Talk:David Hume/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is-Ought and Rothbard

Some member of the Rothbard cult has wandered along and inserted Rothbard's opinion of Hume's Is-Ought argument here. This should just be cut -- Rothbard is not a significant moral philosopher or Hume scholar, and there is no reason his random thoughts on this and that should be littered throughout Wikipedia. GeneCallahan (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Notability and 'Influenced'

Without meaning and disrespect to Iain King (I'm sure he meets notability criteria for wikipedia itself) I wonder whether there might be a question of notability criteria for the section of the profile which lists influenced by Hume. After all, Hume is an important enough philosopher that he influenced almost every subsequent philosopher or a naturalist or empiricist bent. Any Hume scholar, who has chosen to write on other topics elsewhere, is influenced by Hume. It is strange therefore to see a philosopher only a decade or so older than I am whom and I have never heard after six years of studying the discipline, being listed as someone Hume has influenced. Not because I doubt this is true but simply because I think that if you listed everybody who has ever written a philosophical work who has been influenced by Hume you would have a list of several hundred entries. Therefore you have to make a judgement call as to who makes the cut and who does not. Freddie Ayer clearly deserves to be on. Given the wide significance of his work, I would say Blackburn has a strong case. Despite being an enormous admirer of Dennett I would question whether Dennett does principally because his influence is indirect through Wittgenstein, Ryle and especially Quine. But Iain King, so far as I can tell, is an interesting guy who has written some popular philosophy work but for that reason has no greater claim to be on than, say, AC Grayling or Julian Baggini who also count Hume as a significant influence. 86.31.79.15 (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Utilitarianism

Several editors noted this article was too long. I suggest these sections are not appropriate to a biographical piece, but leave cutting them to others!

2.1 Causation 2.2 Problem of induction [these should simply relate Hume's view concisely]

2.3 Solutions to the Problem 2.4 The self: bundles and beliefs [these do not belong here]

However, here's a cut we could make:

""It was probably Hume who, along with his fellow members of the Scottish Enlightenment, first advanced the idea that the explanation of moral principles is to be sought in the utility they tend to promote. Hume's role is not to be overstated; it was the Irish-born Francis Hutcheson who coined the utilitarian slogan "greatest happiness for the greatest number". But it was from reading Hume's Treatise that Jeremy Bentham first felt the force of a utilitarian system: he "felt as if scales had fallen from [his] eyes". Nevertheless, Hume's proto-utilitarianism is a peculiar one from our perspective. He doesn't think that the aggregation of cardinal units of utility provides a formula for arriving at moral truth. On the contrary, Hume was a moral sentimentalist and, as such, thought that moral principles could not be intellectually justified. Some principles simply appeal to us and others don't; and the reason utilitarian moral principles do appeal to us is that they promote our interests and those of our fellows, with whom we sympathize. ""

A section beginning 'probably' is not very promising, and in any case this seems to be quite confusing. The existing section on Hume's ethicsexplains his views better. I have moved a small section of this paragraph to that. The rest I suggest should be dropped. It seems to have more to do with Bentham than Hume!

I have also clarified that it is Smith, not Hume is is the primary mover for the theory of sentiments.Hume today tends to get more credit than he deserves!

Dremeraldgibb (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A few comments to make.

I wrote the bits on Induction and Causation. The reason it now contains a lot on disputes in secondary literature about what Hume meant is because it was criticised and bastardised when I simply wrote what Hume thought, with only links to Hume's work. It was attacked as pretending to be entirely original work, not grounded in contemporary interpretation. I would have preferred to confine myself to "simply relat[ing] Hume's view concisely", but I was ganged up on for doing that.

I would like to know why you don't think that Hume's views on the self, or arguments about solutions to (arguably the most important epistemological question there is) the problem of induction should not be included in an article which explains Hume's main contributions to philosophical thought...

Certainly, go ahead and cut the paragraph you quote. I didn't write it and it is quite awful.

And Smith and Hume both derived their sentamentalist ethical theories ultimately from Francis Hutcheson. So if we're splitting hairs about the origins of the theory... But if you mean who did most to make and impact on contemporary thought about the relationship between ethics and human attitudes and sentiments, trust me that most of the contemporary literature takes its leave from Hume (I've read a great deal on this).

J Arnold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.212.45 (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the utilitarian phrase "greatest happiness for the greatest number" is more credited to Bentham than Hume. Of coures, they did have many interactions with each other so both should have credit. The phrase itself for Bentham most likely originated from either Presly or Beccaria.

On Bentham's wiki page, incidentally it doesn't say much about Hume... not at all actually! Perhaps the paragraph could be clarified and moved to Bentham's page if you do not think it appropriate for Hume's? 72.89.205.227 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

falsification of bundle theories?

Bundle theories are not as easily falsified as the author claims. First of all, it is arguable whether it is "logical" that two persons can really have the exact same sensations and memory of sensations. Even if this is possible, bundle theorists can then argue that this at most amounts to the fact that these two selves are identical. Bundle theories' claim may lead to the conclusion that each "self" maps onto one particular set of sensations. However, it does not follow that one particular set of sensation can only map onto one single "self". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.169.122 (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This section is clearly the authors take on bundle theory - not Hume's. There are two comments in separate places here on the talk page which bring this concern up and which have not been addressed. Consequently I've flagged it as not a neutral point of view.

User:SyTaffel —Preceding comment was added at 15:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst some modern philosophers, e.g. Derek Parfit, maintain sophisticated versions of the Bundle Theory, the simple type often ascribed to Hume is open to the objection stated. Indeed, the vast majority of modern philosophers regard the simple form of bundle theory to be rather easily defeated, and so the author is fully within his right to question its ascription to a great philosopher like Hume. (N.B. He does not claim anywhere that this is Hume's thought, but simply that it rules out a certain way of interpreting Hume. Thus the observation that "This section is clearly the authors take on bundle theory - not Hume's" is pretty much beside the point).

Counter-arguments raised are as follows: (1) "it is arguable whether it is "logical" that two persons can really have the exact same sensations and memory of sensations"; and (2) "Bundle theories' claim may lead to the conclusion that each "self" maps onto one particular set of sensations. However, it does not follow that one particular set of sensation can only map onto one single "self"."

However, (1) is false. James can have a perception of a red truck, and so can Lucy. You may object that they cannot have the same perception of a red truck, but then we must ask what the criterion for sameness is. If it is that the James' perception and Lucy's perception are not part of the same mind (or, perhaps, not perceptions belonging to the same person) then you've not really answered the question. For the Bundle Theorist's view must now be that what it is for a person to be distinct is for them to possess perceptions (and other mental contents) which are possessed by a distinct person, and this does look utterly unexplanatory.

(2) The Bundle Theorist's claim is for an identity relation between people (or minds) and sets of perceptions. Thus the mapping cannot be one-way, it must be two-ways.

163.1.208.200 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) J. Arnold

this article is pretty bad.

this article is pretty bad. it reads like a brochure for a hotel or something. eg:

Free will versus determinism Just about everyone has noticed the apparent conflict between free will and determinism – if your actions were determined to happen billions of years ago, then how can they be up to you?

Please sign your posts -- especially when making sweeping criticisms. ---Michael K. Smith (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is 51 KB long. Should it be cut?

