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.

Kant Blog5

"That the human mind will ever give up metaphysical researches is as little to be expected as that we should prefer to give up breathing altogether, to avoid inhaling impure air. There will therefore always be metaphysics in the world; nay, every one, especially every man of reflection, will have it, and for want of a recognized standard, will shape it for himself after his own pattern."

What Kant is saying is that metaphysical research is that people will use for the rest of the history, metaphysics is our history our trace of identity to find out who we are as a people. Metaphysics refers to beings, how beings act, and their culture. In addition to what Kant says is that man will always look at metaphysics, the ontology, and cosmology, and refer it to their history.

"....knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori cognition, coming from pure understanding and pure reason."

What the context clues was telling about this quote was something that I was in the middle of truly understanding, I guess knowledge working with experience is what makes understanding and reason. I understood because in essence of experience something whether good or bad you gain wisdom, and learn what could have made something better or made something worse. That in my opinion is the experience of life.

Kant Blog3

"Men who never think independently have nevertheless the acuteness to discover everything, after it has been once shown them, in what was said long since, though no one could ever see it there before."

I agree with post, with independence comes growth, and without the growth of being on your own and experiencing things by yourself, life becomes dull and less challenging, life without being independent becomes comfortable, and that doesn't lead to very much.

Kant Blog2

"Reason with all its concepts and laws of the understanding, which suffice for empirical use, i.e., within the sensible world, finds in itself no satisfaction because ever-recurring questions deprive us of all hope of their complete solution."
Along with Roachcoach, when I read this statement what I found to be interesting was the fact that with reasoning always come questioning and you could never find the complete solution in anything. For example, someone gets a haircut, and someone else ask why, that person could say for a reason that he got the haircut because he wanted a new fresh cut, but then the person would say, why not get dreadlocks, why not let it grow. Proving my example there is no complete solution to everything.

KANT-Pure Mathematics

"Pure Mathematics, and especially pure geometry, can only have objective reality on condition that they refer to objects of sense. But in regard to the latter the principle holds good, that our sense representation is not a representation of things in themselves but of the way in which they appear to us."

When I read that blog, I had to read it twice because what caught my attention was the last comment that was made representation of things in themselves, but of the way in which they appear to us. I would definately say I have to agreee with Kant, because we ourselves even though we might want people to observe us in a representation of ourselves, other people have their own perceptions and impressions. This maybe could be the reason why we dress up well for a particular occasion, or do somethings out of the ordinary because we want to make a good and lasting representation.

Kant's Solution on human mind/metaphysics

"That the human mind will ever give up metaphysical researches is as little to be expected as that we should prefer to give up breathing altogether, to avoid inhaling impure air. There will therefore always be metaphysics in the world; nay, every one, especially every man of reflection, will have it, and for want of a recognized standard, will shape it for himself after his own pattern."

Kant argues that the human mind will always be curious. It will always be willing to conduct research, and if that is to be disputed, we could compare humans as not breathing at all unless it was pure air. All of mankind will at somepoint want to find a standard of metaphysics in some form for themselves to relate to.

Kant Conclusion section 57

"Reason with all its concepts and laws of the understanding, which suffice for empirical use, i.e., within the sensible world, finds in itself no satisfaction because ever-recurring questions deprive us of all hope of their complete solution."

Reasoning and Understanding are things Kant describes real well. Its almost as though he is a fate believer. He states that that even with reasoning and laws of understanding something that happens for a reason, we never feel completly satisfied. Were still inclined to ask why did it happen to us?

Kant part 3 metaphyics

"Metaphysics has to do not only with concepts of nature, which always find their application in experience, but also with pure rational concepts, which never can be given in any possible experience. Consequently the objective reality of these concepts (viz., that they are not mere chimeras), and the truth or falsity of metaphysical assertions, cannot be discovered or confirmed by any experience."

What Kant says here is that any rational idea can never be considered assumed. The objectivity of nature is too great that anything and anything can happen. This also applies to metaphysics, where in the assertions, they also cannot be confirmed in any expierence or be assumed.

"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 Kant that experiences are synthetical. Kant also says that our concept is sufficient enough to not even require the expierence.

