Hume's Theory Of Scepticism

To some degree, human beings want certainty both in their understanding of the universe and in humanity’s ability to acquire knowledge on said universe. Many early ontological theories tried to demonstrate that the model proposed is absolutely certain by the provided logic and has no faults on which the system can be refuted. For example, in Anaximenes’ theory that all is air or Plato’s theory of the world of ideal forms, each philosopher proposed their system in the hope that they created a system that would last or would solve the question of the basis for existence for good. Similar attempts to establish a stable theory occured in epistemology. For instance, the main goal of Descartes’ radical scepticism was to find a foundation for epistemology …show more content…
However, there are some flaws in this concept. Although, Hume claims that the judgment of aesthetics and what is beautiful is universal and constant over time, there have been changes in artistic judgment and theory about what qualifies as beautiful. The first example I would like to offer deals with the art or media forms of rock music, film, and video games. Each media mentioned went through a period were critics denied the medium the title of art, but these forms have been accepted as art by later generations. Admittedly, Hume claimed that good aesthetic judgement must result from refined taste (that is the ability to pick out details), experience with works in the medium being judged, the comparison of the individual work with other forms or works of art, and an absence of prejudice. Therefore, a supporter of his theories could argue that the early critics did not make a good aesthetic judgment because they did not have experience with the artform or they are not “free from prejudice”. Alternatively, they may point out that in some cases the critics judged properly as the forms did not grow enough to meet the standard of aesthetic excellence (film and video games went through a growth process to develop to a point they could achieve the artistic effect they can today). However, I feel the …show more content…
Yet, there are ideas and core elements that recur throughout philosophy and science. Empiricism has prevailed both a a theoretical stance in philosophy and as a method of inquiry in the sciences since it came into popularity during the Enlightenment. As such, empiricism has withstood the test of time as much as any painting by Leonardo Da Vinci or play by Shakespeare. Even as ontological and epistemological theories come and go the fundamental goals of investigating existence and thought remain. One of the most telling indicators that some aspects of the philosophies of Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle are still relevant in contemporary philosophy is that these thinkers are still studied today. Therefore, it seems that science and philosophy are no more volatile than art. None of these systems are wholly eternal and each goes through changes throughout history. But in each some ideas and some goals are perennial, so no matter how far our systems go there may be something familiar to ground ourselves to. In terms longevity, at least, no field has a privileged