Thank you, I try:-)...
I think that Kant is a sufficient answer to Hume (of course, I may underrate Hume), which is why I ignored him....
As a practical matter, as long as we are reasonably sure that the phenomena are amenable to analysis, we don't much care why inference "works", only how to do it well. We are like the mechanic who doesn't care much for the theory of the internal combustion engine, but wants to soup up his rod...However, the Abyss matters too, and now that the taken- for- grantedness of our values and customs has been disturbed, we need to figure out how to proceed. For Nietzsche, we are free to encourage those values that embrace life, and therefore he encourages the elites to rebel against the democratic tide and create a world in their own image, proud, life- affirming, and full of aspiration to create. However, this is not sufficient, as even he recognizes in hoping for the rise of the Ubermensch, who can persist in the face of the knowledge of futility, embedded in the image of the Eternal Return...
Positivism is less serious than Nietzche, because it tries to shrug off the problem as a cultural relic, as if we can go on with no care for the meaning behind our striving...
Ultimately, I think that philosophy must acknowledge at least the possibility of an ultimate grounding for the cosmos, whether it be God, or the Logos (or Tao)... |