Ideally, we're told, Wikipedia articles should be no more than 32 kilobytes long. This one is 51. If the issue of size really is important, then this should be a prime example of an article that's too long. I notice that the descriptions of Hume's works repeats information that is either in articles devoted exclusively to the work being described here or repeating information in the "Life" section. It seems an ideal place to cut, and I cut a couple of the items. One possibility for the future could be creating an article "Philosophy of David Hume" and moving the sections on philosophy there. Possibly a list of philosophical works would be in a section there, with descriptions of anything not already discussed, and the list here would be cut back further. I'm not familiar enough with Hume to feel comfortable doing this myself.Noroton 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Omitting all the stuff at the bottom, it is 36 kB --JimWae 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I took another look at the Wiki page about article length. I see it's really only a recommendation that articles normally be about 32kB, and only the main part of an article should be considered for that (excluding things like external links). Probably an article on David Hume is one of those that deserves to be much longer. I took a look at some other biographical articles and see that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are much longer.Noroton 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

I've added the philosopher template. --- Skubicki 02:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

To do

Suggested things that could be done-- More dates would be nice, maybe a timeline or something. Perhaps more info on his work as a historian. More explication of his ideas. Links to off-wikipedia resources.

Personality

I often hear it mentioned that Hume was really friendly, had a good reputation, liked to party... any truth to this? Is it false? I'd like to know about him as a person, insofar as this page is not just a "summation of important arguments" but an encyclopedia article about a person.

History

Hume's six volume History of England was his most popular work during his life time, and his interest in history, especially that of the classical Greeks and Romans, shows itself frequently in his essays. Someone ought to write at least a brief summary of his works in this field.

Impression-idea epistemology

I notice that there is no section on the Impression-Idea epistemology. This is the most criticised part of Hume's philosophy, so it doesn't surprise me that no-one wants to talk about it too much. I may look over the book and write it myself soon.

More Detailed References?

I don't know my Hume enough to do it myself, but it really should say which essays/books each of the listed major topics can be found in.

-sidd

Yeah, that's a problem throughout wikipedia, and one that many editors seem combatant about rectifying... Sorry. Any specific essays or books you'd like to know about? -Seth Mahoney 01:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

In which work(s) did he dicuss the design problem? It would be interesting to date his "mechanical explanation of teleology" in order to put it in perspective of other proto-darwinian thought. -A.Miller

Try the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Dialogues Concerning Natural Reason. -Seth Mahoney 01:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," not reason.

I just thought someone might add to the "Life" section that Hume graduated from Edinburgh at age fifteen. Just reading up for my philosophy class and noticed it. Don't remember the name of the book, but I'll look if it's of any importance. -Jessymac 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

He left Edinburgh University as you say, but he did not graduate. I understand that in his period, gentlemen were expected to go up to university but collecting degrees was not an essential part of an education. Indeed, I read somewhere that it was regarded as rather unfashionable to do so. Hume was not enamoured by university education and thought you could get all you needed from books - His views on professors are mentioned in the article. Fenton Robb 11:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Section for his shorter essays?

Hume's essays in the "Essays Moral and Political" touch on subjects not covered in this article as of yet that have nevertheless made important contributions to various areas of study. A good example would be the essay "Of the Standard of Taste", which is frequently studied under aesthetics. Perhaps a small section concerning areas towards which Hume has made a contribution, even if they weren't his main focus, would be a good idea? Anria 09:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Regularity of nature

For example, physicists' laws of planetary orbit work for describing past planetary behavior, so we presume that they'll work for describing future planetary behavior as well.

So could we say that, for Hume, it was not an issue whether or not the laws of planetary orbit actually did work for describing past behavior? Despite there maybe being small discrepancies between theoretical predictions and observed astronomical data so far, and despite the fact that we have not been able to observe all planetary bodies accurately for all times past, he's going to accept that the laws have actually described planetary behavior acceptably until now?

More generally, does Hume accept that nature has been regular "so far", and merely question whether or not it is reasonable to assume the future will be also? Or is the regularity of things "so far" ever also an issue?

--Ryguasu 18:05 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

Well, it can be an issue. But it's an issue decidable by standard empirical means. To the extent that we don't know, then we should limit our claims. But it's not a problem, in principle. One of Hume's examples, that bread has so far nourished humans, is an easily ascertainable matter of fact. If there's any problem here, it's one completely unlike the problem with inductions to the future.

--Dr. Retard

Sorry, but Hume was not saying anything at all about what happens out there in Nature, other than to say we cannot know anything about it. What he is addressing is what we perceive and think about what we perceive. Sometimes we see regularity and think that because of that, there will be regularity in the future. Similarly with cause and effect- custom and habit lead us to associate one event with the another and we then attribute a causal relation between them. And that's all there is to it.

Hume is very explicit, actually: He says that EVEN IF one can be completely accurate about the past, which he argues is possible for billiard balls but not for very much else, one cannot anticipate the future. At least the Treatise is heavily psychological, and does cast a few aspersions on memory, though not as many as modern psychology might, memory being one of the ways that the objective past could differ from what is recorded. Hume is making the argument that one cannot know in the strongest form he can, but he is not assuming past certainty at all.

Fenton Robb 15:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hume is very explicit, actually: He says that EVEN IF one can be completely accurate about the past, which he argues is possible for billiard balls but not for very much else, one cannot anticipate the future. At least the Treatise is heavily psychological, and does cast a few aspersions on memory, though not as many as modern psychology might, memory being one of the ways that the objective past could differ from what is recorded. Hume is making the argument that one cannot know in the strongest form he can, but he is not assuming past certainty at all. ArekExcelsior 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Causation

I changed the bit on causation - it's a huge issue whether Hume really made any ontological claims about causation - in fact, to move from epistemological ignorance to an all-out denial that something is ontologically real seems like a bizarre move for someone who was so sceptical about the powers of human reason. But perhaps I've gone too far from NPOV? It would be nice to sum up the debate, though a debate about what Hume said wouldn't fit the page very well given its current structure, I feel. Thoughts? -- Evercat

Well done. I was quite aware of this issue when I first wrote it and tried to word things 'just so'. But you caught my slips. If you feel like adding something: what I forgot was Hume's foreshadowing of logical positivism, and all the famous quotes. --Dr. Retard

Sadly (or happily maybe) logical positivism was never something I really studied. -- Evercat 20:18 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hume's thoughts on causation and the nervous system bring to mind the theory of neocortical brain function proposed by Jeff Hawkins. The memory predictive framework. Looks as if Hume's assertions about connections to the nervous system is something Hawkins studied more deeply. Maybe mention of Hawkins work would be a good addition?

Did Russell ever explicitly deny causation? Perhaps a reference could be given?

Yes, I think so, for in denying induction, he also denies causation. '"What these [Hume's} arguments prove - and I do not think the proof can be controverted - is that induction is an independent logical principle, incapable of being inferred either from experience or from other logical principles, and that without this principle science is impossible" Russell, B (1946) History of Western Philosophy. Allen and Unwin p.700.

Fenton Robb 02:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the line "free will is incompatible with indeterminism. Imagine that your actions are not determined by what events came before. Then your actions are, it seems, completely random." This is not valid reasoning, as the usual claim of hard determinism is that "one's actions are always caused by previous events." If indeterminism is the logical negation of determinism, then indeterminism is not the claim that "one's actions are NEVER caused by previous events." It is instead, "one's actions are NOT ALWAYS caused by previous events." Kraniac 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions the Kalam as a prior variation on the argument against causation. I wonder if you have looked into Buddhist Indian Philosophers such as Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti, who would predate the Kalam. While it could be argued that Nagarjuna does not fully reject causality (although as the discussion above indicates, we cannot assume that Hume so flat out rejected it either) in the sense that saying "There is no cause" is one of the four extremes (Self Causation, Other Causation, Both Self and Other, Neither Self nor Other), it is a worthwhile comparison. I know, for example, it has been made by Jay Garfield in his translation/comentary on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way (Garfield 1995). Chandrakirti is one of the main classical Buddhist commentatators on NAgarjuna's works. Yeshe613 07:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Yeshe613

another Hume

Hi all.

