Assignment First

essay修改:休谟和里德对人类感知物体的比较分析

大卫·休谟和托马斯·里德是伟大的哲学家之一,他们对我们的感官活动、对它们的存在和有效性的解释,以及独立于人类感知的物体的存在做出了贡献。

休谟提出,物体的存在只是通过我们的知觉,而不是其他。休谟和里德的主要思想和论点似乎是对立的,他们的主张与其说相似,不如说是不同。休谟否认存在于我们的知觉之外的不同对象的信念,并声称它们仅仅是观念和印象,因此它们是不可靠和无效的。里德声称,一个物体让人感到的物理体验,就像刀割手导致流血一样,足以证明物质物体独立存在,并具有压倒我们的力量。休谟似乎还假定了因果关系,并驳斥了理性的因素来支持对物质对象的信仰,但里德认为,一切都始于最微小的假设,没有这些假设,任何哲学都不可能产生。


essay修改 :休谟和里德对人类感知物体的比较分析

休谟似乎倾向于用演绎分析来反驳物质独立客体的信仰,而里德则依赖于有知觉的众生对物质客体的客观感知和身体体验。两者都有令人信服的论点和命题,但都需要从更广泛的层面和影响因素进行深入的分析,这超出了本文的范围。里德通过感性和感性的联系,对不同物体的存在给出了明确的结论,而休谟在演绎分析中也使用了同样的工具。这仍然是一个关于一个压倒另一个的问题,但在感觉、知觉科学和对独立于人类存在的物质对象的存在的信仰中,两者都是强大的工具和知识提供者。


essay修改 :休谟和里德对人类感知物体的比较分析

David Hume and Thomas Reid are among great philosophers who have contributed to the idea of the operations of our senses, the explanation of their existence and validity, and the existence of objects independent of human perception.
Hume proposes that the existence of objects is only through our sense of perception, and not otherwise. Hume and Reid are seem to be opposing in their primary ideas and arguments, and are more dissimilar than similar in their propositions. Hume disowns the belief that distinct objects exist outside of our perceptions and claims them as mere ideas and impressions, hence their unreliability and invalidity. Reid claims that the physical experience that one object makes one feel, as in a knife cutting a hand and causing one to bleed, is a good enough proof that material objects exists independently and have the power to overpower us. Hume also seem to assume the correlation of cause and effect and refute the element of reason to support the belief in material objects, but Reid believes that everything starts with the minutest assumptions without which any philosophy can never arise.


essay修改 :休谟和里德对人类感知物体的比较分析

Hume seems to be inclining towards a deductive analysis in the refutation of the belief of material distinct objects, whereas Reid relies in the objective perception and the physical experience of sentient beings with material objects. Both have compelling arguments and propositions, but a thorough analysis of both is required through a broader plane and influential factors, which is out of the scope of this paper. Reid provides definitive conclusions about the existence of distinct objects through perceptive and sensual connection, the same instruments which Hume eliminates in his deductive analysis. It remains a question mark about the overpowering of one on the other, but both remain powerful tools and knowledge providers in the science of sensations, perceptions, and the belief in the existence of material objects independent of human existence.