A Treatise of Human Nature (1739) was no succes and Hume even suffered from a depression following this failure. Nevertheless, he was convinced of the importance of the message, so he decided to publish its contents in two new, thinner and more accessible books.
In order to understand Hume's message, we have to understand the historical context of the book. In the 17th century mechanical science took over the scepter from christian scholastic philosophy. For centuries, scholars had tried to grasp reality by building axiomatic-deductive systems of knowledge, according to the philosophy of Aristotle. In other words, philosophers could understand the world from their armchairs.
Galileo demolished this worldview, and for this he was thanked by the Church of Rome with an appropriate sentence of life long house arrest. What Galileo did, was to observe the behaviour of Nature in carefully controlled experiments. From then on it was clear that Aristotle's philosophy was falsified on all accounts: the discovery of the vacuum; the observations of comets and supernovae and of planetary satellites - both happening in supposedly unalterable heavenly spheres; Aristotle's assumption that heavier objects fall faster; etc.
In 1687 Newton published his Principia and with this synthesized all the discoveries in physics and astronomy of the past 100 years in one universal system, comprising 'just' 4 laws (three laws of motion and universal law of gravity). With Newton, the Western worldview changed drastically: the only role for God was a master watchmaker, who created this universe and set it running. But more importantly, for philosophy at least, was the change of our conception of truth. Newton induced a grand system from particular observations; and induction was never before used as a scientific method.
Thinkers like John Locke (in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding) and Berkeley (in his Principles of Human Knowledge) would ponder the question of what knowledge is. How do we know what's true knowledge? According to Locke, there is an objective reality out there, but our intellect is too limited to grasp it - the best we can hope for are scientifically informed opinions. Someone like Berkeley even went so far to say that there's no such thing as objective reality: all our sensations and reflections are mental constructs, ultimately build by God.
A second key element in understanding Hume, is the discovery in the 18th century of the works of Sextus Empiricus - an ancient Greek sceptic philosopher, who found a contradiction in the method of induction. When we induce, we derive universal statements from particular observations. But there's no way to garantuee that the next observation will NOT contradict our current (universal) conclusion. So either we have to make all the observations - past, present and future - which is impossible, or we have to admit that induction is not true knowledge.
It is in this historical situation (the 17th century developments in physics and the re-discovery of the works of Sextus Empiricus) that we have to situate David Hume. Now, what does Hume say about the question of what true knowledge is?
Hume begins by explaining what causation is. According to Hume, causation is nothing but custom. When one billiard ball bounces against another, we only notice the movement of the first ball, the temporary bond between both balls and consequently the movement of the second ball. In other words: we see events following each other, nothing more or less. Now, human beings observe from the time they're born onwards certain events following each other. Ever since I can remember, I have seen objects fall to the ground when let loose. This forms in my understanding the custom of "object let loose, followed by fall". This is - according to Hume - causation.
Next, Hume has to explain what learning is. For him, learning is observing experiences and generalizing from these experiences to expectations about the future. In other words: learning is induction. We induce general conclusions (and predictions and expectations) from all the experiences we have observed. But this brings us to the 'induction problem' of Sextus Empiricus: by definition induction is unreliable as a foundation for true knowledge, since we can never with certainty form infinite conclusions from the finite data available to us.
But there is an important distinction here (known as Hume's fork), which is based on Hume's explanation of our ideas. According to Hume, we perceive (simple) ideas via our senses and then connect these ideas into associations (i.e. complex ideas) via reflection. The relationship between ideas can be known by reason alone, a priori. The ideas themselves cannot be known by reasoning a priori, only after they have been generated via our sensual perceptions - a posteriori. In other words: mathematical and logical ideas - ideas about relationships between concepts - can be known a priori, while scientific ideas can be known only by observation.
Since a priori reasoning cannot inform us on certain knowledge about the reality - this requires sensual perceptions - we cannot attain true knowledge about the world. Like Locke, Hume asserts that science can approach this ideal, but we as human beings are limited by our intellectual capabilities. In other words: reasong powers are gradual and there's only a difference of degree between us and animals. This point is extremely important, since - unlike today where this is a generally accepted statement - in Hume's time human beings were seen as the epitome of Nature's Great Chain of Being.
