In his introduction to Book I. OF THE UNDERSTANDING, Hume notes that it is not unusual for people who believe they have discovered something new in Philosophy to do so at the expense of those who have gone before them. The problem is that if they would be satisfied at that, they would be able to find those that agree. On the other side of that is that anyone with any kind of knowledge would be able to see right through them. Sadly even the most preeminent philosophers have fallen prey to this and that is not good for Philosophy. I personally find that the predilection to take the easy road on the backs of those who came before you, is not unique to Philosophers, but to the human race as a whole.
He states that it doesn’t take a genius to figure …show more content…
They don’t understand that not everything comes easily and sometimes we must labor to find the truth. So often do they lose this fight to find reason that feel they must make them entertaining. If the truth is within reach of human understanding it must lie very deep and hard to find. To think that we can easily find the answer when even geniuses have struggled to find them is both obtuse and vain.
Hume states he is no better than anyone else in what he is going to lay out but it is obvious to him that all the sciences, even philosophy, have a relation in how to discover the answers. Math, religion and philosophy are all dependent on Mans scientific knowledge since they lie under the understanding of men and are so judged. Can you imagine what improvements we could make in the sciences of we could fully grasp the extent of human understanding?
If math, religion and philosophy is so dependent on the knowledge of man, what about the other sciences that are even more closely related. The primary purpose of logic is to explain our ability to reason and how our ideas, morals and criticism related to our tastes and sentiments. In the sciences of Politics, Logic, Morals, they consider men as united and dependent on one another and is comprehended by almost …show more content…
They are all based on experience and no one can establish any principles not based on that authority. When he needs to know the effects of one body on another he needs only place then in a particular situation and observe the results. But Moral philosophy is at a disadvantage in that it is unable to do that with purpose and premeditation. So we must use observation of life and take the information as we see it. If done correctly and compared we can hopefully establish a science that will be superior to any other in human
He states that it doesn’t take a genius to figure …show more content…
They don’t understand that not everything comes easily and sometimes we must labor to find the truth. So often do they lose this fight to find reason that feel they must make them entertaining. If the truth is within reach of human understanding it must lie very deep and hard to find. To think that we can easily find the answer when even geniuses have struggled to find them is both obtuse and vain.
Hume states he is no better than anyone else in what he is going to lay out but it is obvious to him that all the sciences, even philosophy, have a relation in how to discover the answers. Math, religion and philosophy are all dependent on Mans scientific knowledge since they lie under the understanding of men and are so judged. Can you imagine what improvements we could make in the sciences of we could fully grasp the extent of human understanding?
If math, religion and philosophy is so dependent on the knowledge of man, what about the other sciences that are even more closely related. The primary purpose of logic is to explain our ability to reason and how our ideas, morals and criticism related to our tastes and sentiments. In the sciences of Politics, Logic, Morals, they consider men as united and dependent on one another and is comprehended by almost …show more content…
They are all based on experience and no one can establish any principles not based on that authority. When he needs to know the effects of one body on another he needs only place then in a particular situation and observe the results. But Moral philosophy is at a disadvantage in that it is unable to do that with purpose and premeditation. So we must use observation of life and take the information as we see it. If done correctly and compared we can hopefully establish a science that will be superior to any other in human