When I read Hume, I did not really understand most of it but there was one major concept of his dialogue that stuck out to me and that was the conversational debate between the three parties itself. All three sides had very valid points with Philo being the pinacol of the skeptical viewpoint, Demea representing the church in its most customary, or orthodox, style, and Cleanthes who conveys the ideas of God being found in nature. Out of the three of them, I found Philo's argument to be the most sound as well as the victorious one as we see him systematically eliminate Demea's ideas to the point that he left in frustration while also essentially scaring Cleanthes into silence since he gives up because of Philo's lack of restraint. What is amazing to me is that the other two are fairly knowledgeable about their faith but they still will fall apart if prodded the right way with the right questions. Many people prepare for certain ideas and conceptual questions to be thrown their way when discussing what they believe in but if one can attack them, metaphorically speaking, with something that they are at best unfamiliar with and at worst desperately trying to avoid, then that person will undeniably upset the foundations of others beliefs or at the very least win them the argument. That is why approaching the things that you encounter during your day to day life with a skeptical lense will only help you in the end with any debates, questions, and even everyday conversations you might have.
Ps: I commented on Clabo and Eliza Colbert
Ps: I commented on Clabo and Eliza Colbert
Comments