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:
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList