Michael Huemer apparently does not think much of the argument of Berkley that is supposed to show we only know what is in our minds. It seems to me he must not think much of the argument of Hume that is supposed to show that all that reason knows is what can be derived by definitions. (note 1) Even Kant did not like that much and showed that in fact we know by pure reason things that can not be derived by definitions like the fact that two lines can not enclose a figure while three lines can.
So he expands the role of reason.
This seems to me to be a lot like Hegel who does not assume any automatic limit to reason except that it needs a kind of back and forth process to make progress towards the Absolute Idea.
That is a bit different than Plotinus who starts with Logos [Divine Reason and comes down to this world. Hegel starts in this world "Being" and works up towards the Divine Idea.
(note 1) Actually Hume never gives an argument for this. He just assumes it since he learned Euclid which is based on that idea. You learn things in geometry based on the beginning axioms and you deny what comes out contradictory. But in spite of repeating this often he never gives and argument for it.[As pointed out by Bryan Caplan)
So he expands the role of reason.
This seems to me to be a lot like Hegel who does not assume any automatic limit to reason except that it needs a kind of back and forth process to make progress towards the Absolute Idea.
That is a bit different than Plotinus who starts with Logos [Divine Reason and comes down to this world. Hegel starts in this world "Being" and works up towards the Divine Idea.
(note 1) Actually Hume never gives an argument for this. He just assumes it since he learned Euclid which is based on that idea. You learn things in geometry based on the beginning axioms and you deny what comes out contradictory. But in spite of repeating this often he never gives and argument for it.[As pointed out by Bryan Caplan)
