Hume Blog6

"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined."

In addition to not agreeing with Hume on miracles, what about the proof of miracles through religion. I would want to ask Hume has he ever had looked into the different religions, and discovered what miracles were really about?

HumeBlog5

"It seems evident that, if all the scenes of nature were continually shifted in such a manner that no two events bore any resemblance to each other, but every object was entirely new, without any similitude to whatever had been seen before, we should never, in that case, have attained the least idea of necessity, or of a connexion among these objects. "

What Hume states that we should never have the idea that these changes need to occur. I agree but sort of disagree, because what about seasons, every year our world goes through the changes of daylight savings, and seasons time, the changes happen and they dont resemble each other. What about the transitions of fall to winter, and winter to spring, and spring to summer?

Hume Blog4

"Though it be too obvious to escape observation, that different ideas are connected together; I do not find, that any philosopher has attempted to enumerate or class all the principles of association; a subject, however, that seems worthy of curiosity. To me, there appear to be only three principles of connexion among ideas, namely, Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect."

Hume basically states that that the connection of ideas are only resemblance, and cause and effect. I agree but I disagree, ideas that that are different can always be connected together, its just that they have one common ground. It doesnt matter if they have cause and effect and are similar.

Hume Blog3

"If you tell me, that any person is in love, i easily understand your meaning, and form a just conception of his situation; but never can mistake that conception for the real disorders and agitations of the passion."

Hume says that he can understand the difference between actually be in love, which he calls a disorder, and actually having passions which is really being in love. I understand where he is coming from because he says if anyone is in love, he can easily separate from the person that has the passion. That is like someone that is saying Im in love with graham crackers, and another person who has the passion for graham crackers, who loves the taste, the look, and the basically the food.

Hume Blog2

"Though there be no such thing as Chance in the world; our ignorance of the real cause of any event has the same influence on the understanding...there is certainly a probability"

There is such thing as chance, aren't chance and probability in the same caliber, I beg to differ with Hume, when he says that there is no such thing as chance in the world. Probability is the chance of certain things happpening, like one in three million, or something else, thats chance, its something that is taught in math, and something that we go through every day in decision making.

Hume Blog1

"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined."

Even though in my personal opinion Hume says that miracles are violations, I believe is wrong. I understand what point he is trying to make. In the laws of nature, routine is very present, like a certain season coming up, after spring comes summer, and so on, but for miracles, unexpected things to appear, does make Kant's point valid. However, I believe in situations of miracles, a strong faith in a higher being, has to appear, thats probably why Hume doesnt believe in miracles because he doesnt have faith in higher being that is amongst individuals.

Kant Blog6

"Judgments of experience [empirical judgments] are always synthetical. For it would be absurd to base an analytical judgment on experience, as our concept suffices for the purpose without requiring any testimony from experience. That body is extended, is a judgment established a priori, and not an empirical judgment."

I agree with the saying that judgements are synthetical. Analytical judgements are judgements that are with logic, and empirical judgements are the ones that are based on experience. Judgements from which you learn from experience through doing certain things.