Kant a priori and a posteriori

In Proglegomena, Kant discusses the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, being that a priori means that we know something independently of observation and a posteriori means that we know something through observation. These two forms of knowledge are the only ways in which humans can experience the world and learn things. His thinking of a priori knowledge is usually based upon mathematical truths that cannot be done in any other way.

Billiard Balls

Hume uses the example of the billiard ball to explain the process of cause and effect. He says if one sees one billiard ball rolling toward a second billiard ball, can it be predicted that the second billiard ball will move when hit? He says no since it has no indication that it should behave a certain way based on observation alone. Also, just because in the past you have seen the billiard balls bounce a certain way, it doesn't mean that you can infer that they will do the same action this time...

Locke's World...

How do we know that the world that all of our experience are based in actually exists? While I certainly feel attached to the outside world...if all of your experience is based on it, how do you know that it exists. Again I will use the Matrix as an example...how do you 'really' know that you are not just experiencing everything in your entire life inside your head or more accurately, your thoughts? Locke went to great pains to make sure we 'knew' that there are no innate ideas, so why is the world not something that is disproved as well?

Free Will - Locke

Locke in Book II, Chapter XXI talks a bit about will and its freedom. While we were discussing it in class...Dan brought up an interesting distinction between the two with regard to how there are options, but not really a choice. That the course of actions you took are the only ones you could have taken, because of the priorities that are there for yourself at the time. Once you disregard that, you are not yourself. Even choices that we make that appear to not be what we want to do or in our best interest are...like I might not want to write 24/48 blog posts, but if I dont I will not pass...so I bet I will take the action that pains me and write the posts, even though I would rather be asleep...

Induction

So why should the past causes and effects necessitate the future to behave the same way? Hume himself gives to the fact that these inductions of future performance have their uses in life but remains skeptical. Just because you observe an event occurring consistently, doest mean that given that the same circumstances will generate the same event...especially when you consider that there might be other variables in play that you cannot be aware of. Although even if we are not aware of them they would be a different playing field...in the end as annoying as it is, it would seem correct that you might happen upon the so called exception to the rule when dealing with an event. Heck, you might even be watching a miracle break the natural laws!

Humes Miracles

In section 10, Hume starts to discuss miracles and their improbability. The biggest issue I have found comes with his definition of miracles, basically that they go against the laws of nature. So what he is saying is that even though we have no reason to believe that the 'laws of nature' will hold true to anything, and might entirely reverse course on us at any given moment...because the past is no indication of the future effects...that we should believe them anyway and use them to debunk potential 'miracles'? Seems like he just doesn't want to believe them but doesn't have a very good reason so he pins it on something that he claims is not necessarily true...

Shades of Blue - Hume

The shades of Blue argument that Hume proposes seems like he goes against his own argument that he must have experienced something previously...and he doesn't care! What kind of philosopher is this guy, he pokes holes in his own beliefs and then walks away saying, 'Eh, that's not important'! If everything you have is supposed to have come from your impressions of the natural world, why can you sense the lacking of a color, taste, or musical note from a given scale of something that you haven't seen/heard/tasted before?

Hume's Matrix

Every time I start to read Hume, I start to think that this book and his thoughts had something to do with the Matrix. Something about the potential for the real world to not play out as we anticipate always has me thinking about the Matrix and a persons life existing almost exclusively within a computer system. This would then account for the fact that things can turn out differently than anticipated as the computer programmers might just come around and change the rules on you in mid sentence.

Causation - Hume

I think that Hume raises an strong point when he is talking about our knowledge on matters of fact, that they are tied to cause and effect. Just because an event has happened given a certain cause in the past doesn't mean that it needs to happened that way again or is necessary for the event to occur. Of course, logically it would certainly be a shock if something that has caused a given effect occurred without any difference for some extended stretch, would suddenly change, but it is possible. Of course the next part of the question needs to be...so? Knowing that there might be an unexpected effect instead of the intented effect, does it change the effect or the reason to take a certain action. I certainly don't think so...