St Thomas Aquinas refuted David Hume before he was born!

[@DrBustdown66]

Will you do a video addressing Nietzsche's view of Christian slave morality?

[@psyok]

What would the video be like? "He's right but that's actually a good thing"? No matter how you spin it most religions work on a slave-master relationship, and the abrahamic ones even more so. Your god or gods are above you, you need to worship and obey, and if you do or don't you get rewarded or punished. What is the excuse? Fatherly love? You leave your parents' nest once you grow up and make your own life. If you obey god either holds you forever with him, or if you don't supposedly your existence without him is agony, which would equate him more to being next to a heater during winter - you don't love your heater, do you?

[@joshuaparsons887]

He never provides a proper reason as to why Christian morality is and beyond "I don't like it"

[@Sambosamsam]

@@psyokNot an accurate description. It’s more like the consequence of separating oneself from God, by their own doing, separates from love and light, and that’s hell.

[@psyok]

​@@Sambosamsamnot an accurate description of what? I said multiple things. Do you have trouble understanding analogies, or what they are? You snuck in the (erroneous) free will argument for absolutely no reason. Yes, if you willingly distance yourself from your heater in the winter you will be cold, and that's exactly my point. You don't love your god the same way you don't love your heater - you crave its heat, and you stand next to it because it's convenient to you.

[@georgerafa5041]

@@psyok What is wrong with that when we are inferior mortal beings that can and do screw everything up and he is immortal and perfect? What should we worship instead? Marvel movies? gtfoh lol

[@Philosophicalnquiries]

Awesome video but here some points i would like to make: 1. Even if one were to be inconsistent with their position, exposing them or countering them using retorsion (retortion), still wouldn't provide "epistemic justification" for why and how a thing is true. You can argue Hume is being inconsistent, but it doesn't refute his objections and questions because it still stands. So really epistemic justification is giving a reason to show why something is likely to be true, or in other words, some philosophers call it "Cognitive justification." 2. Hume is a consistent Empiricist and I think some would say that he's agnostic rather than atheist, but other than that, his view on causality is not absurd because really all he is arguing is that ON EMPIRICIST GROUNDS, there is no basis or rational "justification" to believe in the metaphysical principle called "causation". So he says you see event A then event B, where in the "sense data" did you see cause or necessary cause? A necessary cause, is to say there's a principle or metaphysical thing that binds Effect and cause. Which you can't observe. There can be no demonstration connecting the observed with the unobserved. Because if we're going to be consistent empiricists, we really can't make metaphysical claims, because metaphysics is beyond sense data. That's why Kant realized if this dude was right, WE ARE COOKED .So really I feel David Hume critiques the empiricists as well and the scholastic medieval philosophers who start from sense data. For example, thomas aquinas epistemology is centered around the peripatetic axiom: nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses. So really aquinas arguments fall because Humes objections still stand and without the justification for the belief in "causation" and the " uniformity of Nature", Aquinas arguments fall apart. But to appeal to something outside of sense data would to go outside of natural theology, so youre kind of in a dilemma. 3. Also some critiques to Aristotelian and Aquinas Epistemology which are foundationalists, if you read Quine Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Really the laws of logic or the "Foundational principles" which cannot be demonstrated and are indubitable, can only at best be justified at a pragmatic level, also some can argue that "Dubitability" is not epistemic at all, but a relation between a thinker and a thing. Then also again, retorsion, or reductio ad absurdum arguments do not provide epistemic justification for why and how a thing is. so saying that it would be impossible for you to do x or do y or be this, doesn't justify self evident maxims because all thats saying is that it appears that it has to be that way, when somebody can posit a BIV scenario or claim you to be cognitively biased. Aswell as Quine showed us that on the empiricist ground, there's no basis for analytic- synthetic distinction and radical reductionism which is the belief that every meaningful statement can be translated into a statement about immediate experience. So what l'm saying is that foundationalism is controversial and many popular philosophers adopt a holistic epistemology now. lastly, great video my brother, god bless you. Let me know if I made any mistakes :).

[@tomrobingray]

Unfortunately there is a gaping hole in Hume's analysis, which is this: How does he know that the events he calls cause and effect are juxtaposed in time, and what's more how can he know which one occurred before the other? You see Hume has put the cart before the horse. We experience time *through* the process of cause and effect. Making a cup of tea I turn on the tap and see the water splash into the kettle. I plug it in, and waiting for it to boil I close my eyes to hear my heart beat. The various processes of cause and effect within my environment and even within my own biology provides me with the sense of time passing. We know that the past causes the future absolutely and necessarily. How? Because that's how we define time. The past is just a synonym for all the causes that have happened, the future is a synonym for all effects that might occur. Now what particular action in the past (i.e. what cause) produces what particular action in the future (i.e. what effect) is the province of some science or general common sense, but there is absolutely no doubt in the general process that is occurring.

[@matthewlorang5334]

@@tomrobingray One can have a conception of time as being founded on change (a movement from a to b) which doesn’t necessitate cause and effect (a ceases to be the case and b takes its place). I don’t think it’s obvious prima facie that the past causes the future, only that it precedes the future like a being the case precedes b being the case when a change occurs. This conception of change devoid of cause and effect could still make sense of the example you gave for passing time. Of course, it would still seem absurd that there is change without cause and effect but that would be to presume the very thing in question.

[@tomrobingray]

@@matthewlorang5334 Well yes is does: all change is predicated on cause and effect. The effect of a body being at point (b) is *caused* by it earlier being at point (a) together with its velocity.

