Skepticism is brutal. Hume doubts even more than Descartes- and then he just rolls with it. His refutations of Locke and Descartes are surprisingly well done- and so Hume is one of the most popular ph
Skepticism is brutal. Hume doubts even more than Descartes, and then he just rolls with it. His refutations of Locke and Descartes are surprisingly well done, and so Hume is one of the most popular philosophers to date (probably less than Locke, but maybe even more than Descartes).Locke has a great idea of primary and secondary qualities. There are actual things, and then those things produce sensations in us; primary qualities in the world produce the secondary qualities in us. However, what evidence do we have of the primary qualities? Why do we know that primary qualities exist? The secondary qualities are the only evidence we have… Hume’s arguments are that sensations are the only things we have. He thinks we don’t actually have knowledge of primary qualities, but only the secondary ones. This means we don’t have any knowledge of the world, but only what’s in our heads. This is because primary qualities are the actual things in the world, they are supposedly producing our sensations. How strong are Hume’s arguments? Does he successfully argue that our rational conception of the world is baseless? Is Locke successfully refuted?Make your own post and then comment on two classmates’ posts.