I. Ryan:So I think that it might be helpful, to avoid confusion, to replace the phrase "external world" with "public realm" and the phrase "internal world" with "private realm".
So these two don't have any physical relationship with each other? How does this address the Feynman youtube?
wilderness: So these two don't have any physical relationship with each other?
So these two don't have any physical relationship with each other?
Private impressions have no physical relationship with public impressions.
wilderness: How does this address the Feynman youtube?
How does this address the Feynman youtube?
It doesn't. I should have been clearer, sorry. I am dividing my impressions into (a) internal, private, ones and (b) external, public, ones. I am not taking a stand on the question of whether the ones called "external" mirror any sort of reality beyond my perceptions.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan,
Now seeing that we've come to an understanding in the other thread you can see why Adam here might be having difficulty in understanding in what realists say. Remember when you asked me in one thread 'what should we do now'. And I at first asked 'pertaining to what', then answered 'help some people learn what an axiom is'. Cause it comes down to that, even in this thread it appears.
First:
wilderness: realists
realists
What is a "realist"?
I Ryan:
I don't think you realize the full extent of the difficulty involved in the Humean conception you are advocating.
The relevant question is not how we determine what belongs to the former category and what to the latter.
The relevant question is the relationship of the two categories.
You have tried to solve the problem by referring to the concept of "other people" as a third category.
But this third category is not available to you. You have not presented Hume's theory in terms of three categories, but in terms of two categories.
For the individual actor, another person is either an internal impression or an external impression; either a "private impression" or a "public impression".
For the individual actor, another person must be one of these, or, a third category must be established.
Regardless of the name given to the two categories, from the point of view of the individual actor, another person is classified as one of those.
Then the problem still remains as to the relationship between the two categories.
This problem is not solved by referring to an implicit third category called "other people."
Here is what Hume says about unexplained relations. I paraphrase:
"I cannot forbear adding to these reasonings an observation, which may, perhaps, be found of some importance. In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of an impression or perception, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, this impression, and that impression, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an internal impression or an external impression. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this internal impression, or external impression, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention wou'd subvert all the empirical systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv'd by reason."
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
It is a philosophical term used when in ontological reference. A realist asking "What exists?" and then proceeds to philosophically answer the question. You can see why Adam saying a realist isn't a praxeologist is very baffaling. Because would that mean praxeology doesn't exist? I don't know. I was baffle.
wilderness: It is a philosophical term used when in ontological reference. A realist asking "What exists?" and then proceeds to philosophically answer the question. You can see why Adam saying a realist isn't a praxeologist is very baffaling. Because would that mean praxeology doesn't exist? I don't know. I was baffle.
How is it possible to not be a realist, then?
I. Ryan:How is it possible to not be a realist, then?
Ask Adam.
Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution By I. Ryan in Political Theory
Adam Knott: But this third category is not available to you.
But this third category is not available to you.
Why is it not available to me?
******
OK I meant, by the terms of the original statement, explicitly stated, that there are two kinds of impressions. In this case, for Hume, another person must either be an internal impression or an external impression.
If not, then Hume must explain (as he asks others to do in the passage I quoted) how another person is different from his internal and external impressions.
For Hume, another person is either an internal impression or an external impression. If not, Hume has to explain why not, and how another person is different from those.
Once we assign another person to one of Hume's categories----internal impression or external impression----we will still want to know what distinguishes the two categories.
Adam Knott: OK I meant, by the terms of the original statement, explicitly stated, that there are two kinds of impressions. In this case, for Hume, another person must either be an internal impression or an external impression. If not, then Hume must explain (as he asks others to do in the passage I quoted) how another person is different from his internal and external impressions. For Hume, another person is either an internal impression or an external impression. If not, Hume has to explain why not, and how another person is different from those. Once we assign another person to one of Hume's categories----internal impression or external impression----we will still want to know what distinguishes the two categories.
Yeah, I deleted that response because I figured out what you meant.
"The common attributes which the elements of any of these classes possess are not physical attributes but must be something else."
(Hayek, "The Facts of the Social Sciences")