Scots law, among other pages, mentions David Hume - but the legal writer, nephew of this one. If anyone knows enough about him to write a stub, it'd be greatly appreciated - I know virtually nothing about either besides seeing Hume's statue every time I go into town... Shimgray 17:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Date of birth

Encyclopaedia Britannica quotes May 7, soI guess that April 26 is an old style date?

Indeed, yes! In 'My Own Life' he writes "I was born the 26th April 1711, old style, at Edinburgh". The Life of David Hume, Esq. Written by Himself, London, 1777. quoted in Norton, David Faith, (1994) The Cambridge Companion to David Hume, Cambridge University Press p. 351. Fenton Robb 20:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hume & Reid

This article states that

"Hume failed to gain chairs of philosophy in Edinburgh and in Glasgow, probably due to charges of atheism, and to the opposition of one of his chief critics, Thomas Reid."

whereas the Thomas Reid article states that

"He [Reid] had a great admiration for Hume, and asked him to correct the first manuscript of his (Reid's) Inquiry."

If Reid had so profound a change of heart regarding Hume that seems it should me mentioned in the articles, if not this contradiction should be resolved and the appropriate article corrected.

I qualified this as a temp measure. Fenton Robb 13:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two reasons for this inconsistency: 1) Hume never edited Reid's manuscript, and 2) Reid never petitioned against Hume, and in fact publicly called him "the greatest Metaphysician of the Age." There are a lot of false facts on this here free encyclopedia. User: Julien Offray de La Mettrie

The current state of the article is even more confusing: "Despite his acquittal—and, possibly, due to the opposition of Thomas Reid of Aberdeen, who that year launched a Christian critique of his metaphysics—Hume failed to gain the Chair of Philosophy at Glasgow."

I'm not sure what this "Christian critique" of Hume's metaphysics is supposed to be in 1752. Apart from one short paper on Hutchenson, Reid didn't publish anything until 1764 (his Inquiry). In fact, in 1752, Reid had just assumed the post at Aberdeen; it would be odd to think that the University of Glasgow would concern itself with the critiques of an unpublished junior professor at a lesser institution. --12:28, 5 July 2007

All I did was rework the punctuation of the already existing information. In fact, the above conversation was in no way related to my punctuation edit. If you have a problem with the state of the article, fix it. Postmodern Beatnik 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

cleanup

can the bit about his birthday be adjusted so the intro paragraph is more readable? maybe a * next to his birthday and *footnote after the paragraph sometime? Spencerk 07:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes - I did a bit on this - does it satisfy?Fenton Robb 13:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The differences between the Enquiries and Treatise

Hi,

I think a passage on the many differences in style, content and tone there are between the Enquiries and Treatise should be included here. The reasons for the changes and a precis of said changes would improve this article a great deal. The L A Selby-Bigge edition of Enquiries has much good information in this area. Frank Carmody 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hume seen through various lenses

Undeterred by the remark that this page may be overlong, I have tried to collect together many opinions of Hume's philosopical position. This with the many references has added to the piece, but I think it is worth it and I hope others agree. I have enlarged on other aspects of his life and drawn attention to "My Own Life" which give us some insight into his view of his own career and his attitude to hs impending death.

Fenton Robb 19:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I regret that someone has seen fit to delete a small piece of serious scholarship that summarised many significantly differing views of Hume. We are asked to 'improve' the article, to give more references and when we try to to this, it is discarded without any explanation.I have restored the few lines that were deleted.

Fenton Robb 00:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly overlong. It was a good read. I've never liked Hume's works, but this page was a good summary (since I don't like his works it sort of means I don't know his ideas as I wouldn't have had read them). 32.97.110.142 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Piepants

I completely fail to see why what you've included is useful. Firstly, it is not referenced properly. Secondly, how are unexplained one-word and out of context quotes useful for understanding Hume? Thirdly, why should this be in the lead even if it is included? Fourthly, several of the authors mentioned simply are not notable. Lastly, it is a list and encyclopaedias should (mostly) consist of prose. I'm removing it again. If you really want it included, let's talk about it & add it to something OTHER than the lead. (add it, that is, after it has been expanded into useful prose). Mikker ^... 00:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought it useful to reflect on the many different ways that a variety of authors had labelled Hume. But not so important as to argue about it.Fenton Robb 13:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it could be useful if you turned it into prose & explained what the terms used mean (philsophers often mean very specific things with the words they use - quoting something like that completely out of context simply is not useful). That said, it should most certainly not go into the lead. Mikker ^... 16:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree to this being put in a more appropriate place and resign that decision to others better aquaint with the rules of philosophy pages. I readily defer to your judgement on that. But, please note; there is an injunction that this page is already too long and the addition of lenghty discourses, about what each critic meant by the term used, would, in my opinion at least, take up far too much space and thus detract from the page by inducing boredom in the casual reader. That is why I adopted the single word approach and left it to the more serious readers to follow up links that would lead them to sources which would accumulate over time. This is very far from being a 'list'; it is a source that could be of value to serious students looking for different views of Hume expressed at different times in recent philosophical history. I had thought that wiki was rather more than a conventional encyclopedia in that hints on each page could lead readers, if interested, to other pages in which more text might amplify the hints with further discourse. That was my understanding of how wiki works and why, thinking that the richness and flexibility of wiki could be used in this way, I was content to employ such a curtailed format for this rather large number of references. I agree entirely with you that such an approach would be quite inappropriate in an ordinary encyclopedia; but wiki need not be so ordinary. Fenton Robb 20:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikkerpikker - I understand that you are offline for a bit. Sorry we could not conclude discussion about the Hume references. I have recovered what you deleted and am putting what you call the 'list' under Further Reading, which was I think, you preference. I have not added any text, for the reasons given in the talk page. Hope to hear from you soon. Fenton Robb 11:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have also wikified the references and made some small additions elsewhere. Fenton Robb 18:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fenton Robb, thanks for moving the section down, I think it works much better in "further reading" than it did in the lead. That said, I still think explaining what the philosophers you mention meant by calling Hume what they did is a good idea. And, no, I don't think the article is too long yet... Hume is such a big topic there is plenty left to explain. Besides, as the article grows we could always create subsidiary articles (Hume's life, etc.) Mikker ^... 13:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mikkerpikker for the encouragement. Glad you're back to keep an eye on me. I'll try to write up stuff off line along the lines you suggest but it will be difficult to keep it brief. Pretty busy, but will try to action soon.Fenton Robb 20:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Following Mikkerpikker's suggestions, I have added a small section 'Perspectives of Hume' and appropriate references. Hope this is OK now?Fenton Robb 21:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

instrumentalism?

