Re: Physics and philosophy

From: Andy Resnick (axr67_at_op.cwru.edu)
Date: 12/10/04 

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:40:11 -0500

robert j. kolker wrote:

>
>
> Andy Resnick wrote:
>
>>
>> As I understand it, philosophy changed radically after Locke. Once
>> Locke showed (quite conclusively) that causality cannot be derived
>> from a more fundamental principle,
>
>
> Lock or Hume? Hume showed that the notion of causality was empirical
> and not a priori. Can you cite the part of Locke you are referring to?

" An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
<http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/academic/digitexts/locke/understanding/title.html>"
(1690). I am under the impression Hume expanded and developed Locke's
ideas, from:

http://radicalacademy.com/phillocke.htm:

'Berkeley, first, and then Hume
<http://radicalacademy.com/phildavidhume1.htm> went all the way and
reduced being to the status of a subjective phenomenon. In so doing,
these two philosophers merely drew the logical conclusions of the
gnosiological phenomenalism proposed by John Locke.'

'Locke, however, in the analysis of the content of our consciousness,
has advanced the idea that the principle of causality is based on the
activity of thought and hence is valid only in the logical order and not
in the order of reality. According to Locke's theory of knowledge, we do
not know whether the principle of cause has validity also in the order
of external reality'

>
>
> You observation is correct. In English speaking countries interest in
> extensive metaphysical systems declined markedly post-Hume. The
> emphasis has been on epistemology, ethics, politics and psychology.
>
> Kant, in response to Hume's skeptical arguments pretty well put a
> stake through the heart of metaphysics as practiced by Aristotle and
> Plato.
>
> Bob Kolker 

-- 
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail

Relevant Pages