zoie asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 2 months ago

I need help with philosophy.?

I am using two opposing theories of perception and knowledge from David Hume and Thomas Reid, and I need help explaining what the implications of these two opposing theories might be in how you live your life.

4 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 months ago

    We all ned help with explaining philosophy, especially if its subjective-low-grade.

    Better to stick with the most logical...

    Source(s): implications for philosophy
    • peter m
      Lv 6
      2 months agoReport

      So let me explain this simpler. If both Reid & Hume's theories are one-of-the-same (= same TYPE) then they CANNOT BE COMPARED.... I gather from here that they are -though the source could well be mistaken- or that its interpretation is questionable. Either way that's impossible to say, again.

  • j153e
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Thomas Reid's modern-day counterpart is Dr. Maria Montessori, "The Absorbent Mind," and many other similar books..

    Both Reid and Montessori noted that the normal, healthy, happy child has an unlimited capacity for love, trust, and induction; both knew and Montessori fostered the development and strengthening of such love, trust, and induction as joy for creativity.

    David Hume tended to be more mechanical in his assessment of how people experience events: one is linked to the next, but prior links are not guarantees of similar future links. Montessori strengthens the Childlike recourse to inductive awareness of new combinations, new possibilities, if the present links are not following the pattern of the past links. Hume tended to be more suspicious, like Descartes, wondering if some "bread" would somehow not be like past "bread." This "fear of unknown" or even of "poisoning" (Hume's example with bread) tends to develop when good, secure environments for the growing child are not provided: "safe spaces" within which creative choices may be explored, with mother as boundary-provider.

    Thus Reid's inductive principle is both hopeful (knowing past links permits accurate prediction) and encouraging creative insight, while Hume's perspective is more cautious, focusing more on "black swans" and "monsters" (Taleb and Lakatos, respectively), to the extreme of positing that there is no certainty regarding knowing causation.

    So, Reid is more optimistic, open to induction, ready to note new positives, and Hume is more cautious, ready to suspect and detect new negatives. As both Reid and Hume were Scots, a modern-day Scot, John Bell, of Bell's inequality theorem, provides a well-proven (to 242 sigma (standard deviations)) reproof discounting Hume's notion of ~ magical local hidden variables changing excellent wine into plain old water. Thus, per the 242 sigma standard, only non-local hidden variable influence is practically possible, i.e., a Cartesian "evil demon" must change the excellent wine into plain water only from a distance--which is of course totally non-inductive,

    a kind of perverse miracle or magic trick. The general phrase which John Bell coined is FAPP, "for all practical purposes," in effect limiting Hume's suspicions to way-out-of-the-box influence (btw, this non-local "hidden variable" or "rabbit in the hat" is known to be occurring at quantum levels).

    But for all practical purposes, Reid and Dr. Montessori carry the day, regarding normal, healthy progress, much as Abraham Maslow documented for healthy human beings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_o...

    Related re Bell's inequality theorem: https://phys.org/news/2015-08-loopholes-entangleme...

  • 2 months ago

    Philosophy is not necessarily about the answers tho, it is mostly about asking the right questions.

    People and ideas spoken by someone else do not necessarily relate to you, your personality, you desedion making process, your life in most ways.

    What schools of thought you adhere to is vital yes and having and opposing view to that will help somewhat. But to base one's entire reality on just a single ideological conflict is more damaging (just look at religion and notable its fanatical followers).

    Instead do as the wise men mentioned no doubt hoped to inspire you to do in the first place: question, question yourself, question their statements, question what are your limits and desires.

    Out of that you will eventually have a better understanding of yourself, maybe to a point when you will no longer need to use their theses as platform for internal struggles of yourself.

    Philosophy is art of the question. ASK ones whom know you most.

  • 2 months ago

    Open a book .......

    • zoie2 months agoReport

      I have read about them in my philosophy book, but I am having trouble comprehending exactly what the question is asking.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.