This article mentions:

instrumentalism, which states that an action is reasonable if and only if it serves the agent's goals and desires

But when you click on instrumentalism, you find that the article is about something else. DAB! Michael Hardy 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed the link to point to instrumental rationality. Thanks for pointing it out! -Seth Mahoney 03:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem of Induction

The Problem of Induction might be the issue Hume is best known for. So I added a short intro paragraph to that section which lays the foundation for it according to Hume. I also added a couple direct quotes from my copy of EHU. [*] I removed the example of the "laws of planetary orbits" continuing in the future because a "law" implies that which must necessarily continue. However, such necessity is precisely what Hume contests our being able to know. So, to hopefully better clarify his point I added the example of the probability of future rain based on past rain patterns, which is a simple and commonplace example of induction.

Also, I added a closing paragraph that makes a point many people overlook, which is that Hume was not arguing against induction. While he raised the problem with respect to explaining the jump from premise to conclusion in inductive reasoning, he felt that in its proper place (empirical thought) it was superior to deductive reasoning. I provide a quote to that effect from [*].

[*] Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Tom L. Beauchamp, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999.

Ian Goddard 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Racism

The quote "The blatant racism of Hume's statement is striking. It should be noted that sort of racist thinking was a widespead feature of European culture in Hume's time" seems self-contradictory. It should not strike anyone as surprising that Hume was racist given the widespread racist sentiments of his time, and the second sentence seems to imply this. Let's not inject an article with our own sentiments lest it interfere with the objective content and factual quality. 71.76.136.149 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we not do something regarding this section? Such as put a disclaimer on the section regarding Human Species? I question the motives of he/she who put this section in there for it does not further develop any of Hume's philosophy and rather seems like an ad hominem attack on Hume, with the intention of discrediting the rest of his philosophy.

I move that the section be removed from this entry or that an expalanation of the reason behind its inclusion be put in there.

I agree. It is a single footnote with no context given or explanation for its inclusion. The context is especially important, as when reading Hume I often found that many of his remarks were written as either obviously sardonic or sardonic by dint of context with the comments surrounding them and the society of the time. That may or may not be the case with this quote, but without context or additional explanation I don't see the point of the quote.

I disagree. The article says he was "one of the most important figures in the history of Western philosophy". The views of "great" philosophers has played a large role in shaping our world. Readers should know that he was a racist. The statement "This should be understood in its historical context, of course, such views were all but ubiquitous in the intellectual establishment (as elsewhere) of the time, and indeed would continue to be for a century after his death. Unlike many others of his day and much in advance of his time, in 1758, Hume condemned slavery at great length." sounds like it is trying to convience the reader that he was a "good" man. Let us first remember that the statement he made is not about slavery. It is about black people being inferior to whites. He could oppose slavery but still have the view that blacks are inferior to whites. Fact 1: He was a racist. Fact 2: He opposed slavery. I suggest removing the last paragraph and say something like "It should be noted that unlike many others of his day and much in advance of his time, in 1758, Hume condemned slavery at great length."

backgammon player?

I noticed the tag "scottish backgammon players." Removed it, considering I don't see verification and bc he's the only one on the list.

He actually did play Backgammon, according to his Treatise of Human Nature [1] --Thf1977 12:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored backgammon, but not the tag, of course, -I think its important in illustrating how Hume balanced his mental experiments with his everyday life. Fenton Robb

Marriage

Wasn't he married? I thought he had one kid.

He wasn't married. In his last years, his sister kept house for him and he left the greater part of his estate to his brother John and nephew David (which may explain the confusion). --Thf1977 09:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In the Spring of 1734, after Hume had left for London and then Bristol to work as a clerk to a sugar merchant, a local Chirnside woman, Agnes Galbraith, is said to have claimed to have had a child by him. Fenton Robb (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

"This forms an important aspect of Hume's skepticism, for he says that we cannot be certain a thing, such as God, a soul, or a self, exists unless we can point out the impression from which the idea of the thing is derived."

Is "be" supposed to be "belived" here? If so, will someone change it? -- Calion | Talk 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Yes, indeed, thank you - corrected.Fenton Robb 01:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hume's "conversion"

I have taken the liberty of substituting a similar tale which can be referenced and deleted that which seemed ill-founded. Fenton Robb 01:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Response on in-line references

Although such a novice that I have not yet discovered how to make a reference, I plead with the Members not to dismiss this article too quickly - 'at least a week's notice' to the editors seems to place rather too much pressure on whoever they are. There is much work to be done on this and I plead for leniency. I don't even know how to make a comment on the Good Article Talk page! Fenton Robb 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am ploughing through many sentences that need referencing, but I have also added several on-line sources of Hume's works and expanded some titles. Please hold fast in assesing this article! Fenton Robb 23:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dislike of fish

I cannot find any support for this anecdote and have removed it in the interest of simplicity. In case anyone feels like restoring it - here it is - it belongs just after the fishwives tale.

"Hume had a great disliking of fish. It is said that he was put in an awkward situation when dining with Lady Porlaine and fish was served up. Hume is said to have politely excused himself and ran all the nearby forest where he slept for the night before returning to his home to dine alone".

Fenton Robb 17:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of David Hume

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote section

I removed the quote section because it only featured one quote, one that was already given earlier in the article.

The following was deleted by anonymous user 68.212.56.10:Quotes by Hume:

‘I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilised nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or in speculation. No ingenious manufacture among them, no arts, no sciences”.- David HumeLestrade 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Okay well I will get more quotes and put it back, or you could get some quotes and add to it---Halaqah 08:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes don't go on Wikipedia, they belong at Wikiquote so please don't add it back. Mikker ^(...) 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not that Hume's racism should be excused or emphasized. It's just an interesting fact about the power of these sorts of social memes that even, as another poster here has said, a great skeptic like David Hume is vulnerable to corruption by them. Rather than condemn the man, perhaps the appropriate measure is to investigate one's own rational practices all the more deeply. If Hume was susceptible, then so are you. That said, a mention of his views on race seems quite reasonable. Loganbartling 12:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with them being mentioned, so long as we have a reliable source, and doing so doesn't violate our policy on original research. Additionally, it shouldn't be a bunch of quotes and shouldn't have its own section. Mikker ^(...) 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all men of Hume's time were racists. The fact that he was such an avid racist, in my opinion, overshadows much of his work. That he would write such a statement suggests that his motivations lay in deeply seeded and misguided beliefs rather than objective or constructive thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.70.138.181 (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Works and External Links Section

I'm apt to remove the first four lines from the Works section that point to "copies of most of Hume's works" as these seems redundant: the External Links Section, and later portions of the Works part all contain hyperlinks to Hume's works online. I'll leave it for the time being should anyone have a better solution. I should mention that the Online Library of Liberty, Economics Department and Great Books do not seem to have a reference anywhere else. In any event, they do not seem appropriate in that section. Sayvandelay 12:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference on Hume's influence on Einstein.

"Albert Einstein (1915) wrote that he was inspired by Hume's positivism when formulating his Special Theory of Relativity."

Where did Eintein write this note? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanished user lolalsdkj4ijesis22 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Hume as a racist revisited.