[@matthewlorang5334]

@@tomrobingray change only presumes that there is a and then there is b. No causation is necessitated prima facie. There’s no reason to posit that a causes b because a and b need not be related. If your thought is that the causal relation is intuitive and should be posited, then I think that would suffice for saying that there truly is a causal relation. But positing that b following a is indicative of a causal relationship is just the post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacy

[@tomrobingray]

@@matthewlorang5334 So you are saying that a things current existence has nothing to do with its previous existence. What your smoking is too strong for me.

[@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913]

I agree that Hume’s skepticism is ultimately self-refuting. I would be interested in a video on philosophers like Immanuel Kant who were influenced by Hume, but went beyond him in their ontologies.

[@stefan-rarescrisan5116]

Your videos are full of class, I love them!

[@houssem8597]

Hume's view on causality does not lead to absurdity. He claims that we cannot derive causal inference purely a priori . Rather, he claims causality is a posteriori , based on experience: we infer that the gunpowder will explode on the basis of past experience of an association between gunpowder and explosions. He further asserts that causal inferences are not made through a chain of rational reasoning. Instead, they rely on the Uniformity Principle (UP), which is the assumption that nature will continue to behave uniformly as it has in the past. Hume argues that this principle relies on custom and habit rather than reasoning. He distinguishes between two types of reasoning : 1-Demonstrative reasoning (concerning relations of ideas, like mathematical truths) 2- Matters of fact and existence (empirical propositions about the world) A demonstrative argument establishes a conclusion whose negation is a contradiction.Therefore, he concludes that reasoning behind UP cannot be demonstrative because "it implies no contradiction that course of nature may change, and that an object seemingly like those we have experienced may be attended with different of contrary effects." It is possible, he says, to clearly and distinctly conceive of a situation where the unobserved case does not follow the regularity so far observed. Second, Hume argues that the reasoning behind UP cannot be regarded as a matter of fact and real existence. He calls this probable reasoning. This kind of reasoning presupposes the principle of uniformity UP that we are trying to establish in the first place, hence a form of a circular reasoning.(We cannot use the assumption of uniformity to prove the uniformity of nature) In sum, he concludes that causal inferences are not based on reasoning and rationality and are not a priori knowledge; instead they are based on experience and habit. He does not deny causality ,however, he emphasizes that our belief in causality is not rationally justified in the way we might think. We cannot prove causality through reason alone. In the Treatise version, Hume concludes: > Thus, not only our reason fails us in the discovery of the ultimate connexion of causes and effects, but even after experience has inform’d us of their constant conjunction, ’tis impossible for us to satisfy ourselves by our reason, why we shou’d extend that experience beyond those particular instances, which have fallen under our observation. (T. 1. 3.6.11/91-2).

[@se7964]

Good response thank you

[@jeanvandeputte8394]

Saying that nature could act not uniformly, isn't that assuming miracles?

[@James-ll3jb]

"No one has ever seen a 'cause'!" as Nietzsche said. There is nothing "absurd" about this empirical observation.

[@stevedoetsch]

​​You can observe physical causes. But if you deny the metaphysical and then ask metaphysical questions, then you will never find an answer because you have denied the possibility of an answer a priori.​ So, ideologues like Nietzsche will deny the reality of God and then ask questions for which God is the answer and claim that there is no answer to such questions. We can also see that once you reject God and classic philosophy, then you have lost the ability to differentiate types of cause and thus all causes collapse into one confused metaphysical question that can never be answered. But of course, if we believe in a Christian classical understanding of God as the first cause, then we can use that to expand our understanding of cause into various categories, such as efficient cause, formal cause, etc. The real problem here is once you reject God then you lose the ability to reason with clarity. Hume and Nietzsche are two such examples.@@James-ll3jb

[@gabrielmaximianobielkael3115]

​@@stevedoetsch I don't see how the belive in God could make the principle of causality part of the demonstrative reasoning or the matters of fact. God doesn't solve anything, you still have to make metaphisical assumptions

[@robertd9965]

Excellent video, thanks! And such good timing, too, since I'm writing my thesis on relativism (trying to show its absurdity).

[@lucasalvitti8801]

Great! Could i ask you about the arguements you're stating in the thesis? I want to make a similar themed one myself

[@GaiusCotta-v8w]

What’s so excellent about it? Let’s be real the whole argument in this video is: “it’s against common sense/intuition, thus false” I also find the choice for Hume interesting, who was agnostic. Hume was actually influenced by Christians on this, like George Berkeley and Malebranche. Malebranche was an occasionalist, in which God is the only cause of everything and hence nothing truly causes something else in the natural world, so natural laws are actually just God working very consistently, there is no necessary relation between cause and effect. You can’t disproof it and it’s perfectly possible. Also, This doesn’t make science impossible coz God works consistent nor is Hume in trouble coz Hume still admits that things work consistently so science is not impossible in his worldview as well. Note how this guy also says that “hume has essentialy thrown out all regularity” nope, he didnt. He has thrown out necessary relations. Regularity says nothing about that, regularity simply is that things generally occur in consistent ways. Overall a bad video and it seems to make this an issue that is “christian” vs “atheist/agnost” which is blatantly false. I don’t think this guy has studied this subject very deeply

[@GaiusCotta-v8w]

also, when he starts refuting nominalism he actually changes to the subject that Hume doesn’t trust sense experience, so he nowhere explains how nominalism is false and leads to the impossibility of logic, so thats very sloppy as well. Nominalism just means there is no universal. Can you think of a non-particular triangle? No, whatever you think will always be an particular triangle. The fact we call things by names is just on the basis on similarities and convenience. There is nothing against logic in that. Hume also doesn’t necessarily distrust sense experience in a way that disproves logic. It’s an established FACT that we can’t know for certain that there is an outside material world, coz every way you conceive of it is always through sensations and idea. When you see a tree, the tree is not actually within your brain materially, it’s an image, an idea. So all we know for certain is that we have ideas, there could be an outside world and there could just be ideas, both are possible. Why would Hume destroy logic by choosing one side of the coin? He doesn’t deny that he exists or that he has sense experience, that would be absurd but he doesnt deny that

