- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 896
- Reaction score
- 112
- Age
- 56
- Location
- Midwest
- Website
- remus-shepherd.livejournal.com
My current WIP involves the search for The Meaning of Life. I have one for the story; a justifiable and reasoned answer to The Meaning of Life. I have a dramatized quest for it and a heroine who will find it. Narratively, there's only one thing I need to do in order to present this to the reader.
I need to destroy David Hume.
The answer to The Meaning of Life in my story depends upon inductive reasoning -- taking physical data and following its implications. Hume was the philosopher who excoriated the use of inductive reasoning in philosophical proofs, because physical data changes with time. I need a simple argument that will allow my readers to dismiss Hume and believe the Meaning that I'm giving them.
The argument I have in mind is something like this:
The sky is blue.
Tomorrow, there might be clouds and the sky will be gray. Or there might be smoke and the sky will be red.
But it is still true that at this moment, the sky is blue. So the inductive method can find truth if limited to a specific place and time.
As the universe changes, as the culture changes, and as human beings evolve, the answers might change. The inductive approach will need to be performed again.
But for right now, we have the answer.
I know that's simplistic, but I value clarity in my writing style. I'd probably deliver that as dialog, spread throughout two characters' conversation. Does it hang together well enough?
Since this is a humorous story, are there any humiliating anecdotes or inconsistencies with Hume or his work that you can share? I really want to pile on the guy. Only the central argument needs to be reasoned, the rest will be just to entertain.
I need to destroy David Hume.
The answer to The Meaning of Life in my story depends upon inductive reasoning -- taking physical data and following its implications. Hume was the philosopher who excoriated the use of inductive reasoning in philosophical proofs, because physical data changes with time. I need a simple argument that will allow my readers to dismiss Hume and believe the Meaning that I'm giving them.
The argument I have in mind is something like this:
The sky is blue.
Tomorrow, there might be clouds and the sky will be gray. Or there might be smoke and the sky will be red.
But it is still true that at this moment, the sky is blue. So the inductive method can find truth if limited to a specific place and time.
As the universe changes, as the culture changes, and as human beings evolve, the answers might change. The inductive approach will need to be performed again.
But for right now, we have the answer.
I know that's simplistic, but I value clarity in my writing style. I'd probably deliver that as dialog, spread throughout two characters' conversation. Does it hang together well enough?
Since this is a humorous story, are there any humiliating anecdotes or inconsistencies with Hume or his work that you can share? I really want to pile on the guy. Only the central argument needs to be reasoned, the rest will be just to entertain.