Re: Hume

From: Ian Wright (ian_paul_wright@HOTMAIL.COM)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2003 - 18:58:24 EST

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
>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
>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
supposed to overcome.


The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 00:00:01 EST