[@robertd9965]

@@lucasalvitti8801 Hm, there are so many arguments, I'm still trying to orient myself in that. Also, I should add that I'm not going at it from the philosophical side, but from a historical one, so the philosophical arguments against it are more of a side note (an important one, and one which accompanies my historical analysis, yet not the focus of my work). Anyway, as a good starting point, I'd recommend you read Williams Gairdner's "The Book of Absolutes: A Critique of Relativism and a Defence of Universals". Moreover, although not directly referring to relativism most of the time, an excellent book on, above all, skepticism - which also mentions Aquinas, Hume and a lot of others, and which is an absolute classic - is Étienne Gilson's "The Unity of Philosophical Experience". It's a wonderful read, so I recommend that one also for the mere pleasures of reading it.

[@robertd9965]

@@GaiusCotta-v8w I agree with you, it's not the philosophically deepest video you could ever imagine, and there are technicalities against which you could argue. Overall, though, it's solid. Having said that, the whole skeptical/nominalist argument is absurd, and the notion that "we can't be sure an outside world even exists" is so laughable that I don't even know where to start. It's born out of very sick and devious minds, trying to bring people away from God. Malebranche was not a Christian, at least not in any meaningful way; just like to skeptic could be, because in order to be a Christian, you need to *not* follow ungodly philosophical doctrines or to throw metaphysics out the window; because ultimately, all this is based on a materialist world view (whether implicitly or explicitly, doesn't really matter). Also, these thoughts can only develop in a vacuum, devoid of any reality. Goes to show that too much comfort in life isn't good for anyone, since then the mind starts to become sick and to revolve only around itself - it becomes solipsistic. Let's put it like this: If you were standing in front of a lion, would you still wonder "Is there even such a thing as a lion?" or "What does 'beast,' 'animal' or 'predator' actually mean?" or any other form of mental chewing gum or language games? The answer is: No, you wouldn't. Even the most extreme skeptic would run/hide/play dead/defend himself/whatever. They would do the only sensible thing there is and start realizing that the world is real - at the very least, real enough to live in a real way and take it seriously.

[@quagsiremcgee1647]

I love how we can have such a long conversation about how logic is logical

[@Yesunimwokozi1]

St Thomas Aquinas was so brilliant so much infused with knowledge that he refuted almost most of giant critics beforehand.. only if they read him they wouldn't have raised those arguments

[@sigurdholbarki8268]

I do find it irritating when I hear people deploying arguments defeated eight centuries ago (or earlier) like it's some kind of mic drop

[@TryingToFollowChrist37]

@@sigurdholbarki8268 Who refuted Aquinas 800 years ago? I'm sure you have your timing mixed up.

[@haitaelpastor976]

​@@TryingToFollowChrist37 Aquinas can be refuted by an elementary schooler.

[@nicholaspresberg3269]

​​@@haitaelpastor976 Which ones? Please provide evidence and the names of those elementary schoolers.

[@haitaelpastor976]

@@nicholaspresberg3269 Anyone from that level on would do. Which Aquinas statement do you want me to refute?

[@jessicaR4bbit]

Bless you Sanctus. Just found your channel and what a goldmine this is. Keep up the awesome work!

[@SanctusApologetics]

@@jessicaR4bbit Thank you!

[@truecatholic1]

​@@SanctusApologeticsEvery work of David Humes is on the Index which is STILL enforceable. ONE copy of the works of David Humes should be kept and restricted to those who have permission from the Catholic Church. The rest ought to be destroyed.

[@Sacra_Traditio]

against Freud and modern psychology next video???

[@sebathadah1559]

Yes!

[@admiralmurat2777]

No video would suffice an actual examination. Devote a year to the subject and do the work.

[@natokafa5238]

Popper invented his falsifiability requirement for a scientific theory just to exclude the pseudo science of psychoanalysis

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

there's so much material to unearth to expose this fraud, it's staggering. Of course, Crewes' "Freud, the making of the illusion" is the key text, but just following the footnotes will take a year. And frankly, delving into this cesspool of mindrot and lies is not without dangers: psychic contamination is a real thing.

[@pleistocene-rc5hi]

paul was way ahead of freud in rom 7

[@exousia4591]

Can you do a video addressing the view of ADS and the complications that EO's give?

[@JScholastic]

Based dude!

[@frederickanderson1860]

Reality in whose minds. Philosophical minds are not like the simple minded uneducated minds. They explain things in long winded and words that not all understand.

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@john-paulgies4313]

Watch Sensus Traditionis (Fr. Ripperger) for a recent series expounding and analyzing each of the first principles

[@thomist25]

Nice video man, didn't know Joshy was in here, kind of caught me off guard lol

[@jeffreykalb9752]

The irony is that the Humean doctrine of causality as mere one thing following upon another actually originated with the Muslim theologian Al Ghazali, who was concerned that there could not be causal connections in the material world without impeding the power of God. It was all to preserve the possibility of miracles! But in doing so, Al Ghazali made every instant of time a new creation without necessary connection!

[@JohnVKaravitis]

Occasionalism.

[@mauriciosoto2977]

Is the second voice from AGW? just an observation. Good job!

