Any Philosophers In Here Vol. Hume

[jordannkobe1133]

Can anyone explain Hume's Copy Principle and Separability Principle?

 

[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

 

[the north west]

no homework help

 

[eebs7eez]

Originally Posted by youngmoney

your welcome

 

[stonedface]

Originally Posted by eeBS7eez

Originally Posted by youngmoney

your welcome

 

[ogbobbyjohnson773]

Originally Posted by eeBS7eez

Originally Posted by youngmoney

your welcome

He meant it as in, it's his welcome/entrance into the answer, "your welcome".

 

[jordannkobe1133]

Thanks for you're help lol

 

[youngmoney]

now i wouldnt copy that word for word...you might get busted and a stoneface to eeBS7eez

 

[stonedface]

you're welcome

 

[orange soda man]

Originally Posted by OGbobbyjohnson773

Originally Posted by eeBS7eez

Originally Posted by youngmoney

your welcome

He meant it as in, it's his welcome/entrance into the answer, "your welcome".

 

[atlien seeko]

I'm more of an unorthodox kind of philosopher...

 

[brettthejett]

Philosophy > life itself

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by brettTHEjett

Philosophy > life itself

That is illogical.

 

[deletedelete]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by brettTHEjett

Philosophy > life itself

That is illogical.

one can argue that philosophy is life itself.

 

[Master Zik]

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

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 SiMPLYDiMPLY

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by brettTHEjett

Philosophy > life itself

That is illogical.

one can argue that philosophy is life itself.

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.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Master Zik

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

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 SiMPLYDiMPLY

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by brettTHEjett

Philosophy > life itself

That is illogical.

one can argue that philosophy is life itself.

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.

Indeed. Nothing can be greater than something itself is reliant on.

 

[darthska]

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)*

 

[hannybee]

Dang, some of your guys' answers remind me of my philosophy class. It was pretty interesting, but I would never get into it in real depth. I'dseriously go depressed.

 

[whateversclever]

I'm only a philosopher when I'm

Other than that, lifes to short to be overthinking things

Ill do that stuff when I'm old and have nothing better to do.