3.2 David Hume: Concluding Remarks

A series of lectures delivered by Peter Millican to first-year philosophy students at the University of Oxford. The lectures comprise the 8-week General Philosophy course and were delivered in late 2009.
Slides for all his lectures can be found here:
podcasts.ox.ac....
Learn more about Oxford:
www.ox.ac.uk

[@planceau]

Such a big clock ! Wish I went to school there. Because of the clock.

[@humeanrgmnt7367]

Science has a vivid imagination about existence and how the world/universe works, and that's all science has.

[@retrov6118]

really great gave me some actual clarity by showing how weird or confusing it gets beyond a a certain point

[@bradnewman5712]

The order of lecture seem to be incorrect? Why is 3.2 called "Concluding Remarks" which concentrate on Kant and 3.3 just continues on with Hume.

[@MrBentyWenty]

did anyone understand that light thing. i'm a philosopher not a photon

[@sambanks760]

boo-dum-sii

[@Eusebeia7]

There are a lot of KZbin videos on the double slit experiment, the "Electric Universe", "Hologram Universe","Quantum Physics & Consciousness", "Primer Fields" which is magnetism, universe illusion etc which take days to view but are very interesting. Personally I agree with Pheado, Timaeus and: “Earth’s Earliest Ages” by H. G. Pember, on page 253: “Man is a spirit in prison, and so he must be content to abide, until God unlocks the door of his Cell. But if he will have instant enjoyment by a premature excitation of potentialities which are reserved for future development, he can only do so feloniously breaking through his dungeon bars, and thus shattering the harmony of his present nature.” And on pages 255-6 “For our body appears to be not only a prison, but also a fortress, and is, not improbably, devised for the very purpose of sheltering us in some degree from the corrupting influence of demons. In its normal condition it effectually repels their more open and violent assaults: but if once we suffer the fence to be broken down, we are no longer able to restore it, and are henceforth exposed to the attacks of malignant enemies.”

[@MrBentyWenty]

...Great!

[@Eusebeia7]

Xzibit Bartholomew If reality is a simulation then any theory of knowledge has to understand the source of the simulation for there to be anything but temporary knowledge. If you watch all the double slit experiment videos that you can find you will discover that the results of the double slit experiment are not dependent on the collection of the data but rather on a human eye ball physically looking at the data. There is one experiment where they collected data 100 times then waited a year, randomized the 100 data collections, then destroyed 50 of the data collections before examining the other 50. They got the same result backwards in time! Leonard Suskind of Stanford University Physics has one video on the hologram universe where a reporter pushes him to guess. Leonard Suskind says that his gut is telling him the true reality is 2 dimensional. That he does not know where physics is going with this but when it is finished they will have a lot different ideas about time and space. If you want to follow this idea try the KZbin video "The Black Hole Wars: My Battle with Stephen Hawking" In short physics is having a nervous break down which will affect knowledge theory. Therefore how do you know who or what you personally are?

[@gorgolyt]

'Kant was totally wrong' - good man. I thought much the same for exactly the reasons that he gave; Kant is no longer tenable because his tenets were completely incorrect. It is nice to see that Oxford is concerned with rationalism (in the general sense) over orthodoxy. I know many other philosophers who still insist that Kant is vitally important (rather than just historically interesting).

[@benjaminbarnes1889]

I created a channel, agreed to the TOS, and am commenting for the first time ever on a five-year-old video just to ask how in the FUCK an Oxford philosophy prof could so badly misrepresent Kant.

[@mulllhausen]

9:20 "turned out to be right" - this assumes that the human race has fully understood quantum mechanics and that there existed no method of discovering scientific laws beginning with reason then subsequently verifying with evidence. i can't say if this is right or wrong (nobody will ever be able to say that) so this is a fallacious statement.

[@AConversationOn]

It was in that moment I lost all respect for him. Kant is the opposite of "orthodoxy" analytic philosophy has precisely this non-thinking hysterical reaction every time they see his name because their perceive some threat to their science envy. "a very interesting theory, unfortunately its premises are completely wrong." How to lose respect for a philosopher in ten words. Those were not kant's premises. And that passing comment is an insult to the most influential philosopher in history.

[@andysondur]

So much investment in proving a German philosopher wrong. Good job Oxford. We now know David Hume discovered Quantum Theory back in the 17th century.

[@senatorkenator]

As someone named Kent, I find his pronunciation of Kant irritating.