[@AlexanderEllis-x7v]

1:23 A little nit-picky here, but rationalism does not have to posit innate knowledge. You can be a rationalist, which means that only true certain knowledge must be obtained through reason at its foundation rather than empiricist, without logically accepting innatism , which is corellated and other tied to rationalism, is what you are referring to. Hume still rejects it and rationalist do often accept it, but we should be careful to recognize that rationalist only tends to posit innatism, though it’s not always the case. To demonstrate this you could believe that reason alone is how one comes to acquire knowledge, but you develope this knowledge. You don’t have it before hand. What you have before hand is the organs of reason so to speak which are not the same as having knowledge. Innate knowledge is like finding an object in a dark room. A priori knowledge is like lightning a match you already ahead to create a new flame.

[@marcomaterazzi2434]

When will you refute Deenresponds?

[@JScholastic]

What do you mean? Sanctus refuted him before he was born!

[@klotzaltacc7768]

It would be fine but probably more damage than help as he would then be platforming him. He’s a small content creator now but the exposure from Sanctus could only make him grow

[@Ilovedeiselguzzling]

@@klotzaltacc7768agreed. it would be better off being a refutation in discord or smth to avoid him getting any hate

[@evan7391]

Looks like pretty low-tier content tbh.

[@ReapingTheHarvest]

Who?

[@casperdermetaphysiker]

Give a Scholastic response to Kant's first critique.

[@AlexanderEllis-x7v]

Could you give a reference to that fellow at 8:17. I tried to use subtitles to figure out his name but I only got gibberish. And when I tried to google that quote I just got Thomas Sowell and Emily Dickinson for some reason. And you only have Hume in your sources.

[@SanctusApologetics]

It’s Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange

[@AlexanderEllis-x7v]

@ Yay. Thank you

[@bailoutbob]

Im a Christian and im a big fan of aquinas but I'm skeptical of this video walking into it let's see how it goes

[@michaelbeattie3267]

It was a fair video with great explanation. It seemed to be representing each side fairly.

[@DPPD1029]

You should cover more indirectly-christian philosophy, and how it harmonises or leads to christ

[@wellrounded4735]

I have no Idea what's going on, but I fw this intellectual v

[@logannance6878]

I don't understand. Would someone mind helping me? If Hume came to the conclusion that his senses are a product of his self used to provide information to that same self, but then says his self, because of its separation from a different self-existing object, can never truly know if another object does exist, isn't that right? You can't ever be certain reality is, only that it might be. How would this lead to absurdity and refute Humes claim?

[@fatskyrimnerd3975]

You're actually onto something. There is no proof in this video that actually disproves Hume's claims. Thomism says if you look at it, it's there, and that's a properly basic belief, but Hume is questioning how you even know that your senses are even accurate. You don't know. You have to make the presupposition for that, which makes Thomism fall apart, because nothing is self evident.

[@Patriarch.Chadimus]

​@@fatskyrimnerd3975 Precisely, yes. This video is just simply flawed. From a religious perspective, the Transcendental Argument for God address presuppositions and Realism far better than Thomism

[@fatskyrimnerd3975]

@Patriarch.Chadimus Jay Dyer watcher?

[@Patriarch.Chadimus]

@@fatskyrimnerd3975 I've tuned into more than a few streams of his, but I'm not really into his channel or Fr. Deacon Ananias'. I actually got a lot more into TAG from Greg Bahnsen

[@SanctusApologetics]

@@logannance6878 Humes position leads to phenomenalism, he admits that he cannot actually know whether or not his senses are deceived but this is ground breaking since his position is based on his senses. So Humes cannot know whether or not reality/ logic, etc… are truly real in the strict sense.

[@jofsky9066]

I am new to philosophy and metaphysics so maybe I'm missing something. However I think that Sanctus draws unjustified conclusions by applying Humes arguments in a way that they aren't intended for. What I mean is that Humes statements that "all knowledge is based on senses", "the mind can misinterpret senses" and "expected cause and effect are based on our previous experience " show only that we as people are unable to make definitive and precise judgements about reality. We can only use a probabilistic approach and have to correct for our limited perception. However Sanctus takes this idea to mean that there is no "real" cause and effect and no "real" knowledge as it can't be based in anything certain. But these things can be true on Humes point of view, just that they are unavailable to us. This is the whole idea with the black swan example, for hundreds of years people believed that swans were only white, until someone discovered a black swan that refuted our previous assumption. Because we can make decent predictions and observations but we will never be able to fully grasp anything at the most fundamental level. I believe this is mixing Humes anti-realist approach and trying to apply it as an objective reality similarly to how Sanctus uses God as an explanation. Sanctus is forcing his worldview on to Humes and showing that Humes reality doesn't work in his, and of course it won't, because they are fundamentally different.

[@Sky-xd2nu]

Hi, [Replying to your second paragraph] With Hume we can't even be probabilistic, because we cannot trust our mind or senses. Who is to say that you don't ALWAYS misinterprete your sensory inputs? How do you know that an input has been properly interpreted? Hume restricts us to one door, the senses, then says the door might not exist and there's no way to prove when it does because there's only one door. On the black swan issue, Hume's prepositions are slightly incorrect. It should be: 1. All the swans I've seen are black 2. I have not seen every swan in the world 3. If the swan I see in the future is similar to the ones from the past, it would be black. Trying to make a universal claim while confessing that you haven't made a universal observation was Hume's mistake on the swan issue. Such dogmatic positions set you up for surprises. PS: Past experiences tells us that there are exceptions to rules and change occurs in every system. Hume still fails to account for this even while recognising the import of past experience on our predictive ability. Hume is a nice guy but I wish he'd complete his arguments instead of stopping halfway.

[@BennyAscent]

@@jofsky9066 you're totally right. Much like scissors, running too far with analogies is dangerous, but given the other side of the aisle includes most of the people who think genes are literally a code, it's a tough row to hoe for reason and rationality.