Hume's racism is well documented in his own writing. There should in fact be a small section pursuant to this fact, in the article. No-one has the right to dictate otherwise. There are numerous quotes that confirm this fact on the internet . Do not be intimidated by anyone. Be bold in your editing... Albion moonlight 11:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hume's "racism" is not the issue--it's fairly clear what his views were. While the Morton article is interesting, it is a matter of Hume scholarship (perhaps he believed that his stauch empiricism required him to take this position, as evidenced by the change he made to his footnote for the final edition of his works; perhaps he would have gladly renounced the footnote entirely had he just lived to see the eventual successes of black men and women). It is hardly something that requires mentioning in an encyclopedia article on the man. That is the issue that those trying to include such references fail to appreciate. Postmodern Beatnik 22:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part. But because his racists remarks have become popularized in modern times and because the issue is being debated in user talk, I am now looking for a very subtle way of mentioning it without giving it any significant weight. I think the matter became popularized because of a book named "White over Black". Hume should not be denounced for his views but there has already been an attempt to use one of his racial quotes in the article to sully his name. I hope that a brief mention of this historical occasion may deter bandwagon jumpers from using the ad hominem to justify further attacks on Hume. Albion moonlight 09:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't say as I've ever heard of the book White over Black, nor have I encountered any attempts to portray Hume as racist prior to my reading of this talk page. As such, I do not see the need for immediacy as you seem to. I do, however, respect your intention to discuss the issue in a neutral and respectful manner—which stands in stark opposition to Halaqah's earlier attempt to defame the man. Indeed, your recent edit serves the matter quite well, and I no longer have reason to oppose it.

My earlier worries were compounded by what I found to be the poor scholarship of Eric Morton, who seems to have used Hume as a whipping boy to make larger (and sometimes dubious) points about philosophy of history while ignoring or dismissing important caveats. Indeed, that paper far too often slips into the kind of retroactive (and thus fallacious) reasoning that others use to blame Nietzsche for the Holocaust. Did Hume hold racist views? Yes. Is he therefore the cause of racism? Of course not. Your new link, however, seems more even-handed. As such, I am willing to let the recent edits stand. I would request, however, that you keep abreast of future research on the matter. My own investigation reveals that this is not a common concern in Hume scholarship, but I also believe that the recent surge in interest surrounding philosophy of race may change this, helping us to improve the new section. Postmodern Beatnik 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't crazy about what the Morton link myself. The current link is much better. I intend to use it to help encourage other would be editors of this article to keep their edits in context. An advanced Google search of Hume reveals quite a a few references to his racist remarks. Albion moonlight 06:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

White over Black was written by "Winthrop Jordan " THERE IS A BIO OF HIM ON WIKI but the internal link process is acting wonky Albion moonlight 11:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the wikilink was that you had the quotes inside the brackets. That doesn't work. I've fixed it, though. Thanks for the link! Postmodern Beatnik 13:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for fixing it ! Albion moonlight 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I seriously do not consider Hume's racist views to be relevant to this encyclopedic article. It's like having a section in Aristotle enlightening everyone with the fact that he believed the earth to be round; it's simply too usual a view for people in those days to be interesting. Popperipopp 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Perspectives of Hume

Someone has scattered 'citations needed' around this section - the citations are all in the 'reference' section below. I apologise for not using the proper convention, but time is against me and I beg that some kind person either removes the 'citation needed' or inserts the citations in the proper fashion. Sorry I am unable to do this at present.

Fenton Robb 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually did this some time ago, but forgot to leave a note. The section is still a bit of a mess, though, and could really use some attention. Postmodern Beatnik 23:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Hume's Law proposal

I don't know whether there is anything in the Hume's Law article that still needs to be included here, but I suggest that the Hume's Law page be made a redirect to the Is-ought problem page after ensuring that the relevant information is in both that article and this article. The Hume's Law page is short and the information in it should be in the Is-ought problem article and this article anyway.Anarchia 21:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No Merge Absolutely not. Hume's Law was formulated by Hume in passing, but it is foundational to Frege's work in Foundations of Arithmetic which is the genesis of analytic philosophy and the basis for much of modern mathematical proof work. Obviously this is not reflected in the article on Hume's Law, but I do not have the time to fix all of the wiki's problems. The article should be kept and expanded upon. Lwnf360 08:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Author's view and nothing to do with Hume's views

I believe this has nothing to do with Hume, and should be under Bundle Theory:

"However, if we interpret him this way, we do him a great disservice, for the view that the self is a bundle of perceptions is deeply flawed."

As an anonymous contributor said, I do not believe Bundle Theory is easy to disprove as:

"it is logically impossible for two different people to be the same person; it is logically possible for two different people to have the same collections of perceptions; therefore people are not collections of perceptions."

Semanticly it is impossible for two "different" people to be "the same", because they are opposite definitions, but logically, I say it is not obvious. Why can't one say the second statement is logically impossible as well or visa versa.

The hypothesis is that if two beings have the same collection of perceptions, that in fact, they would be the same person, which is an argument against the first statement. One would argue that it is a physical impossibility for two people to be the same because they cannot obtain identical perceptions by continuously occupying the same space and time. To turn it around:

"it is logically possible for two different people to have the same collections of perceptions; people are collections of perceptions; it is logically possible for two different people to be the same person."

This whole section reads like the author is attempting to promote his/her views as opposed to providing any useful information regarding Hume. And shouldn't such a proof be accompanied with a reference?

User183837 (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

agreed entirely - the article isn't a neutral pov, but the author's personal and far from convincing take on Hume/bundle theory.

User:SyTaffel —Preceding comment was added at 15:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Wellus Quite certainly it is heavily biased. I do not understand either how two persons can have the exact same set of perceptions, this seems not reasonable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.35.1.57 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is all very POV. But as for how two people could have the exact same set of perceptions, it only needs to be logically possible. It may or may not by physically possible, but it is not self-contradictory to consider two physically distinct people having identical mental properties. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Science of Man/Original research

The section entitled "Hume’s Science of Man", which represents the entire body of Hume's thought in the article, appears to be, astonishingly enough, entirely original research. There is not a single reference to a secondary source, all citations being to Hume's original works themselves. The quality of this huge section is variable at best. It does seem to fairly represent Hume's thought in general but is highly subjective in areas too numerous to count. Some examples:

• "Although Hume almost certainly meant it figuratively, his statement that man is "a bundle or collection of different perceptions" has been taken by many quite literally." - Whose opinion is this? Where does it come from?
• "Charity demands, then, that we find a different way of looking at Hume's problem." - Really. David Hume in need of charity?
• "Hume's most famous sentence occurs at Treatise, II, III, iii..." - ?!?!?!?

Unfortunately, the author(s) of this section presents himself as an authority on Hume greater than any academic author who might spend years in study, research & writing; an anonymous authority who feels no compulsion to reveal his sources. Forgive me if I sound too negative but I have found this kind of writing all too frequent in the pages of Wikipedia, particularly in the Philosophy categories. What is needed are encyclopedists, not shadowy interpreters of philosophical thought. -Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a freemason Dave Hume?? history International freemasons_(disambiguation)

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 03:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Problem of Induction

