> According to Hume, there really isn't any "room for
> doubting" because assocaitions are so automatic; there is
> only room for doubt if one supposes that reason is
> infallible, or that "demonstrations of reason" are conducted
> through an infallible faculty, which is precisely the view
> he is trying to disestablish by posing a 'skeptical
> solution'. I am only guilty of assuming your familiarity
> with the problem.
Joe,
I don't think I am following here. I just finished book 1 of the Treatise
and I got no sense that Hume was trying to disestablish anything but reason
itself. I certainly didn't get the part about no room for doubting;
rather, I got the sense that there is no room for beleiving. Am I missing
the skeptical solution.
Jeff
> doubting" because assocaitions are so automatic; there is
> only room for doubt if one supposes that reason is
> infallible, or that "demonstrations of reason" are conducted
> through an infallible faculty, which is precisely the view
> he is trying to disestablish by posing a 'skeptical
> solution'. I am only guilty of assuming your familiarity
> with the problem.
Joe,
I don't think I am following here. I just finished book 1 of the Treatise
and I got no sense that Hume was trying to disestablish anything but reason
itself. I certainly didn't get the part about no room for doubting;
rather, I got the sense that there is no room for beleiving. Am I missing
the skeptical solution.
Jeff