The Irrational Foundations of Conservatism: David Hume
Some conservatives argue that David Hume was the first true conservative – see the link. He argued that causation does not exist, that inductive reasoning was not valid, and that rational ethics was impossible (is-ought problem).
Conservatism is an attack on reason, the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, Locke and the founding principles of the United States. It is time that conservatives admit that their whole philosophy is based on irrationalism.
Conservatism is an attack on reason, the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, Locke and the founding principles of the United States. It is time that conservatives admit that their whole philosophy is based on irrationalism.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
b) The only right that people give up to live in society is the right to retaliatory force (meaning force not in the use of immediate self defense. This does not imply the ability to stop people from traveling.
d) In free country most property may be private, but not all land is necessarily privately owned. Do not confuse property rights with the object, in this case land.
Private property can never be used to imprison someone. Property rights are not unlimited, they can be used to exclude as long as they do not unreasonable limit access travel between other people's property. If that were not the case then the transcontinental railroads could have forced everyone to travel by ocean to go north or south of their lines.
You have clear not thought about what property rights are how they are created and what they cover. Here are some articles on point http://hallingblog.com/2015/09/20/the... and http://hallingblog.com/2009/12/14/pro...
Your argument fails and it is an attempt to suggest that Natural Rights can be used to imprison people, which is absurd.
a) Natural rights apply to all people.
b) A person forfeits some or all of these natural rights if that person violates the natural rights of others.
c) Property ownership is a natural right.
d) In a free country, all property is private, including property along the border of that country.
e) The government of a free country can detain someone if there is evidence that person has performed a criminal act that violates the rights of others.
f) In a free country, trespassing is a criminal act that violates the rights of others..
g) Therefore, anyone crossing the border into a free country unannounced and uninvited is performing a criminal act.
h) Therefore, the government can detain such persons.
i) Protecting private property from trespass is a legitimate function of government.
j) Therefore, it is a legitimate function of government to secure the border of a free country in order to protect the property rights of those on its side of the border.
k) There is no “right to travel” or “right to immigrate” that overrides the above considerations.
For instance, do you think muslims are not people? Do you think natural rights only apply to certain people? Make an actual argument.
your idea of the appropriate precision -- damning faith at
every opportunity, castigating those who do not quote chapter
and verse carefully enough -- you can deal with it. . I prefer
to try to stay positive and to try to lift all the boats rather than
spending so much time focused on sinking some of them.
my objectivist discussion deals with actual conservatism,
not David Hume's or Edmund Burke's. . history is wonderful,
but today's problems are rather unique in its flow.
and if I am a conservative, it is according to my definition
and no one else's. . mine is simple::: avoid waste.
any influence, whether voluntary or imposed, which causes
the waste of productive resources -- in a net gain sense --
should be avoided.
doesn't that make sense as a view of conservation?
that's where conservative starts, for me -- not Hume or Burke
or any arcane history which our populace ignores.
and "you're welcome" refers to the upvotes which you deign. -- j
.
Whether you're a Troll or not as I described above is for you to deal with. As I stated, I made no direct allegation. Again, I have absolutely no interest in your claims of being an Objectivist. I simply look at the content of your Posts, comments, and replies.
documents.routledge-interactive.s3.am......
Hume's investigation of causation occurs in the context of thinking about what and how we can know about ... The idea of causation is the idea of a relation between the two objects or events. We must use .... Hume's theory does not deny this.
SparkNotes: David Hume (1711–1776): An Enquiry ...
www.sparknotes.com › ... › David Hume (1711–1776)
But Hume argues that assumptions of cause and effect between two events are not necessarily real or true. It is possible to deny causal connections without ...
Hume's Analysis of Causality
www.loyno.edu/~folse/hUMEQUES.html
QUESTIONS ABOUT HUME'S ANALYSIS OF CAUSALITY. 1. What is a ... The test for whether any statement expresses a relation of ideas is to try to deny it.
David Hume Philosophy: Explaining Hume's Problem of ...
www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Dav...
Explaining philosopher David Hume's problem of causation, necessary ... I deny a providence, you say, and supreme governor of the world, who guides the ...
David Hume - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H...
Jump to Induction and causation - The cornerstone of Hume's epistemology is the problem of ... However, while denying the possibility of knowing the ...
Now it get's interesting. This is my standard google query 'Denial of Causality Hume'
Much more in the way of immediate answers and about half seemed to contradict the other half with Sparknotes
giving the Hume in one lesson quickie but look at the last two....In any case...I'm going back to objectivity after a brief run
at Hume which made me remember why he was not one of my favorites when I first took up philosophy as a way not
to make a living.