So by closing this book and being convinced by Hume - as we all should be - we have become sceptics: induction is our only means of acquiring factual knowledge about the world, but this method is philosophyically flawed. Now what?
Well, causation and determination have become problematic ever since the discovery of quantum mechanics - in which uncertainty and indeterminacy are principles (!) - but this doesn't bring us any further, since an indeterministic, uncertain world is - by definition - not knowable. The search goes on...
But, with Hume, we should at least by happy that we have given ourselves criteria by which to judge the truth claims of others. So even though we have given up the aim of attaining certain knowledge about the world, we have acquired a resistance to the truth claims of others. As Hume so humorously writes, every book of someone claiming to illustrate how the world works: "Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
(It is easy to see that such a sceptical mindset is toxic to religious convictions - it leads to religious critique by definition - and it is therefore not hard to grasp why Hume's life was one of strife with religious people, why he was called an atheist, and why he had to publish some works posthumously).
In order to understand Hume's message, we have to understand the historical context of the book. In the 17th century mechanical science took over the scepter from christian scholastic philosophy. For centuries, scholars had tried to grasp reality by building axiomatic-deductive systems of knowledge, according to the philosophy of Aristotle. In other words, philosophers could understand the world from their armchairs.
Galileo demolished this worldview, and for this he was thanked by the Church of Rome with an appropriate sentence of life long house arrest. What Galileo did, was to observe the behaviour of Nature in carefully controlled experiments. From then on it was clear that Aristotle's philosophy was falsified on all accounts: the discovery of the vacuum; the observations of comets and supernovae and of planetary satellites - both happening in supposedly unalterable heavenly spheres; Aristotle's assumption that heavier objects fall faster; etc.
In 1687 Newton published his Principia and with this synthesized all the discoveries in physics and astronomy of the past 100 years in one universal system, comprising 'just' 4 laws (three laws of motion and universal law of gravity). With Newton, the Western worldview changed drastically: the only role for God was a master watchmaker, who created this universe and set it running. But more importantly, for philosophy at least, was the change of our conception of truth. Newton induced a grand system from particular observations; and induction was never before used as a scientific method.
Thinkers like John Locke (in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding) and Berkeley (in his Principles of Human Knowledge) would ponder the question of what knowledge is. How do we know what's true knowledge? According to Locke, there is an objective reality out there, but our intellect is too limited to grasp it - the best we can hope for are scientifically informed opinions. Someone like Berkeley even went so far to say that there's no such thing as objective reality: all our sensations and reflections are mental constructs, ultimately build by God.
A second key element in understanding Hume, is the discovery in the 18th century of the works of Sextus Empiricus - an ancient Greek sceptic philosopher, who found a contradiction in the method of induction. When we induce, we derive universal statements from particular observations. But there's no way to garantuee that the next observation will NOT contradict our current (universal) conclusion. So either we have to make all the observations - past, present and future - which is impossible, or we have to admit that induction is not true knowledge.
It is in this historical situation (the 17th century developments in physics and the re-discovery of the works of Sextus Empiricus) that we have to situate David Hume. Now, what does Hume say about the question of what true knowledge is?
Hume begins by explaining what causation is. According to Hume, causation is nothing but custom. When one billiard ball bounces against another, we only notice the movement of the first ball, the temporary bond between both balls and consequently the movement of the second ball. In other words: we see events following each other, nothing more or less. Now, human beings observe from the time they're born onwards certain events following each other. Ever since I can remember, I have seen objects fall to the ground when let loose. This forms in my understanding the custom of "object let loose, followed by fall". This is - according to Hume - causation.
Next, Hume has to explain what learning is. For him, learning is observing experiences and generalizing from these experiences to expectations about the future. In other words: learning is induction. We induce general conclusions (and predictions and expectations) from all the experiences we have observed. But this brings us to the 'induction problem' of Sextus Empiricus: by definition induction is unreliable as a foundation for true knowledge, since we can never with certainty form infinite conclusions from the finite data available to us.
