Hume's Destructive Fork: The Key to Understanding David Hume's Controversial Ideas

[@aa6hp71]

1:48 I pressed the like button just for that joke

[@shawnruby7011]

The problem of induction by Hume has been surpassed decades ago in several fields. In Linguistics we use implicative universals such as "if x, necessarily y" e.g. "if red, necessarily color/light". That example doesn't say everything is red/color/light but just that in every case of red, if we give it conditional existence, then we must give conditional existence to light etc. There are ofc actual universals but the humean account throws the baby out with the bathwater and doesn't intuitively seem how we operate quotidinally in any case.

[@redsparks2025]

It sounds like Hume is using his skepticism to justify his skepticism. Take for example the issue of the self. If a Buddhist student went up to the Buddhist master and said "there is no self" then the mater would of hit the student on the head with a stick. Of course the student would cry out and even get angry but then the master would say "well if there is no self then where did that anger come from?" Anyway great lecture. Hume's fork is interesting and I would certainly want to study it more.

[@nyaruko-do2ok]

Isn't the self synthetic because you have a sense of sense?

[@lazyken6468]

Hume’s the type of guy to say water is not wet

[@nyaruko-do2ok]

What about free will?

[@summrajabeen5485]

when philosophy student fail their exam they felt "hume"liated , a good one :D

[@JavierBonillaC]

The joke is partially right. It goes “I am a dyslexic agnostic so I don’t believe in dog”.

[@4891MR]

Intuition is a slippery slope. One step removed from rationality, it's just a label for pattern recognition. It's just hard to draw the line once you've condoned that step against the steps into intuition as bias and prejudice, intuition as wishful thinking, and all manner of irrational fallacies. By the way, acknowledging that it's tangential to the main topic of this video, I think that if one defined the one God simply as the supreme being then it is necessary that God exists just by the nature of magnitude, given that different beings exist in various stages. What is not necessarily true is that the supreme being is necessarily perfect in every way.

[@ernstjunger4674]

Leibniz > Hume

[@relativizante5796]

What are all the negations to the sentence: Every panda lives in the jungle?

[@cc510j]

the two jokes... the epistomology joke.... and the dyselxic joke.... are a bit too real... am watching this before my introductory philosophy essay exam later.. where im given a pc with spell check for dyslexia.... lol