What are Hume s three questions about Hume s refutation?

OK, if you see a student who likes to think, say hello first.

From Hume's point of view, he would argue with you:

1.If you know for sure that my parents existed before you were born, how do you know for sure, based on your assumptions that you perceive the fertility of other parents, or on the basis of other people's assumptions that you have given birth to you?

If you have never sensed the concept of procreation or anything about reproduction and parenthood by sight or hearing, can you know all this purely for yourself?

2.You know, pay attention to the word know, how can you know for sure, all the information you get is a projection of you by the whole society plus a little bit of your personal thinking. You don't know this information at all, so some people even think that the world is just a projection of the Creator to him.

For example, if you are given a lot of vegetables: greens, water spinach, bean sprouts, you can stir-fry different dishes yourself, but you basically can't make a plate of roast suckling pig with these ingredients.

The biggest problem with refuting Hume's view is that Hume has put his opponents in a desperate situation on the premise, and if they want to oppose Hume's views, they must stand on a non-existent perspective, and none of the five senses can function, that is, there is no sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. Not to mention the sixth sense, this is just a very complex physical activity in the brain, very close to psychological suggestion, which belongs to a kind of processing of information by the cerebral cortex self, and cannot appear as a separate sense.

Your parents were not "your parents" before you were born

Hume's three questions are as follows:

1. Causal issues

Hume pointed out that most people believe that as long as one thing comes with another, there must be a connection between the two things, so that the latter accompanies the former, Hume refuted this theory in his Treatise on Human Nature and later in his Treatise on Human Understanding, pointing out that while we can observe that one thing comes with another, we cannot observe any connection between two things.

According to his skeptical epistemology, we can only trust what we have gained from our observations.

2. Inductive problems

In A Theory of Human Understanding, Hume pointed out that all human thinking activities can be divided into two types: the pursuit of "relation of ideas" and "matters of fact." The former involves abstract logical concepts and mathematics, and is mainly based on intuition and logical deduction. The latter is mainly based on the study of real-world situations.

3. The question of what should be and what is true

Hume believes that we cannot deduce the value proposition from the factual proposition of whether it should or not, and the two cannot achieve a leap forward, because it lacks corresponding explanations, and also lacks logical basis and argumentation, which also shows the relationship between natural science and social science, because value has multiplicity and relativity, so social science is generally subjective, ambiguous and ambiguous.

Hume's induction

Induction, which is the main feature of modern science, is doubtful of the rationality of induction, because induction is based on which a priori facts cannot be deduced from unknown facts, because they have nothing to do with each other, as the question of cause and effect suggests.

Secondly, the inductive method itself has its limitations, the inductive method is a logical method to deduce general conclusions from individual knowledge, and it is impossible for experience to be exhausted, so the universality of the scientific propositions formed by the inductive method itself cannot be established, otherwise it will cause the "white swan fallacy".

So is induction reliable? Hume believes that we cannot deduce the value proposition from the factual proposition of whether it should or not, and the two cannot achieve a leap forward, because it lacks corresponding explanations, and also lacks logical basis and argumentation, which also shows the relationship between natural science and social science, because value has multiplicity and relativity, so social science is generally subjective, ambiguous and ambiguous.

Skepticism is a very important force in Western philosophical thought, because it leads to in-depth thinking about phenomena, existence, thinking, consciousness, language, etc., and skepticism has also deeply influenced later philosophers.

You're so lazy......I casually look for Benxi Philosophy and History, it's not a good habit to be a hand-out party

On the question of cause and effect, Hume disagrees with the idea that as long as one thing comes with another, there must be a connection between the two things, so that the latter accompanies the former; To summarize the problem, Hume argues that all human thinking activities can be divided into two kinds: the pursuit of "conceptual connections" and "actual truths".

In the theory of the ego, Hume points out that we usually assume that we are the same as we were five years ago, although we have changed in many ways, and we are the same person as we were five years ago; In practical rationality, most people would consider some actions to be "reasonable" than others.

For causal correlations, see his "Theory of Human Nature" and "Theory of Human Understanding".