Episode

[@NormFuture]

Beautiful introduction to Hume been looking for a video like this for a while.

[@m_b_lmackenzie4510]

We are all Humemans

[@vdub2014]

this was great man. I've known about the show for a while but just decided to check it out and start here.

[@veeho14]

If only Hume could have seen the atrocities committed under the secular movements that came after him. His premise that religious errors are more dangerous than philosophical ones seems somewhat ignorant now.

[@craigwillms61]

Thank you for pointing this out. The perverted offshoots of misguided interpretations of Christianity and the misdeeds of same color the cultural perceptions of what Christianity, of what faith in God really is. I understand the negativity toward Christianity but they are based on something it isn't.

[@user_1606]

Hitler and stalin and...were religious error😅...or heroshima and nakazaki ?they are more related to hume thoughts until religion...

[@NemDzA97]

Thank you for returning back.On youtube i mean

[@melissasmind2846]

Excellent

[@cdbosh]

Just found the podcast (only until now!) and am really enjoying it. Your presentation is pleasing to listen to, and absolutely love how you "update" the material with relevant examples and the kind of language you use - really helps with understanding. And I appreciate the inclusion of non-Western philosophies... at least early on in the series. But there is one language thing that kinda makes my brain short-circuit whenever you say it (and this episode is not the first)... "begs the question". You're using the idiom as in the vernacular, but the common use of it is inappropriate, which is to say it is used instead of the appropriate idioms "raises the question" or "a question that begs to be answered". The intended usage is when an argument just implies the original point under question - it is circular logic: the "proof" in the argument just references the actual "question" as a given. And this comes from Aristotle (petitio principii), so, really a philosophy series should get this right.

[@user_1606]

First of all this was causation that reach us until big bang. If sceintists think like hume we never reach to big bang ,secondly suppose you think about something and you cry ...crying is end to water and material but your thought aren't your hume what told about that.. ball 1 hit ball 2 but it is not cause of the ball 2 movment it is what we think😅...ok,ok...by the way sir newton was god beliver and philosofer both but you prefer to ignore it and your hume too thank to both of you my believe in god is geting stronger❤

[@kusha010]

Hello, thank you for your time and all the efforts involved. I like the way you explain things. As far as i know the example of day and night following each other was brought up as argument against Hume, especially by his contemporary Thomas Reid. By the way, i am not at all saying that it can't be argued as you have presented.

[@chriscampe4574]

. I'll l

[@elijaguy]

7:40 "emotionally intelligent" rather than "intelligent emotionally" is a spot on typo. LOL

[@christinemartin63]

Good lord, how much brain power, hard work, and precious time was spent by so many philosophers on the existence and nature of God. Surely, humans are much more interesting to dissect.

[@Over-Boy42]

I agree

[@TheAlison1456]

As far as I can tell Hume is just removing any possibility of knowing about the world at all by splitting causality this way and saying our brains weren't made to understand the world and saying "you're making assumptions thus they must be useless and invalid, lol yeah I'm a philosopher". At that point, why even pretend meaning exists? Everything becomes incoherent.

[@zarathustrafoundation]

It seems that Hume is arguing that you can only affirm synthetic propositions through a posteriori knowledge, i.e. sensory experience. In regards to causality, one cannot truly know the connection between cause and effect because there is no definite impression for it.