Induction is about constants. I can imagine worlds where there are no constants: no gravitational constants, for instance, or let's imagine, a fluctuating constant going from something like 0 to a few billion whatever units. In such a world, at any given moment sometimes you'd stick to the surface of the Earth, other times you'd fly off into outer space. Moreover in a world with random electrical and nuclear attractions sometimes you'd be a random soup, sometimes a solid block, sometimes a disintegrating gas, basically YOU wouldn't be, you wouldn't exist to sit here and think about the whole thing. That's pretty much it, other than that there's nothing wrong with worlds like that, and our world could be like that, it just happens not to be. In those worlds, like them eastern philosophers say about this world, everything is really one because there would really be no distinction, basically there'd be nothing but goo, chaotic goo. No rules, no order, no laws, no laws of science, just a mess. Why this world isn't such way is an interesting question. Sillybilly (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is also the topic where ontology and epistemology blend: in a world devoid of any order, any constancy, therefore devoid of any classification or distinction, how can you say anything is? For instance assume that you get to look into, spectate such a world through a miracle window, and as you watch for hours and you see nothing just a simple mess, out of the chaotic goo you see the shape of the triangle emerge, and you exclaim, there! there is something in that world too! I can see a triangle!, but as soon as that triangle appears, it disappears because everything's shifting, everything's chaotic, everything fluctuates. How can you say there are triangles in such a world, and start inducting anything? How can you say that anything distinct from the goo itself exists, other than just the goo? You can say that the goo, the universe itself is the only thing that is, and at least Plato's sphere of pure forms and ideals definitely isn't because there is nothing in such a world, other than goo, you can't even find a friggin triangle, or a line, or any abstract ideas, other than the basic stuff, goo, the orderless, structureless goo. As far as our world goes, there are chaotic, or seemingly chaotic things here too, for example, the weekly lottery numbers, that are hard to be subjected to any kind of induction. Ok, technically if Lagrange's worldview stands, and you could account for all the objects and their parameters in the entire universe, and applied the Newtonian/Lagrangian equations to them, you could predict even the lottery numbers. That would be the epitome of an inductive, non-goo world, and we used to think of ours in such deterministic terms. That above account of mine assuming that there is a basic underlying goo that takes on different shapes and forms to form everything else is pretty naive, similar to how we used to imagine our world penetrated by ether, that carries lightwaves. But then came quantum mechanics, nondeterminism (low order, more gooness) at small scales and statistically become deterministic(more inductive) on macroscopic scales, with its unusual logic, and I wish I wasn't this dumb and understood this whole new physics better. From what I see, nobody does, other than 26 dimension spaghetti string theory people, and they might just be pretenders too. So we may be living on top of quantum mechanical chaotic goo, which kindly gives us inductive determinism "statistically" in our macroscopic world. Living, riding on top of goo every day is a funny feeling, ain't it? Sillybilly (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

section 2 heading

Suggest that the heading be renamed, maybe "Hume's philosophy" or something similar. 58.107.253.14 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Perspectives on Hume deleted?

This section seems to have disappeared last monday, amidst a flurry of edits made by an anonymous user. Was there any particular reason for its deletion? --Steerpike (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

test

test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.11.145.104 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Salvaged - Perspectives on Hume 0 if anyone thinks these are helpful, please retunt this section to its proper place. Fenton Robb (talk)

Because he had real doubts about whether Hume was expressing only his "surface opinions" and not making a genuine expression of his whole personality, A. E. Taylor doubted whether Hume was really a great philosopher but concluded that "perhaps he was only a very clever man".[29] A.J. Ayer (1936) introducing his classic exposition of logical positivism, claimed: "the views which are put forward in this treatise derive from the logical outcome of the empiricism of Berkeley and Hume".[30] Both Bertrand Russell (1946) and Leszek Kołakowski (1968) saw Hume as a positivist holding the view that true knowledge derives only from the experience of events, from "impressions on the senses" or (later) from "sense data", and that knowledge otherwise obtained was "meaningless". Albert Einstein (1915) wrote that he was inspired by Hume's positivism when formulating his Special Theory of Relativity. In discussing Hume's First Principles—that all governments are founded on, and all authority of the few over the many is derived from, the public interest, the right to power, and the right to property—R.F. Anderson concluded that Hume was a materialist.[31] Karl Popper (1970) pointed out that although Hume’s idealism appeared to him to be a strict refutation of commonsense realism, and although he felt rationally obliged to regard commonsense realism as a mistake, he admitted that he was, in practice, quite unable to disbelieve in it for more than an hour: that, at heart, Hume was a commonsense realist. Edmund Husserl (1970), saw the phenomenologist in Hume when he showed that some perceptions are interrelated or associated to form other perceptions which are then projected onto a world putatively outside the mind. Barry Stroud (1977) claimed for Hume the title of "naturalist", saying that he saw every aspect of human life as naturalistically explicable. He placed man squarely in the scientifically intelligible world of nature, in conflict with the traditional conception of man as a detached rational subject. Antony Flew (1986) draws attention to Hume's moral and logical scepticism about the senses, and calls him a Pyrrhonian sceptic. Hume was called "the prophet of the Wittgensteinian revolution" by N. Phillipson, referring to his view that mathematics and logic are closed systems, disguised tautologies, and have no relation to the world of experience.[32] In dubbing Hume "neo-Hellenist", Terence Penelhum (1993) saw him as following the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics in maintaining that we should avoid anxiety by following nature. Before embarking on any philosophical venture, Hume, as those before him, contended that we must first come to understand our own nature. Norton (1993) asserted that Hume was "the first post-sceptical philosopher of the early modern period".[33] Hume challenged the certainty of the Cartesians and other rationalists who attempted to refute philosophical scepticism, and yet himself undertook the project of articulating a new science of human nature that would provide a defensible foundation for all other sciences, including the moral and political. Robert J. Fogelin (1993) concluded that Hume was a "radical perspectivalist",[34] perhaps as in Protagoras and certainly in Sextus Empiricus. He referred to Hume’s own words that his writings exhibit: "a propensity, which inclines us to be positive and certain in particular points, according to the light in which we survey them at any particular instant". (Treatise 1.4.7, 273) Hume called himself a "mitigated" sceptic (Enquiry into Human Understanding 162). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fentonrobb (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Section Cleanup

The free will and responsibility had been tagged for cleanup back in November ('07). I didn't see any problems with the section a this point, so removed the tag. --jwanders^Talk 06:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Kant

The article has the following statement: "Attention to Hume's philosophical works grew after the German philosopher Immanuel Kant credited Hume with awakening him from 'dogmatic slumbers' (circa 1770) and from then onwards he gained the recognition that he had craved all his life." Kant's statement was published in 1783, in his Prolegomena to any future metaphysic that may come forward as a science. This was seven years after Hume's death. Hume was therefore unaware of any attention that he received as a result of Kant's statement.Lestrade (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Valid point. But why didn't you go ahead and adjust the article accordingly? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The is-ought problem

I suggest that the paragraph dealing with Murray N. Rothbard be deleted. The paragraph provides no evidence for its assertions and no citations. Moreover, the article on the is-ought problem provides a sufficient discussion of those who disagree with Hume. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. Cap'nTrade (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Is-ought section deleted

The "is-ought" section was recently deleted with this edit summary:

The Is/Ought problem is a sub-issue (falls in the scope of his ethical theory) and this section is poor quality. So I have deleted it altogether.

I then added a link to is-ought problem to the ethical theory section. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I replaced the introductory paragraph with something more accurate and interesting. The previous paragraph, whilst largely right, also had some errors, it did not cite any scholarly work to back up what was said, and it was just a little clumsily written.

131.111.194.10 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)J.A.

Skepticism

Hume is best known as the quintessential philosophical skeptic, but this article only mentions the word skeptic twice, both in quotes from David Hume's work! There should be a section on Hume's philosophical skepticism but I don't feel qualified to write it because I'm only an undergrad.

