<p>Magellan:</p>
<p>You better hope your app reader has no interest in philosophy whatsoever. </p>
<p>You write, “For example, one may observe that when it rains there are black clouds overhead, but it is not correct for one to assume that black clouds necessarily accompany rainstorms.”</p>
<p>Anybody who knows anything about Hume’s work with causation, would know that this is NOT what he meant. You have replaced his condemnation of logic with some type of pseudo-reason.</p>
<p>By the end, you write things that would have Hume rolling over in his grave, and you do not justify this apparent rejection of Hume.</p>
<p>“If we adopt these critical techniques, our ascent towards understanding will be a steadfast and successful endeavor. At first, the light of truth will appear to us a mere sliver penetrating a crack in the wall of ignorance. But if we chip away at the crack with acute minds, we will gradually achieve our highest potential–genuine knowledge.”</p>
<p>This is EXACTLY NOT Hume. Hume followed the doctrine of Philosophical Skepticism. He did NOT believe in man’s ability to achieve, “geniune knowledge.”</p>
<p>You also write:
“In making deductions we must learn to assess the entire body of evidence and only draw inferences that are appropriate given the breadth and depth of that information.”</p>
<h2>This is crap. Where does this stuff come from?</h2>
<p>That said…a lot of your word choices seem forced. For example:
-“local bulk food purveyor”
-“radiant yellow barrel”
-“Brobdingnagian ballpark beauty”</p>
<h2>The last two are especially absurd; they smack of an over zealous Thesaurus-monkey.</h2>
<p>Also, I don’t know too many people who can do the following in their head:
(4.5)<em>(pi)^2</em>(18) (assuming a perfect cylinder)</p>
<h2>So this: “The shopper’s subconscious equating would follow something like this: a one-and-a-half foot tall jar of mustard with a diameter of nine inches has a volume of about one-thousand-one-hundred-and-forty-five cubic inches,” is quite unjustified. </h2>
<p>Your “essay” boils down to a faulty restatement of Hume. The only idea of value is limited to a mere sentence. You write,</p>
<p>“Egotism, unfortunately, impedes our ability to think and act prudently. We often assume that our judgments are accurate, despite insufficient proof.”</p>
<p>This is the only original thought in your entire essay. (One should note: this idea is original to Hume, not others.) If you have briefly done a bit on Hume’s theory, then taken this idea (man’s reluctance to embrace Skepticism due to his ego), and expounded upon it, you might have had a valuable essay.</p>
<p>P.S. I don’t understand why you chose to write about Hume. His stance on causation puts him manifestly against the University of Chicago’s “Life of the mind.”</p>
<p>Faithfully Submitted,
Cesare de Borgia</p>