[@jofsky9066]

@@Sky-xd2nu Hi! Again maybe I'm missing something because I haven't read any if Hume's work but is this a conclusion he himself states? Or something that you and Sanctus are taking away from his statements? I'm asking because I personally don't see it that way just from hearing Humes statements in this video, he is clearly stating that we cannot have certainty about reality but he doesn't seem to imply that every perception and bit of knowledge is useless. So are you taking this statement directly from Humes work (in which case I agree Hume missed the mark) or is it your personal conclusion based on, for example, statements provided by Sanctum in this video (in which case I believe you're worng)?

[@Sky-xd2nu]

@jofsky9066 Hi again, Yeah, he reaches does conclusions in his works. Hume basically paints himself into a corner by claiming that: 1. Knowledge is only gained by the senses 2. Senses are fallible 3. Therefore, we can never know what is true - not sometimes but never. There's this long monologue were he tries to prove his own existence but runs into the possibility that he's a character in someone's dream or some trickster God is messing with him. (In fact, the "brain in a vat" story is a skeptic scenario based on Hume's work.) His conclusion should have been "Guess I'll never know if anything is real" but he ends up saying the popular phrase "I can think, therefore, I exist" Hume is the perfect skeptic who's unsure of his own existence. Philosophy in school often teaches the healthy form of Hume's skepticism i.e., "don't be dogmatic about knowledge, you have made mistakes in the past so this could also be a mistake" Sorry for the long text. Hume is a good read but test his claims before accepting them.

[@jofsky9066]

@@Sky-xd2nu First, no need to be sorry for the long text, we have to write some long messages if we want to have a proper conversation :) Second, I wasn’t clear in my statements so let me clarify. When I say that “we can use a probabilistic approach” I don’t mean that “we sometimes are right about reality and sometimes we’re wrong” I mean that “we are never 100% right about reality because of our limitations but we can make pretty good guesses”, and I believe that this is Hume’s point. For example I can’t be 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, because maybe the earth will stop spinning, or the sun will disappear or anything else like that but I can make a guess with 99,99999% certainty that it will rise because it has for the past 4.6 billion years. Third, I’m starting to suspect that you’re not taking Hume seriously and with enough thought, and I have two arguments for it: I believe you’ve misunderstood the black swan argument presented by Hume. You said that the argument should be stated like this: “1. All the swans I've seen are black 2. I have not seen every swan in the world 3. If the swan I see in the future is similar to the ones from the past, it would be black. Trying to make a universal claim while confessing that you haven't made a universal observation was Hume's mistake on the swan issue.” The exact point of Hume here is that people at the time were making this universal assumption NOT Hume. Hume saw that making this universal assumption is wrong because “I have not seen every swan in the world”. This is a great example of Hume's statement that we can’t have certanti because we are limited in our knowledge. It’s not Humes mistake, it’s the mistake that Hume pointed out. And then the thing you just mentioned “There's this long monologue were he tries to prove his own existence but runs into the possibility that he's a character in someone's dream or some trickster God is messing with him.” Great, and what is Hume's conclusion? Is it “I can never have ANY idea if I exist”? no, it’s "Guess I'll never know if anything is real but I can think, therefore, I exist", so he knows he’ll never be 100% certain but he can make a decent guess based on his experience. You showed two absolutely great examples of Hume's logic and his validity.

[@mili6580]

Can you refute Francisco Suarez' Metaphysical Disputations?

[@janrudnicki6111]

Very good

[@deusvult8340]

Can you do a video defending Aristotilean metaphysics

[@AM-pr3gc]

Can you do a video on the Hypostatic union of Christ in detail. Also I’ve had a hard time with this question: the Hypostatic union (to my knowledge correct me if I’m wrong) means that the two natures of Christ is inseparable so how did Jesus’ human nature die on the cross if you can’t separate it from his divine nature, further what does “Jesus died on the cross” metaphysically mean?

[@aisthpaoitht]

So here is the issue. Hume is saying we can't know with certainty. He's not saying you can't believe things are true, or operate as if they are true, based on the apparent effects. So you can still do science, you can still make arguments, etc. It just means that everyone involved tacitly admits that, "yeah, I could be a brain in a vat, but I choose to live as if I'm not. But idk for certain." What you are so attached to defending is epistemic certainty. Why? What do you lose by giving that up?

[@ericcartmann]

You dont know if that bridge you're driving over wont collapse when you drive over it. Yet you drive over it. Why? Is it...FAITH ?? ?? ??

[@riggedgame1189]

@@ericcartmann No, you still cross it because most of the time it is the only option available if you want to get to where you are going. There is also a very reasonable expectation that the bridge was designed by engineers who know what they are doing. It is not faith, it is trust in the numerous real and living people involved in designing, building, and maintaining the bridge. These are people who you are able to, with enough research, find in real life and physically talk to if you wish to verify their credentials. Additionally, if you know what you are doing and are educated in the field, you can personally verify the structural integrity of the bridge. In this way, you actually DO know whether it is going to collapse when you cross it.

[@ramseyeckhardt4659]

@@riggedgame1189 Not to affirm anything, but if you are making an educated guess, I would reason that that's the same as picking Christianity based upon the historical evidence, philosophical arguments, and theology interpretations of the "divine works". People are justified in their beliefs, but it is still requiring a similar knowledge as trusting architecture and engineering

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Engineers design planes, bridges, tunnels etc with a MARGIN of SAFETY Learn science, instead of believing ancient books of doubtful provenance !!!

[@mystique-1337]

They need it to defend their religion, this has nothing to do with philosophy. It's hilarious that the Catholic Church, in their blindness, initially spread skepticism and radical Phyrronism around Europe to stop the Reformers (this is how we got from Aquinas to Descartes) and then they got surprised when the beast turned on them and devoured them.