But there is an important distinction here (known as Hume's fork), which is based on Hume's explanation of our ideas. According to Hume, we perceive (simple) ideas via our senses and then connect these ideas into associations (i.e. complex ideas) via reflection. The relationship between ideas can be known by reason alone, a priori. The ideas themselves cannot be known by reasoning a priori, only after they have been generated via our sensual perceptions - a posteriori. In other words: mathematical and logical ideas - ideas about relationships between concepts - can be known a priori, while scientific ideas can be known only by observation.
Since a priori reasoning cannot inform us on certain knowledge about the reality - this requires sensual perceptions - we cannot attain true knowledge about the world. Like Locke, Hume asserts that science can approach this ideal, but we as human beings are limited by our intellectual capabilities. In other words: reasong powers are gradual and there's only a difference of degree between us and animals. This point is extremely important, since - unlike today where this is a generally accepted statement - in Hume's time human beings were seen as the epitome of Nature's Great Chain of Being.
So by closing this book and being convinced by Hume - as we all should be - we have become sceptics: induction is our only means of acquiring factual knowledge about the world, but this method is philosophyically flawed. Now what?
Well, causation and determination have become problematic ever since the discovery of quantum mechanics - in which uncertainty and indeterminacy are principles (!) - but this doesn't bring us any further, since an indeterministic, uncertain world is - by definition - not knowable. The search goes on...
But, with Hume, we should at least by happy that we have given ourselves criteria by which to judge the truth claims of others. So even though we have given up the aim of attaining certain knowledge about the world, we have acquired a resistance to the truth claims of others. As Hume so humorously writes, every book of someone claiming to illustrate how the world works: "Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
(It is easy to see that such a sceptical mindset is toxic to religious convictions - it leads to religious critique by definition - and it is therefore not hard to grasp why Hume's life was one of strife with religious people, why he was called an atheist, and why he had to publish some works posthumously).
February 14, 2008
Hume eviscerates the belief that we can understand anything about the world on a rational and certain basis. At his most optimistic, Hume argues that all knowledge beyond direct observation is probable rather than certain. This was an important chastenment of Enlightenment rationalism, and is generally accepted today.
But Hume's argument seems to go much farther, and the more optimistic later sections are the result of his either not recognizing the strength of his earlier arguments or deliberatly obscuring it. In the critical section, "Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding," Hume demonstrates there is no rational reason to expect future events to follow the same pattern as those in the past. To have confidence in induction, and thus science and most philosophy, is therefore a matter of faith rather than reason. There is no rational way to understand the world.
In subsequent sections, Hume presents an argument for why we believe in causation and induction. It is because, he says, observing one event invariably follow another creates in our minds the expectation that it will always be so. But, as he demonstrated earlier, there is no rational basis for this belief. Oddly, in the final sections Hume proceeds as if this belief is justified, and offers critiques of miraculous and natural religion.
But Hume's argument seems to go much farther, and the more optimistic later sections are the result of his either not recognizing the strength of his earlier arguments or deliberatly obscuring it. In the critical section, "Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding," Hume demonstrates there is no rational reason to expect future events to follow the same pattern as those in the past. To have confidence in induction, and thus science and most philosophy, is therefore a matter of faith rather than reason. There is no rational way to understand the world.
In subsequent sections, Hume presents an argument for why we believe in causation and induction. It is because, he says, observing one event invariably follow another creates in our minds the expectation that it will always be so. But, as he demonstrated earlier, there is no rational basis for this belief. Oddly, in the final sections Hume proceeds as if this belief is justified, and offers critiques of miraculous and natural religion.
April 15, 2020
"After all, I may, perhaps, agree to your general conclusion in favour of liberty, though upon different premises from those, on which you endeavour to found it. I think, that the state ought to tolerate every principle of philosophy; nor is there an instance, that any government has suffered in its political interests by such indulgence. There is no enthusiasm among philosophers; their doctrines are not very alluring to the people; and no restraint can be put upon their reasonings, but what must be of dangerous consequence to the sciences, and even to the state, by paving the way for persecution and oppression in points, where the generality of mankind are more deeply interested and concerned."
