Hume's arguments seem directed at Descartes. Hume argues that man gains knowledge from experience and that we should be skeptical of all other knowledge. Descartes believes all knowledge comes from the mind, and that the only thing we cannot question is our existence "I think, therefore I am." For Descartes, nothing else can be proven. Hume counters with:
If we apply Dewey to Dewey we find that his naturalistic metaphysics does not wash. Rorty is correct he makes the same mistakes he criticizes. How can there be a definitive naturalistic metaphysics of experience, if the world is constantly in flux and truth is only relevant to the values and meanings that currently define it? Will the naturalistic metaphysics of experience change with history like values and meanings? Will it change the different experiences of each individual? If the door no longer closes, but did close before, it still closed previously. The first experience does not change. It still remains true. Rorty explains:
|
 |
|
|
| view all members >> |
 |
|
New
1. If x is happy, then x is just, and
Modern times have obviously proven Marx' assumptions of the self-destructive tendency of capitalism to be much more latent and controllable. The dynamic and dest...
|
|
|
|
New
Hume utilizes intelligence as his method of persuasion; he speaks as if every learned individual will ultimately accept his ideas as correct and attempt to persuade the rest of the population to shy a...
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
New
In so doing, he develops a new philosophical way of looking at the world. Instead of viewing things only objectively, Descartes throws in the subjective. This type of philosophy became the basis for a...
|
02/12/2008 15:57
|
|
|
|
New Featured
How (it may be asked) can any part of the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do ...
|
28/11/2008 23:45
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|