However for jdg here's your sources and seemingly is ought has become did didn't.
[PDF]Hume on causation - Routledge
documents.routledge-interactive.s3.am......
Hume's investigation of causation occurs in the context of thinking about what and how we can know about ... The idea of causation is the idea of a relation between the two objects or events. We must use .... Hume's theory does not deny this.
SparkNotes: David Hume (1711–1776): An Enquiry ...
www.sparknotes.com › ... › David Hume (1711–1776)
But Hume argues that assumptions of cause and effect between two events are not necessarily real or true. It is possible to deny causal connections without ...
Hume's Analysis of Causality
www.loyno.edu/~folse/hUMEQUES.html
QUESTIONS ABOUT HUME'S ANALYSIS OF CAUSALITY. 1. What is a ... The test for whether any statement expresses a relation of ideas is to try to deny it.
Kant and Hume on Causality (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-...
Jun 4, 2008 - Kant famously attempted to “answer” what he took to be Hume's skeptical view of causality, most explicitly in the Prolegomena to Any Future ...
Critical History of Western Philosophy - Page 364 - Google Books Result
https://books.google.com.mx/books?isb...
Y. Masih - 1999
For this reason Hume denied the possibility of empirical knowledge, and, in the ... attacked the empirical explanation of substance or causality given by Hume.
Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They ...
https://books.google.com.mx/books?isb...
Norman L. Geisler, Paul K. Hoffman - 2006 - Religion
Agnosticism and God Hume denied both the traditional use of causality and analogy as a means of knowing the theistic God. Causality is based on custom and ...
Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial ...
https://books.google.com.mx/books?isb...
Norman L. Geisler, Peter Bocchino - 2000 - Religion
... upon repeated conjunctions—not observed causal connections.8 We must note, however, that Hume did not actually deny the principle of causality itself.
Really? Your response didn’t address any of the points in my post. Please explain the “basic concept” of a right to travel over someone else’s property in a country where all property is private, as proposed by Ayn Rand.
So you're a math tutor besides a philosopher and author? Here's a story: Many years ago I had to drop out of college for family reasons. I was holding a QPA of 4.0 in all my courses, which were heavy in analog and digital electronics at the time. When I dropped I was 3/4 through my first calculus course and was holding 100s on all quizzes and scored 98 on the mid term. Anyway, a couple of months ago I purchased a 28 lecture DVD calculus course, which I plan to finish when I get home from my current trip. Wife thinks I'm nuts, but the stuff fascinates the hell out of me and I want to check it out before I go into the ground.
a) Natural rights apply to all people
b) The 4th and 5th amendment apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the US. These constitutional rights do not end (are not surrendered) if you cross the border (a border). Only in time of war and only for people who are the enemy are these suspended.
c) People who practice islam are still people. We are not at war with all of islam or the middle east.
d) A free government can only detain someone (use force) if they have probably cause they are a criminal. (Innocent until proven guilty) Note this means that we cannot play Minority Report and stop people because they might be criminals or because they have thought something criminal. This can be suspended in times of war.
e) Thus the only legal and moral way we can stop muslims from crossing into the US is to declare war on them.
f) Rand was clear that any free country has the right to declare war on any non-free country at anytime, but they do not have the obligation to do so. I agree with Rand, so I am not opposed to declaring war on say ISIS in principle, however I am opposed because I do not think it is in the US’s interest in general, nor do I think it is in the interests of anyone on this email chain as I will explain below.
i) One of Rand’s qualifications was that only a free country could declare war morally and I find it problematic whether the US is a free country at this point.
ii) War always increases the power of the government. I do not want to give more power to Obama or any likely future president.
iii) A war with Islam is unlikely to be successful under the present circumstance. The US could easily win any military war with any Islamic group or all of them, but since we do not even believe in our own values – we did not require freedom of religion, speech, and assembly when Afghanistan’s or Iraq’s constitutions were rewritten – then we will lose the peace as has happened already in Afghanistan and Iraq
iv) The muslim’s do not pose a threat to the US militarily
v) The terrorist threat is overblown. They have caused a small number of deaths, miniscule compared to other causes of death in the US. The biggest damage caused by 911 was caused by the Patriot Act, the TSA, Homeland security.
vi) Islam is less of a threat than the environmental movement to our life, liberty, property and our constitution.
Load more comments...