[@Zack-f6p]

Never disappoints

[@Primitarian]

Once one extends Hume's application of skepticism to his own claims, nothing is left, his own arguments included. For example, one little trick that he pulled--whether he did so deliberately or inadvertently does not matter--is to equate induction with a mere "habit of mind." This implies that he has established the words "habit" and "mind" as ultimate realities, whereas all that experience shows is what one more accurately should call a "pattern of observation." The latter description is less ambitious than what Hume proffered, but it has the virtues of being better supported by the evidence and of being open to the possibility of regularities in what is observed regardless of some of supposed interior state of the observer. But if one has no warrant to attribute something to mind, one has no reason, unless a specific one is adduced, to reject regularity as attributable to external phenomena.

[@jeremyhansen9197]

A square can't be a circle if there are no squares or circles, only resemblances and association.

[@benjiedrollinger990]

“ 4:17 “you reap what you sow.” Jesus of Nazareth

[@FrankBurnham]

I actually put my life on it and I am still here, thank you God. What a beautiful simulation

[@lawrencerockwood7623]

Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic succeeds where Hume's skepticism fails.

[@daedalus666]

Denying the principle of sufficient reason is not self-contradictory. The fact that one can have a justification for denying that the PSR is true (or even to deny that it is truth-apt, since one might claim the the principle is too vague to even merit questioning its validity) does not imply that the PSR is true. For one thing the argument conflates an epistemological justification for denying the truth of a proposition with the "sufficient reason" for why that proposition isn't true. The supposed "sufficient reason" is mind-independent, it is an objective explanandum for why something is the case, whereas an epistemological justification is mind-dependent, it is a man-made explanation for "why I do not believe this proposition to be true", which is not the same as an objective reason for "why P is not true". Second, even if we were to grant that by having a (personal) justification for denying the PSR, we affirm that there is a sufficient reason for why the PSR is not true (it isn't the case but let's assume it for the sake of the argument), this would in no way lead to the conclusion that all propositions must have a sufficient reason for why they are true (or false). It would only show that one accepts that there is at least one instance of a proposition for which such a sufficient reason exists.

[@jmmh1313]

You are not well-versed in the works of this author. For Thomas Aquinas it makes absolutely no sense to make a distinction between the logic within your mind and the logic of the external world. One of the premises in which his entire philosophical framework is laid, is that "the observer" in a sense, is not external to the world it analyzes but a mirror to it and subjected to the exact same principles that operate within reality. So the distinction between "theoretical" and real becomes extremely blurry. In other words, it would be totally illogical for you to claim that "the reason behind my question is a matter of psychology" or something. You cannot segregate yourself from the world in which you live. You are not allowed to do that. Your question is just as much of an objective fact as your very existence. And the cause of it can be analyzed according to logic. Insofar as you bring into the world an attempt of a rebuttal for the principle of sufficient reason, you find yourself demanding that the principle itself should require a reason behind it, which is the very thing that the principle demands. Hence, if you were to be correct and more reasons would be needed, the principle would be invalid, and hence, valid. And if you were to be proven wrong, and the principle did not required more reasons being hence valid, it would be invalid. It is paradoxical. The problem with your worldview is that you think that ideas do not exist. When every single idea is the particular shape in which a reality that inspired it manifests. Ideas, are not fundamentally different from material phenomenons, and treating them like such makes the world impossible to be intelegible

[@chrisnevers7565]

Your second sentence says it all. You can claim magnificent things when you suppose objectivity and direct knowledge of it. That is trivially untrue from the very nature of concepts and perception

[@daedalus666]

@@jmmh1313 To not make that distinction is wrong. There is a clear difference between the internal logic of the human mind and the hypothetical logic of the external world. In fact there isn't even a unique logic that is intuitive to all human minds. Some logicians and mathematicians for example reject the law of the excluded middle (intuitionists). There are many other systems of formal logic aside from classical logic, and which one corresponds to the internal logic of the world, if any, is an open question. The world could very well have no internal logic at all or have one that cannot be formalized in a way that is understandable to humans. I don't even understand your justification for why we can't separate our thought from the logic of the external world. It's true that the distinction between our understanding of the world and its objective reality is blurry, there is nothing controversial here, but to go from there to the claim that the two are inseparable is unwarranted. The mere fact that we can be objectively wrong shows that there is a difference between the mind's subjective model of the world and objective reality. It's clear that the possibility for being wrong has no reason not to extend to logic or metaphysics (people make logical mistakes all the time). But I don't even claim that the principle of sufficient reason is false, in fact I think it doesn't even merit being contemplated because it's too vague. It's a sweeping statement that pretends to capture some grand metaphysical truth when in reality it's just a very loose intuition whose terms are undefined. So I'am not demanding that the principle be justified, I'm saying it's just gibberish. Nevertheless, even if the principle was saying something of substance, demanding that it be motivated speaks to the psychological need for a rational explanation, which has no reason to be universally satisfiable. It's very possible that some features of the world might be brute facts, or be unintelligible and although this state of affair would be frustrating, it could nonetheless be true, I see no a priori contradiction in that. Hence the demand for epistemological grounding is not an affirmation of the principle of sufficient reason, it's a reflection of a psychological yearning for rational understanding, one that might ultimately be left unanswered. So if we accept to engage with the principle of sufficient reason (which means playing with loosely defined concepts) but deny that it's self-evidently true, there is nothing contradictory, we're just saying that it might be false, and demanding a justification for why it would be true simply means that we can intuit a world in which the principle is false. In fact any world in which the rules arithmetic are true will have some arithmetic truths that are unprovable, so under some understanding of the term "sufficient reason" we could even prove that the principle is indeed false (but then again the term is so loose that it would be an exercise in sophistry). Finally, I don't claim that ideas don't exist, they obviously exist, I'm just claiming that our ideas, and furthermore the way in which we communicate them (through language) might not be in a one to one correspondance with the features of the objective world. There might be features of the world that are forever beyond the purview of natural language, mathematics and formal logic. Our ideas might capture a subset of reality or an approximation thereof, but there is no reason to expect that they can grasp all of it. It is true that we have ample reason to expect that our ideas and senses do capture an approximation of a subset or the objective world, but that's about it. Yes it means that the cosmos might be ultimately unintelligible but the fact that something is frustrating doesn't imply that it isn't true.

