David Hume is an empiricist who believes that all of our knowledge stems from experience. I did a summary of parts of his book here.

There are two interesting results from this paper that lead to an intriguing interpretation. The first result is that believing in induction—reasoning based on experience (as opposed to deduction, which is reasoning based on our mind alone, like in mathematics, where you don’t need sensory experiences)—is unjustified. That is a wild claim because we rely on induction all the time in our daily lives: the cereal is empty, so someone must have eaten it; my street is blocked, so there must have been an accident; my room looks trashed, so someone must have come in and done it. All these, and many more, are examples of induction. Yet Hume argues that believing in induction is completely unjustified, and I think his book presents this argument quite convincingly.

The second result is that we are unjustified in believing that cause and effect will hold in the future. This means we can’t know that, in a few minutes, gravity won’t suddenly invert and make everything fly upward for no reason, or that a unicorn won’t suddenly appear in front of us.

Both the rejection of induction and the uncertainty of cause and effect follow directly from Hume’s empiricism. However, these conclusions seem so counterintuitive—so absurd—that this can be interpreted as an example of reductio ad absurdum: if a theory leads to absurd results, then the theory itself must be flawed.

In a way, by highlighting these positions and their absurdity, Hume undermines his own philosophy—reducing it to the absurd and untenable.

What is Hume’s response to this? Not my problem. Instead of reconsidering whether this might invalidate empiricism, he simply accepts it.

Of all existing things some are in our power, and others are not in our power. Within our power are opinion, aim, desire, aversion, and, in a word, everything which is our own doing. Things not in our power include the body, property, reputation, office, and, in a word, everything which is not our own doing.

What we can control naturally is not governed, restricted or constrained by others; what we can’t control is naturally governed, restricted and constrained by others. If you mistake what’s constrained for what’s free, and what others control for what you control, you won’t get your way, you’ll be unhappy.

But if you take for your own only that which is your own, and view what belongs to others just as it really is, then no one will ever compel you, no one will restrict you, you will find fault with no one, you will accuse no one, you will do nothing against your will; no one will hurt you, you will not have an enemy, nor will you suffer any harm.

Seek at once, therefore, to be able to say to every unpleasing impression, ‘You are but an impression, and not at all what you seem to be’. And then examine it by those rules which you have; and first and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are within our own power, or those which are not; and if it concerns anything beyond our power, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.

~ Epictetus, The Enchiridion Chapter 1

Observe yourselves thus in your actions and you will find out to what sect of the philosophers you belong. You will find that most of you are Epicureans, some few Peripatetics, but these without any backbone; for wherein do you in fact show that you consider virtue equal to all things else, or even superior?
But as for a Stoic, show me one if you can! Where, or how? You can show me thousands who recite the petty arguments of the Stoics. Yes, but do these same men recite the petty arguments of the Epicureans any less well? Do they not handle with the same precision the petty arguments of the Peripatetics also? Who, then, is a Stoic?
Show me a man who though sick is happy, though in danger is happy, though dying is happy, though condemned to exile is happy, though in disrepute is happy. Show him! By the gods, I would fain see a Stoic!
But you cannot show me a man completely so fashioned; then show me at least one who is becoming so fashioned, one who has begun to tend in that direction; do me this favour; do not begrudge an old man the sight of that spectacle which to this very day I have never seen.
Show him to me! But you cannot. Why, then, do you mock your own selves and cheat everybody else?

And you come to learn and study these Things. Why then do not you finish your Work, if you have the proper Intention; and besides the Intention, the proper Qualifications? What do we yet lack?
Cannot the matter be taught? It can. Is it, then, not under our control? It is the only thing in the whole world that is under our control.
Wealth is not under our control, nor health, nor fame, nor, in a word, anything else except the right use of external impressions.
Why, then, do you not finish the work? Tell me the reason. For it lies either in me, or in you, or in the nature of the thing. The thing itself is possible and is the only thing that is under our control. Consequently, then, the fault lies either in me, or in you, or, what is nearer the truth, in us both. What then? Well then, shall we now, at last, bring this Intention along with us? Let us let bygones be bygones. Only let us begin, and, take my word for it, you shall see.

~ Epictetus, Book II Chapter 19

A classic claymation film—the most impressive part is that everything you can see is handmade. If you look closely at the figurines, you can even see fingerprints. 7/10.

The story and setting are poorly written and cringe-worthy. For example, near the end, there is a 10-minute exposition dump that, if removed, wouldn’t change anything. Or the neckbeard Reddit warrior who idolizes Elon Musk (which didn’t age very well) and has as many conspiracies as grains of sand on the beach ends up saving the world—how great! You watch the movie for one purpose only: the VFX, which are spectacular. 5/10.