Join and be channel member to support my work: ruclips.net/channel/UC4hkfv9BNzYh-IafZd94b9wjoin My Ethereum crypto wallet wallet : 0x3db70687855fcd93c179d532e9ba59c582ee10bc (to be credited please send email to mindfulphilo@gmail.com )
well , Spinoza's framework offers a robust justification for causality as a necessary aspect of the universe, Hume invites us to question the very nature of causality and our ability to know it. So its a fundamental tension in philosophy: Spinoza's rational determinism versus Hume's empirical skepticism.
@@mindphilo And thus physics relating causality & nature from EM-Tension to Earth's thermodynamics & spin would certainly serve to reduce your philosophical "tension", Yes?
@JMW-ci2pq yes a good connection you’re making, Spinoza and Hume do represent a kind of philosophical tension when it comes to understanding causality, and or Spinoza, everything is an expression of a single substance "God or Nature" and causality is woven into the fabric of this unified reality. every effect follows necessarily from prior causes within this rational structure, so understanding the physical world (like EM tension or Earth's thermodynamics) is, for Spinoza, an insight into the divine order itself. but for Hume, however, would remind us to be cautious. From his perspective, causality isn’t something we can directly observe but is instead a habit of thought. We see one event following another (like Earth's spin or thermodynamics in action) and infer a causal link, but we can't know for sure that it's a true necessity beyond our perception. So, while Spinoza might say that physics reveals the underlying order of nature, Hume would argue that our understanding of causality in physics still rests on human conventions and observation, not on certainty. i mean in a sense, physics might "reduce" the tension between these views, but it also keeps the debate alive...
From a Humean perspective, the limitations of our senses are inescapable because all of our knowledge is derived from sensory experiences. As for "truly knowing what’s real," Hume would say we can never have absolute certainty about the world beyond what our senses tell us. Our senses can be flawed or misleading, and there's no guarantee that the future will resemble the past. So, we can never escape those limitations-our knowledge will always be contingent on our experiences and perceptions.
If there’s a reality beyond our senses, we wouldn’t be able to experience or understand it. According to Hume, anything we might claim to know about that realm would just be speculation, unsupported by direct sensory evidence.
of course and Absolutely, there's always the possibility of the unknown, but that is prcisely where Hume’s skepticism comes into play. He’s not saying we should discount our knwledge entirely, but rather recognize that it's built on patterns we've observed so far. The point is, even though the sun has always risen, we assume it will continue to do so-but that’s based on habit, not certainty. the certainty here is the problem if u understand me Like imagine a doctor who has treated patients with similar symptoms for years, using the same diagnosis and medication. Over time, it becomes a habit, and they assume it will always be the correct approach. But one day, a patient presents similar symptoms that actually indicate a rare condition. If the doctor relies solely on past experience and habit, without questioning or staying open to new information, the wrong treatment could have fatal consequences. Hume's point is that while patterns and past knowledge are helpful, we must remain humble. Our understanding is built on habit, not certainty, and we should stay open to the possibility that what we know might shift or be incomplete. hope this long response make u understand hume point.
Join and be channel member to support my work:
ruclips.net/channel/UC4hkfv9BNzYh-IafZd94b9wjoin
My Ethereum crypto wallet wallet : 0x3db70687855fcd93c179d532e9ba59c582ee10bc
(to be credited please send email to mindfulphilo@gmail.com )
nice intro to Hume thank you
Glad you like it
thank you and it was good ride how can we trust our decisions if our understanding of the future is based on flawed past experiences?
thank you i think Kant was really Hume adept he likely developed his philosophy
for me, my hole live was a wrong perception ... thank you to make me know i m not alone ;-)
;-) You're welcome 😊
How would Spinoza's concept of God as the single substance relate to Hume's skepticism about causality?
well , Spinoza's framework offers a robust justification for causality as a necessary aspect of the universe, Hume invites us to question the very nature of causality and our ability to know it.
So its a fundamental tension in philosophy: Spinoza's rational determinism versus Hume's empirical skepticism.
@@mindphilo And thus physics relating causality & nature from EM-Tension to Earth's thermodynamics & spin would certainly serve to reduce your philosophical "tension", Yes?
@JMW-ci2pq yes a good connection you’re making, Spinoza and Hume do represent a kind of philosophical tension when it comes to understanding causality, and or Spinoza, everything is an expression of a single substance "God or Nature" and causality is woven into the fabric of this unified reality. every effect follows necessarily from prior causes within this rational structure, so understanding the physical world (like EM tension or Earth's thermodynamics) is, for Spinoza, an insight into the divine order itself. but for Hume, however, would remind us to be cautious. From his perspective, causality isn’t something we can directly observe but is instead a habit of thought. We see one event following another (like Earth's spin or thermodynamics in action) and infer a causal link, but we can't know for sure that it's a true necessity beyond our perception. So, while Spinoza might say that physics reveals the underlying order of nature, Hume would argue that our understanding of causality in physics still rests on human conventions and observation, not on certainty.
i mean in a sense, physics might "reduce" the tension between these views, but it also keeps the debate alive...
hi , good podcast but Can we ever escape the limitations of our senses and truly know what’s real?
@@SukukNetwork good question, but how would we even experience that realm.
From a Humean perspective, the limitations of our senses are inescapable because all of our knowledge is derived from sensory experiences. As for "truly knowing what’s real," Hume would say we can never have absolute certainty about the world beyond what our senses tell us. Our senses can be flawed or misleading, and there's no guarantee that the future will resemble the past. So, we can never escape those limitations-our knowledge will always be contingent on our experiences and perceptions.
If there’s a reality beyond our senses, we wouldn’t be able to experience or understand it. According to Hume, anything we might claim to know about that realm would just be speculation, unsupported by direct sensory evidence.
Meditation will get you there.
@@herrweiss2580if thine eye be single your body will be full of light. take no thought for your life
Hume was wrong. The sun will rise tomorrow, as it has in the past, unless something new interferes.
so is it possible that something new interferes or may be we don't know it yet that's the point ...
@@mindphilo
There’s always the possibility of the unknown. Nothing new in that. It’s not a reason to discount our knowledge.
of course and Absolutely, there's always the possibility of the unknown, but that is prcisely where Hume’s skepticism comes into play. He’s not saying we should discount our knwledge entirely, but rather recognize that it's built on patterns we've observed so far. The point is, even though the sun has always risen, we assume it will continue to do so-but that’s based on habit, not certainty. the certainty here is the problem if u understand me
Like imagine a doctor who has treated patients with similar symptoms for years, using the same diagnosis and medication. Over time, it becomes a habit, and they assume it will always be the correct approach. But one day, a patient presents similar symptoms that actually indicate a rare condition. If the doctor relies solely on past experience and habit, without questioning or staying open to new information, the wrong treatment could have fatal consequences.
Hume's point is that while patterns and past knowledge are helpful, we must remain humble. Our understanding is built on habit, not certainty, and we should stay open to the possibility that what we know might shift or be incomplete. hope this long response make u understand hume point.
you are exactly wrong, point proven. The sun doesn't rise, it only "appears" too