Kant Pure Math? Remark I

"Pure Mathematics, and especially pure geometry, can only have objective reality on condition that they refer to objects of sense. But in regard to the latter the principle holds good, that our sense representation is not a representation of things in themselves but of the way in which they appear to us."

Kant says that math, with emphasis on geometry, have objective reality. Geometry is much more easier to show this because geometry deals primarily with shapes and figures, rather than numbers. Showing someone that a triangle has a right angle is easy when you look at something at 90degrees, rather than trying to do a formula for it.

Kant 2nd Part, Sec 17

"The formal aspect of nature in this narrower sense is therefore the conformity to law of all the objects of experience, and so far as it is known a priori, their necessary conformity. But it has just been shown that the laws of nature can never be known a priori in objects so far as they are considered not in reference to possible experience, but as things in themselves. And our inquiry here extends not to things in themselves (the properties of which we pass by), but to things as objects of possible experience, and the complex of these is what we properly call nature"

Before I begin to even detail the passage, I just wanted to note that this is by far the most challenging piece of writing I have ever read to understand. In fact, Kant's whole book was difficult.

In this this passage, Kant explains how nature's law of conformity relates to not just expierencing them but them just being themselves. The human mind inquires about them even without the expierence. This is what defines nature. Its something that can't really be changed but is all around us and we want to find out more about it.

on judgments

"Former judgment is merely a judgment of perception and is of subjective validity only; it is merely a connection of perceptions in my mental state, without reference to the object."

basically what he is trying to say is that judgments of subjective validity are basically judgments drawn from references to the mind of perception without acknowledging the object itself because judgments that are objectively valid are universally valid, meaning it is known to everybody, its drawn from appearance rather than perception.

empirical judgment

"in the first place we must state that while all judgments of experience are empirical, yet conversely, all empirical judgments are not therefore judgments of experience............every perception must be first of all subsumed and then by their means changed into experience."

basically what he is trying to say is that as long as the judgments are objective validity;universally valid, me and everybody should understand;, they are judgments of experience but if they are subjectively, they become mere perceptions. meaning we percieve them to be good judgments. but whether we intuit them as an object or perception, since they are empiricle, they become judgments of experience.

idealism concerning space and time

"idealism consists in the assertion that there are none but thinking beings;all other things which we believe are perceived in intuitions are nothing but representations in the thinking being, to which no object external to them in fact corresponds."

in this quote, its kind of confusing what kant is trying to say. from my understanding he's talking about space and time. the external objects that we see, we know nothing of it but their appearance as he says. all objects are given through intuition which are given by our senses. we know nothing but its mere reflection. for instance space is nothing but just a representaion and only is known to our minds according to kant. basically we have no concept of space and time, we now nthing of it but its appearance. he ties all of this to geometry. geometry too is a priori and is the study of our pure intuition of space and time.

emperical and pure intuitions concerning math

in the first part, kant says that if math consist of synthetic a priori, we must be able to distinguish different concepts in the form of pure intuitions. pure intuitions basically are a point of view. kant distinguishes between emperical intuition and pure intuition. emperical intuiton from my understanding is basically sensing something, like something thats known as a fact or so. kant believes that math is synthetic a priori meaning that it has to be pure intuitions. we are able to understand math because theres something innate in us that allows us to distinguish different concepts, we dont have to have experience to undestand math.

judgments into analytic and synthetic

"Men who never think independently have nevertheless the acuteness to discover everything, after it has been once shown them, in what was said long since, though no one could ever see it there before."

In this section, Kant talks about how Hume's as well as Locke's writings are narrowed. Their discussion on judgments is only based on their information and what other writers have wrote. Kant says that one must go where no man has gone and look beyond their own reflection. One has to think independently and go where no man has gone. Cannot prove a point or make an argument if the information is not sufficient.

of the sources of metaphysics

"....knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori cognition, coming from pure understanding and pure reason."



What Kant is trying to say in this section is that metaphysics as well as mathematics are an a priori because those are things that one learn through pure understanding and reasoning instead of knowledge or experience. For instance how 7+5=12. Kant says that mathimatical judgments are all synthetic, they are a priori and not empirical.