[@jmmh1313]

@daedalus666 "the world could have no internal logic" That's it. Any words beyond that are useless. If you don't presupose as a matter of faith that the world has internal logic on its own, and this is an act of faith (since you cannot possibly do anything else but believe that it has or believe that it doesn't), then you are basically saying that logic does not apply to your worldview as a prerequisite for understanding the world. Hence, you ain't rational. So this conversation is useless.

[@daedalus666]

​@@jmmh1313 I'm sorry but for someone who makes such a big deal of logic you certainly have a difficulty with it. You claim that I must necessarily believe that the world has an internal logic or believe that it doesn't. That is an incorrect application of the law of the excluded middle, the correct application would be to claim that I must necessarily believe that the world has an internal logic or not believe that the world has an internal logic. But not believing P is not equivalent to believing non-P. If you're unconvinced just replace P by "the King of England is currently wearing green socks". Obviously you have no logical obligation to have a definite opinion about whether or not the King of England is currently wearing green socks, you can simply say the truth which is that you don't know. I don't know if the world operates according to anything resembling what we would call logic, I am open to possibility that it doesn't or that its logic is incomprehensible or even that it's comprehensible but just a little bit exotic to our intuition. There is simply too many alternatives to classical logic for me to believe that it is an unobjectionable set of dogmas that one must abide by lest they be engulfed in a black hole of irrationality. What's more, the principle of sufficient reason isn't even a part of classical logic, so even if I did believe it to be the actual logic of the world, it would still not commit me to the principle of sufficient reason.

[@harrisonphillips8365]

You should respond to “how Aristotle refutes Christianity” by Analytical Ahtai

[@DMS_dms]

So do you agree with Rationalism

[@TheInfiniteAmo]

Hume's atheism was his own personal affect. He admits, as you pointed out, that a transcendental First Cause cannot be disproven. Hume's anti-rationalism actually provides the key to rescuing modern, empiricist-derived materialism from itself, and he should not be thought of as epistemologically opposed to transcendentals despite his personal lack of belief.

[@hankkingofmischief4372]

I wonder why a man who thought the sun might not set tomorrow would deny the possibility of miracles

[@codename0203]

According to astrophysics there is the possibility that spacetime will stretch so much because of the increased acceleration that it wii eventually rip spontaneously thus ending all that exists without us even being able to realise what just happened. Aquinas doesn't sound all that crazy unbased after all, does he.

[@mystique-1337]

I wonder why a man who thinks that the sun will always rise tomorrow would believe that corpses might resurrect and miracles might happen.

[@S.D.323]

Well it really might not hume doesn't deny the possibility of miracles just their probability

[@se7964]

The man wielding the knife objection isn’t a good representation of Hume’s argument. While Hume might say, we could never be absolutely certain the knife killed the person, Hume would argue that it was reasonable for the murderer to expect that the knife would cause the person’s death, given they had prior knowledge of death and stabbing and could know through experience and custom that death proceeds stabbing.

[@masscreationbroadcasts]

Hello, Based Department?

[@sahilhossian8212]

Lore of St Thomas Aquinas refuted David Hume before he was born! Momentum 100

[@concretesandals4501]

This is because philosophy tries to apply flawed human ideas to a world that wasn't made for us and doesn't fit nearly into our mental boxes

[@stopfabrications]

Joseph Ratzinger rejected scholasticism.

[@PantalonRouge]

awesome

[@Brklyn-dd9yo]

Agreed!!!

[@livenotbylies]

Very good. "Espouse" though, not "expouse"

[@thisis_chavez]

Our Lady of Lipa, pray for us

[@slowixxxx]

W the Angelic Doctor

[@emanuelbenicio3501]

This video was very nice but the principle of sufficient reason was absolutely proven in this video. Given the objection, anyone could simply deny the PSR and posit no reason for it, not to mention that they could deny the PSR and posit the reason that no positive reason was presented for it (so that it could be dismissed, and not that of necessity it is dismissed), and yet still claim that there is possibly (or actually) a truth which holds true with no ground. This is coming from a fellow believer in the PSR.

[@SanctusApologetics]

@@emanuelbenicio3501 Thank you for the response, but respectfully, when one comes to the debate table, you don’t just disagree with PSR without a reason, you must give a reason of why you disagree with the position. If you don’t, you commit the assertion fallacy. People who argue like this, as Aristotle says, are like vegetables.

[@emanuelbenicio3501]

@SanctusApologetics read the rest of my comment. You can still deny the PSR on the grounds that there is no positive reason for it, which doesnt entail that something needs a positive reason to be true, for although you can deny something if there is no positive reason for it (and you are justified in doing so), that doesnt entail that you are actually correct in your denial (that is, that the thing you deny is actually false.) And really, one must prove the PSR. By talking about someone denying the PSR on a given ground, you are just suggesting a debate rather than an actual demonstration of the principle. That's why Della Rocca's "proof" of the PSR is not an actual proof, nor is that an actual proof.

[@KNXGHT.7]

👍

[@markwrede8878]

Invisible beings are the Third Man logical fallacy.