153.106.4.94 (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Birth Date

I've edited Hume's birth date from April 26th (the Julian Calendar) to May 7th (the Gregorian Calendar). I don't understand why listing his date of birth in the original Julian is preferential to the calendar in current use. Historical events and the majority of historical birth dates are normally converted from "Old Style" into "New Style" - so I believe this switch is justified, if only for the sake of conformity. I'm open to reasonable disagreement, but currently I can see no strong case for persisting in the "Old Style" format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepless Emperor (talk • contribs) 07:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The birthdate was cited in 'Old style' simply because Hume himself used the term in his autobiography and it serves as a reminder of an important historical event around that time. Deleting it removes a little colour from the article. Such was the reason and I hope you will restore the phrase. I am getting too old to defend every word! Fenton Robb (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe we can affect something of a compromise - I have included both Old and New Style dating in the header of the article. Hopefully that is suitable for all.  :-) Sleepless Emperor —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

Over emphasis on New Hume interpretation of causation

the current section on causation seems to present the New Hume interpretation of Hume as a sceptical realist as fact with Blackburn's view as an outside perspective. I personally would favour an Old Hume perspective with the New Hume as an outside view. Obviously there is a real debate over this so it would probably be best to present both as separate interpretations. A couple of quotes that support the Old Hume view of scepticism which sees his project as primarily conceptual rather than epistemic.

“power and necessity... are... qualities of perceptions, not of objects... felt by the soul and not perceived externally in bodies” Treatise

"we have no idea of connexion or power at all... these words are absolutely without any meaning...in philosophical or common life” Enquiries

I don't have time to make the necessary edits but there are some good responses from Millican and Winkler to the New Hume interpretation. Greatunknown1 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The logical positivism approach is somewhat outdated now as approaches that see Hume as simply saying causation IS constant conjunction do not go along with all the tenets of the logical positivsts. Greatunknown1 (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheism?

It seems at least questionable that Hume was an atheist. Indeed, he was accused of atheism, but present-day scholars (see, for example, the Stanford Encyclopdia of Philosophy) seem to have their doubts. At least, any claim that he was an atheist should give support. TomS TDotO (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to take it to the talk pages. Nobody seems to want to support the claim that Hume was an atheist. It seems at least a reputable opinion among scholars that he may have not been, and I therefore feel that it is inappropriate to include language which gives the impression that Hume was an atheist. Therefore, if there is no discussion in these talk pages, I see no reason not to restore my changes to the language to remove such an impression. TomS TDotO (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hume clearly believed that no human being could rationally assert that "God" existed. It is essential to his philosophy that it is meaningless to consider the existence of anything which is outside our experience, and he quite explicitly stated that "God" is outside our experience. There is room for those who choose to do so to interpret this as meaning that God may exist, but we can't know. However, I am not aware of anything in his writing which admits of the concept of things existing which are inherently outside our capability of experience. Hume said not so much "God did not exist" as "the statement 'God exists' is meaningless". It must be clear to anyone with even the most cursory acquaintance with Hume's philosophy that to take the view that Hume believed God existed would be ridiculous. However, to take the view that he regarded the existence of God as an open question is really equally inconsistent with his views: he clearly did not believe that "God exists" even might be true. A full understanding of his position requires a clear appreciation of the distinction in his view between between falsity and meaningless. However, it is quite unambiguous that he did not regard "God exists" as being a possible proposition: thus that he did not admit the possibility that "God exists" might be a true proposition. While this is not at all the same as saying that he thought "God exists" was a false proposition, if we are to give a brief statement of his position then "atheism" is far nearer to the truth than "(alleged) atheism", which is likely to leave most readers with the impression that he might, in fact, have believed in God. I accept that today some "reputable scholars" take the view that he may not have been an atheist, and such is the character of Wikipedia that I fully agree that recognition should be given to their views, but I do not think that putting "(alleged)" before "atheism" does justice to their position, so I propose to revert this edit. If either TomS TDotO or anyone else can find a way of expressing their doubt in a way which is clearer I shall be very pleased. If nobody else does so I may perhaps have a go, but I would have to do a good deal of reading up before attempting to do so, as I do not have anywhere near enough knowledge of the opinions of the relevant scholars to do justice to them. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is surely too complicated a question to be resolved by the inclusion or not of a single word. If this is thought to be an important point about Hume then it deserves its own section with some argument either way. There is a problem with what is meant by atheism. As that article says it can mean at least two things: For Hume, the question is did he reject theism, or did he have an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Maybe he didn't explicitly reject theism outright, but did have an absence of belief in gods. He certainly seemed to be contemptuous of Christianity. Myrvin (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the above comment is quite right. Really the inclusion or exclusion of one word does not deal with the question. However, having thought about the matter since writing my comment above, I have come up with a form of words which does allow for an element of doubt, but without the connotations which "alleged" has acquired from the way it is now used in journalism. Not a big deal, but perhaps a slight improvement, perhaps. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As I was the one who started this, let me say that I appreciate the comments, and what seems to be a reasonable resolution. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the section. Myrvin (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about this issue has prompted me to do some more reading of Hume's work, and I now feel that the claim that he was an atheist rests on weaker ground than I thought when I wrote the above. I do not take back anything that I wrote above, but if I were to write it now I would give a rather different emphasis. The result is that I now positively agree with TomS TDotO that the original wording was not good, rather than merely accepting that it was sufficiently debatable to justify considering a change. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the question would have had no meaning to Hume. An atheist denies the existence of god(s). Denying the existence of something entails believing that it could conceivably exist. Hume could not conceive of anything that had any of the claimed properties of any god. Since he could not conceive of god(s) he could have no opinion on the topic. Hence he was NOT an atheist. Of course to expound such an argument would have had hIm denounced as an atheist by the mob and he would have had difficulty in getting his works published. Fenton Robb (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hume was seen as an atheist by his peers, but would be an agnostic today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.129.111 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Of Superstition and Religion

Since my previous entry here was obviously too subtle for some and was deleted, let's try something stronger. I think that the essay "Of Superstition and Religion" is a ghost publication. It does not exist and should be removed. Is that more directly associated with improving the article?

My entry before said: Can someone point me to this essay. I can't find it in any of my Hume books. Is it a compilation or something? Why is questioning an uncited source not associated with improving the article?

Suspiciously, if you enter the string in to Google, many of the sites quote the first sentence word for word, but have no references, including JamesBWatson's shortlived citation of New World Encyclopedia. This could be an example of Wikiwhispers. Myrvin (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is now removed in the rewrite. Myrvin (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. My edit summary referred to "matter not clearly following talk page guidelines": you have now made it clear why you were asking. Your original wording left open the possibility you might be just enquiring where you could find it, for interest. I too noticed that almost all (not just most) of the Google hits seem to be quotations from Wikipedia. As you will see from my edit summary, this is why I reverted my "shortlived citation of New World Encyclopedia". In fact I have managed to find only two references to the essay which do not seem to me to be certainly or almost certainly following Wikipedia, namely:

http://www.econ.duke.edu/CHOPE/Web%20Page/demarchi-grant.pdf

and

Sunday Times March 29, 2009 "It moved me: The statue of David Hume on the Royal Mile"

and I am not sure that the second of these is reliable, while the first quotes the expression "Of Superstition and Religion", but does not state that it is the title of an essay. If the essay really had the degree of influence that was claimed for it then there would certainly be innumerable references to it, so I am confident that you are right: the essay probably does not exist, and if it does exist then it does not justify the claim made for it in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

there is nothing to be learned from a Professor, which is not to be met within Books

I cannot find this quotation anywhere. As before, all the Googles seem to taken from here. I'd like to know who this mysterious 'friend' is. Myrvin (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it! In a letter to 'Jemmy' Birch quoted in Mossner's Life. The problem is that 'learned' is spelt 'learnt'. Myrvin (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

Einstein, when praising Hume in 1915, seems to have over-looked Hume's racialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Biography

I wonder if we should have stuff about the career and personality of this strange man. I know the article has been delisted and maybe adding some biography might do something to make Hume a more interesting read. But already some have said it is too long - so can adding something along the following lines be justified? Just a draft and needs proper referencing (I am getting a bit old for all this!!)

