- 97
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2007
Can anyone explain Hume's Copy Principle and Separability Principle?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by youngmoney
your welcome
He meant it as in, it's his welcome/entrance into the answer, "your welcome".
Originally Posted by OGbobbyjohnson773
He meant it as in, it's his welcome/entrance into the answer, "your welcome".
one can argue that philosophy is life itself.Originally Posted by kix4kix
Originally Posted by brettTHEjett
Philosophy > life itself
That is illogical.
My question would be what were the simple impressions that brought him to the simple ideas that led to this complex one.Originally Posted by youngmoney
2. The Copy Principle
- Hume puts forward the hypothesis that "All our simple ideas in their first appearance are deriv'd from simple impressions, which are correspondent to them, and which they exactly represent" (p. 11). However, he allows that there can be complex ideas which do not have corresponding impressions, but these themselves consist of simple ideas which are derived in the above manner (p. 10).
- He presents two kinds of evidence-first that blind and deaf people have no ideas of colors or sounds. Second, that if we intend to convey to someone of an idea of an external object we present them the corresponding impression.
- Hume thinks this principle applies to our philosophical concepts of space, time, and causality, substance and person. In the rest of Book 1 he will seek to find the impressions from which these ideas are derived. In his Abstract he writes that "when he suspects that any philosophical term has no idea annexed to it (as is too common) he always asks from what impression that idea is derived? And if no impression can be produced, he concludes that the term is altogether insignificant" (paragraph 7).
your welcome
Even so, there is no logical way that the previous statement makes any sense. In fact if possible it's even more illogical. If a personbelieved that, saying philosophy > life would be redundant.Originally Posted by SiMPLYDiMPLY
one can argue that philosophy is life itself.Originally Posted by kix4kix
That is illogical.Originally Posted by brettTHEjett
Philosophy > life itself
Originally Posted by Master Zik
My question would be what were the simple impressions that brought him to the simple ideas that led to this complex one.Originally Posted by youngmoney
2. The Copy Principle
- Hume puts forward the hypothesis that "All our simple ideas in their first appearance are deriv'd from simple impressions, which are correspondent to them, and which they exactly represent" (p. 11). However, he allows that there can be complex ideas which do not have corresponding impressions, but these themselves consist of simple ideas which are derived in the above manner (p. 10).
- He presents two kinds of evidence-first that blind and deaf people have no ideas of colors or sounds. Second, that if we intend to convey to someone of an idea of an external object we present them the corresponding impression.
- Hume thinks this principle applies to our philosophical concepts of space, time, and causality, substance and person. In the rest of Book 1 he will seek to find the impressions from which these ideas are derived. In his Abstract he writes that "when he suspects that any philosophical term has no idea annexed to it (as is too common) he always asks from what impression that idea is derived? And if no impression can be produced, he concludes that the term is altogether insignificant" (paragraph 7).
your welcome
Even so, there is no logical way that the previous statement makes any sense. In fact if possible it's even more illogical. If a person believed that, saying philosophy > life would be redundant.Originally Posted by SiMPLYDiMPLY
one can argue that philosophy is life itself.Originally Posted by kix4kix
That is illogical.Originally Posted by brettTHEjett
Philosophy > life itself
kix4kix:
Nothing can be greater than something itself is reliant on.
That depends on a few factors, one of which is potential. If we're factoring potential into consideration and retrospect is already in place,then something can be greater than something else that it is reliant on.
Imagine a newborn child who will grow up to discover the cures for all major illnesses. I'm sure that a couple hundred years from now, in retrospect, mostwould agree that newborn child is greater than his mother, because of the potential he'll eventually live up to. Yet that newborn is completely reliant onit's mother.
*waits for other people to come in and try to sound smart, too (and yes, that's exactly what 'm doing)*