[@eeviray]

Hume's ideas are not practical. Are we following William James in concluding, "therefore it is not true"?

[@makuballz6516]

nice

[@YuriBoechat-ef8ts]

To tell the truth, Saint Thomas refuted a lot of philosophers centuries before they were born with so much elegance that it's embarrassing

[@markbirmingham6011]

Comment for traction

[@Sky-xd2nu]

Yeah, the first time I read Hume laughter ensued. I thought "if this is the best of philosophers, then I must be superior to them"😂 Hume's argument is self-defeating but he fails to pursue his arguments to their final conclusion.

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

he was useful though as a skeptic. "Awoken me from my dogmatic slumber" as Kant said.

[@Sky-xd2nu]

@mentalitydesignvideo He surely is. He's also a warning to avoid absurdity. A skeptic must have a standard by which to judge truth... Or else he becomes a professional doubter posing as a skeptic.

[@johntessitore9305]

Explain hell!😢

[@HernanToroA]

There is no principle of sufficient reason in quantum mechanics. The results of quantum measurements have no sufficient causes.

[@vilcheq]

'Sufficient cause' - term not used in the video. 'Sufficient reason' in fact is not a traditional thomistic concept. In quantum mechanics there are material, efficient and formal causes involved from the thomistic perspective. Due to the fact that effects are caused in a random/not deterministic way, there is only final cause lacking. Lack of determinism does not mean lack of causes/causality at all.

[@HernanToroA]

@@vilcheq What is the "thomistic cause" in quantum mechanics for a radioactive decomposition to occur at t=t_0 and not at t=t_1?

[@vilcheq]

​@@HernanToroA There is no 'thomistic cause' in my reply. Material cause is a particle which is undergoing a change according to laws of quantum mechanics, formal cause are those laws and efficient cause is observer/act of measurement etc. language depends on interpretation but causes and process are not. Interacting with quantum system during the measurement reduces potency (wave function) of a particle to act of concrete measured values. There is no final cause because effect is not deterministic. You seem to wrongly assume that if something is random that automatically means 'there are no causes of it at all'. But that is simply not the case. You probably do not know scholastic concepts and principles.

[@HernanToroA]

@@vilcheq Again: What is the cause for the decomposition to occur at t0 and not at t1?

[@vilcheq]

​@@HernanToroA I have already answered this question. Quantum mechanics is huge success for thomism. It is experimental, scientific and practical confirmation of scholastic doctrine of prime matter understood as pure potency. All its discoveries fit perfectly with hylomorphism of Aquinas. Their interpretation based on his thought is straghtforward. For many other schools quite the opposite, that is why they were so confused by results of QM. For a aristotelian realist they are natural, easily understood.

[@johncracker5217]

Hume is BTFO’d by Plato

[@kricketflyd111]

For me, I need to hear their words. Someone's interpretation does no good.

[@rmschindler144]

I like you

[@n.h.e.3293]

GG

[@FrankBurnham]

Consciousness has quantum mechinal qualities. There are flying objects that defy physics in our sky. The Pentagon can't account for 3 trillion dollars.

[@Lightbearer616]

From what I have read of Thomas Aquinas, he's a master of waffle making statements which have no basis in logic or reality.

[@whitevortex8323]

well you must be wrong, since he is one of the greatest thinkers along with Aristotle and Plato.

[@robertd9965]

True, if you deny - being/existence - evident truths - all kinds of logic

[@memememe609]

I sure do like claiming one of the greatest philosophers in history is an idiot because I do not understand what he's saying, or it goes against my hedonistic ideals.

[@sigurdholbarki8268]

I admit that unlike many later writers, St Thomas is not writing for what we'd call "the general reader", but he's also being translated from Latin. His writing is no more "waffly" than any subsequent philosopher, and if you think he's missing any steps in logic I would humbly suggest you have read an insufficient amount because he argues everything from first principles, which he frequently assails in order to test them. "From what I've read" is doing an awful lot of work there

[@AlonzoHarris235]

@@sigurdholbarki8268 He is an apologist of Aristotle. Thomas sees Aristotle as his God. He wants to use Aristotle for his bible.

[@tornikenucubidze3013]

Keep hating bruh. No theologian can come close to the magnificence of Hume. Wish you a swift recovery from your dogmatic slumber!

[@mirogusic8572]

Isnt it second nature for philosophers of different opinions to debate them? Why is debate vilified? Is iz because you are scared of being refuted?

[@BennyAscent]

​@mirogusic8572 it's not that it's being vilified, it's just that Hume is an intellectual giant and Aquinas... just isn't. Perhaps if he'd spent more time on secular study that might be a little different, but because his studies are only really valuable to those who accept theology as a valid context, his work is useless to anyone outside of the ibrahimic faiths.

[@Seanain_O_hEarchai]

@@BennyAscent surely you’d at least admit that Aquinas was an “intellectual giant” in matters of theology, no? I understand that his work is not particularly attractive to those who are not already Christian, but he was certainly a pioneer of his field.

[@BennyAscent]

@@Seanain_O_hEarchai I wouldn't say so, because I don't consider theology to be a remarkably useful study. It's like someone being an intellectual giant in homeopathy or astrology. I'd consider him dwarfed even by epicurus, as he came to a conclusion of secular morality before the age of voltaire and spinoza, when a lot of the substrate of modern atheism began. Aquinas was just another Christian, who even had to admit that the only thing that could bring someone to god was faith. Faith isn't a valid epistemology. And to come to that conclusion and not see it as inherently flawed is not impressive at all.

[@mirogusic8572]

@BennyAscent Even if you disagree with Aquinas saying he isnt an intellectual giant is being dishonest, for example i disagree with Nietzsche on almost everything but i can not deny the impact he has had on philosophy.