Though perhaps not the central takeaway to this work, the above quote struck me, especially in light of the twentieth century.
Though short in pages, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding packs a punch with philosophy. I struggled a bit to understand it, but I could also easily see how he wrote for "popular" audiences. Not my favorite by any means, but thought-provoking.
Though perhaps not the central takeaway to this work, the above quote struck me, especially in light of the twentieth century.
Though short in pages, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding packs a punch with philosophy. I struggled a bit to understand it, but I could also easily see how he wrote for "popular" audiences. Not my favorite by any means, but thought-provoking.
April 1, 2016
every time i read hume, i feel a little nauseated. my nausea is accordingly constantly conjoined to my reading of hume. am i reasonable or not in assuming a necessary connection therewith? is it irrational to assume that nausea will always follow the reading in the future just because it always has done so in the past? even if in the past the future has always been like the past, and so i can assume that in the future the past will have always been like the future, indeed, constantly conjoined with same?
January 29, 2022
Did a little research on Deleuze鈥檚 famously unconventional reading of Hume, and found this.
鈥淥n Deleuze鈥檚 account, Hume is above all a philosopher of subjectivity. His central concern is to establish the basis upon which the subject is formed.
Deleuze insists that one of Hume鈥檚 greatest contributions to modern philosophy is his insistence that all relations are external to their terms: this is the essence of Hume鈥檚 anti-transcendental stance. Human nature cannot unite itself, there is no 鈥業鈥� which stands before experience, but only moments of experience themselves, unattached and meaningless without any necessary relation to each other. A flash of red, a movement, a gust of wind, these elements must be externally related to each other to create the sensation of a tree in autumn.
In the social world, this externality attests to the always-already interested nature of life: no relation is necessary, or governed by neutral laws, so every relation has a localised and passional motive. The ways in which habits are formed attests to the desires at the heart of our social milieu.
Subjectivity, as Deleuze describes it through his reading of Hume, is a practical, passional, empiricist concept, immediately located at the heart of the conventional, which is to say the social.鈥�
鈥淥n Deleuze鈥檚 account, Hume is above all a philosopher of subjectivity. His central concern is to establish the basis upon which the subject is formed.
Deleuze insists that one of Hume鈥檚 greatest contributions to modern philosophy is his insistence that all relations are external to their terms: this is the essence of Hume鈥檚 anti-transcendental stance. Human nature cannot unite itself, there is no 鈥業鈥� which stands before experience, but only moments of experience themselves, unattached and meaningless without any necessary relation to each other. A flash of red, a movement, a gust of wind, these elements must be externally related to each other to create the sensation of a tree in autumn.
In the social world, this externality attests to the always-already interested nature of life: no relation is necessary, or governed by neutral laws, so every relation has a localised and passional motive. The ways in which habits are formed attests to the desires at the heart of our social milieu.
Subjectivity, as Deleuze describes it through his reading of Hume, is a practical, passional, empiricist concept, immediately located at the heart of the conventional, which is to say the social.鈥�
September 24, 2021
at first i was like "hey, hume isn't that bad!" but then hume dived into yet another self-indulgent and frustratingly repetitive ramble and i can't help but think god, i can't wait to read kant just so i can read him tell this guy to shut the fuck up.
don't get me wrong: the earlier sections are very clever works of philosophical reasoning. hume's prose is shockingly very readable and almost frighteningly modern which is rare for a philosopher, methinks, especially ones from his era.
that said, this genuinely needed to be cut down to size. there are entire sections that i think go on for several pages longer than would be necessary. although hume's writing makes it all rather easy 鈥� i shudder to think what the reading process would have been like had he been obscure and convoluted 鈥� i still can't help but feel frustrated.
don't get me wrong: the earlier sections are very clever works of philosophical reasoning. hume's prose is shockingly very readable and almost frighteningly modern which is rare for a philosopher, methinks, especially ones from his era.
that said, this genuinely needed to be cut down to size. there are entire sections that i think go on for several pages longer than would be necessary. although hume's writing makes it all rather easy 鈥� i shudder to think what the reading process would have been like had he been obscure and convoluted 鈥� i still can't help but feel frustrated.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 741 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.