<<

David Hume What questions would you ask if (1711-1776) (1724-1804) you were doing the of rather than just , ’s most Before Kant had about mathematics? famous , approached what Hume had to say about philosophical thinking in a causation, he assumed that Stephen Hawking recently upset sceptical way. Hume was philosophical thinking can put by saying that suspicious of that us in touch with how the had replaced philosophy attempt to discover deep is. But reading Hume led Kant as a way of answering all the through alone. Our to consider that he needed to important questions about philosophical thinking should be prove that philosophical ourselves and the world. Do you grounded in ; thinking was actually up to this think there are questions that however, once this constraint is job! In , Kant thought so science cannot answer, but that taken seriously, it turns out that hard about this issue that he philosophy could? we must be willing to admit we didn’t write a single thing for 10 Come up with an argument know a bit less than we thought. years, while trying to work out where the premises entail the A famous example here involves his answer. Finally, he conclusion, but where at least causation. We often claim that published The of Pure one premise is not true. we see one thing causing Reason, in which he put forward another. But what have we the that the world has to What is the best way to respond really seen? Hume says that all conform to the rules that our to the argument about free we really see is one and thought follows, because those on this leaflet? Which premise then another, and we never very rules spell out what it should be denied (if any), and actually experience any takes for there to be a world why? additional ‘causation’ that links present for us to think about in the two events. The idea of the first place. Whose approach to philosophy causation is just something our are you more sympathetic to, adds to what we Hume’s or Kant’s? experience.

INTRODUCTION TO How do we do philosophy? PHILOSOPHY MOOC Philosophers provide arguments, but not the kind of arguments that must be bad * Philosophy is an activity, and tempered or confrontational. Philosophical to understand what it is, the best arguments involve providing and thing to do is to engage with chains of reasoning that aim to philosophical problems, demonstrate the of some claim or questions and arguments. position. See below for an example * We can characterise argument. philosophy as the activity of   working out the right way to think about things. Premise 1: The way the world was in * Philosophy is closely related to the past controls exactly how it is in the What is many academic disciplines, since present, and how it will be in the future. they also aim at thinking about Philosophy? things in the right way. But we Premise 2: We are part of the world, can distinguish between doing just like everything else around us. those subjects and doing Is philosophy philosophy, by distinguishing Premise 3: We can’t control how things between the thinking that goes were in the past, or the way the past something anyone on in those subjects and the controls the present and the future. activity of stepping back to can do? Is it just a assess whether the methods and Conclusion: Therefore, we don’t of believing presuppositions of that way of control anything that happens in the thinking are the right ones. worldincluding all the things that we certain things, or is it * These points about philosophy think, say and do. an activity? How mean that philosophical does one learn how questions can arise almost Problem anywhere, can often concern The argument seems to be valid. If so, to do it well? giving or justifications this means that if the premises are true, for ways of thinking and acting then the conclusion must be true as well. that we take for granted, and can often be difficult to answer. Options * The question of what it means (i) Accept the conclusion. to think about things in the right (ii) Deny one of the premises. way is a difficult one (see Hume (iii) Deny that the argument is valid. and Kant).