OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: Hume

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it. 

Hello Andy,

It is of course very silly to deny mind-independent causation. My argument
is that
many philosophical attempts to avoid this obvious silliness collapse to
(Humean)
scepticism. In a nutshell, if causation is mind-independent then causation
could be
impossible to grasp by the mind. Popper's philosophy is a case in point, I
would
argue, despites Popper's claim to overcome Hume.


I would like to understand your position more. I think the problem I've had
understanding your point of view is that I don't yet see a problem to
be solved or avoided -- I don't see why, for example, its important to deny
the possibility that some causal events may in principle be unable to be
understood by the human mind (however disappointing this may be),
neither do I see why Bhaskar's transcedental argument from the conditions
of possibility of science don't answer Hume, and avoid the collapse into
scepticism. I'm just not grasping the difficulty that materialist dialectics
is
supposed to overcome.

-Ian.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]