Insert in appropriate places - -

In 1746, while he dallied in London intending to return home, he was appointed by General James St Clair, a distant relative, to be his Secretary, with the rank of ‘Judge-Advocate’ to an expedition of 4,500 troops to sail from Portsmouth to Boston, thence to invade Canada. The expedition was greatly delayed and eventually put seige to Port L’Orient on the coast of France. This was a disaster and the force withdrew to Cork. Hume returned to London and again to the service of General St Clair, this time in military uniform as Aide de Camp to the General on a secret diplomatic mission to the Courts of Vienna and Turin, to settle details arising from the ending of the War of the Austrian Succession.

The History was particularly well received in the Court of Louis XV and in 1761, Mme de la Boufflers, the mistress of Louis-François de Bourbon, Prince de Conti (1717-76) wrote to Hume begging him to come to Paris. In 1763, Hume accepted appointment as Secretary to Lord Hertford, Ambassador to the Court of Louis XV in Paris between October 1763 and December 1765. For several months Hume was Charge d’Affairses in Hertford’s absence. France ceded Canada to the British by The Treaty of Paris in February and among Hume’s tasks was that of submitting to th French Government the proposal of British merchants to purchase the Card Money issued in New England, supposedly backed by the French Government. Hume was overwhelmed by the flattery, particularly by the ladies of the Court.

In 1765, Hume returned to England and supported Rousseau who feared for his life in France. Rousseau suspected that Hume was trying to trick him in some way and, after an acrimonious parting, Rousseau returned to France

Hume was then appointed to assist General Conway, Secretary of State for the Northern Department, and served in London 1765 - 1768. The Department was responsible for Northern England, Scotland,and relations with the Protestant states of Northern Europe. From ten to three each day, he received secret dispatches from the world over. He wrote that he spent much of his time “reading and sauntering, lownging and dozing which I call ‘thinking’”.

Hume’s appearance was described by Thomas Carlyle in a letter to Landor “Curious to see by what slight circumstance the face is relieved from being that of a common fat Scotch Laird, one of the thousand “Humes of Ninewells” and yet relieved it is, and stands there as the evident face of a fat Stoic and Sceptic, with great stores of bottled-up reflexion, and emotion ... Hume's face tells its own story, and cannot be mistaken for another: an intensely Scotch type of face, and as ugly as it is possible to be with such talent as his”.

F, Hardy in Memoirs of James Caulfield wrote of Hume “Nature, I believe, never formed any man more unlike his real character. … His face was broad and fat, his mouth wide, and without any other expression than that of imbecility. His eyes vacant and spiritless, and the corpulence of his whole person was far better to communicate the idea of a turtle-eating Alderman, than of a refined philosopher”

Rousseai wrote of Hume’s appearance ‘The external features and the demeanour of le bon David denote a good man. But where, Great God, did this good man get those eyes with which he transfixes his friends?’

When he finally retired in 1769, Hume was a man of substance. He built one of the earlier houses in the New Town of Edinburgh, where he displayed his “great talent for cookery, the science to which I intend to the remaining years of my life!” He entertained lavishly both clergy and laity with “innocent mirth and agreeable raillery” (Carlyle Anecdores of David Hume). Always a 'ladies man', Hume's last affectionate relationship was with Nancy Ord, then in her twenties, daughter of the Baron of the Exchequer. Nany is reputed to have persuaded a workman to paint "St David's" on the street wall of Hume's house in what is now St David Street.

Question - would stuff like this add to or detract from the article? If the former, I would like help in wikifying it.

Fenton Robb (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Political theory

I cannot find any reference to Hume's being thought of as "the first conservative philosopher". Most of the websites seem to be direct Wiki ripoffs. Mossner says about his aesthetics: "In this he was perhaps being more conservative than usual" - but that's not the same thing. I suggest we remove the line and rewrite this part. Myrvin (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - there is no doubt that Hume was conservative (small 'c') in that he saw great dangers in radical political change, but, being brought up in the Calvinist tradition he was a Whig and a supporter of Argyll. He was, of course, fervently against partisan politics and saw 'factions' as a threat to the stability of society.

Political power, even that of depots, derives from public opinion. The masses have it in their hands to overthrow teir rulers; though he supported the American Revolution he saw revolution only as the last resort - " I shall always incline to their side, who draw the bond of allegiance very close, and consider an infringement of it, as the last refuge in desperate cases, when the public is in the highest danger, from violence and tyranny." Of Passive Obedience II.xIII.3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fentonrobb (talk • contribs) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Latterly he became bemused by 'high society', perhaps the flattery of Mme Boufflers and the ladies of the French Court had a profound influence on one who was at heart a simple Borderer - e.g. anecdote about a dinner (when Hume was Under Secretary for the Northern Dept.) with people connected with the Court, Alexander Carlyle reported:—‘The conversation was lively and agreeable, but we were much amused with observing how much the thoughts and conversation of all those in the least connected were taken up with every trifling circumstance that related to the Court…. It was truly amusing to observe how much David Hume's strong and capacious mind was filled with infantine anecdotes of nurses and children.’ Carlyle's Auto. p. 518 and see Fox on the Edinburgh Review (No. xxiv, p. 277.) ‘He was an excellent man, and of great powers of mind; but his partiality to kings and princes is intolerable: Nay, it is in my opinion quite ridiculous; and is more like the foolish admiration which women and children sometimes have for Kings than the opinion, right or wrong, of a philosopher.’ Fenton Robb (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Done a change to the beginning. Myrvin (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The article refers to Locke and Berkeley as empiricists, but Berkeley is an idealist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.88.130 (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Racism -removed?

Hey folks, I just read through this good entry on a great philosopher and was surprised to see no mention of Hume's comments on race. After reading through the talk page it looks like there was a lot of weak arguments in favor of not mentioning the issue but it doesn't seem there was ever any consensus to have it removed. I love Hume and am proud of my Scottish heritage but that is the dumbest argument i've ever heard that racism is a modern term and ought not to be applied to 'pre-modern' thinkers. Pretty ridiculous form of inductive reasoning at that. I hope someone will put something in the article so that we have an honest biography of the man and not some white-wash. If racism is a modern phenomenon, what year was it invented? Why during the Spanish Inquisition (which had been going on since 1492 and only stopped when Napoleon crushed the Spaniards) were the blood purity laws introduced by the church? Moreover, I'm pretty sure Hume didn't think that the Scots (Celts) were the same race as the English (Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Frisians, Normans, Scandanavians). Teetotaler 26 September, 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)

People use the word "racism" inconsistently.

They use it when someone states biological facts about human races.

They use it when White people pass subjective remarks about non-White cultures but not when non-Whites pass subjective remarks.

Someone above mentioned that Hume should be called a racist for writing that Negroids have not produced much in the way of Civilisation(or something along those lines). Well so what? If it is true that Negroids did not produce much in the way of Civilisation when Hume was writing and he was just saying so then how is he 'racist'? Am I racist if I say White people have light-coloured skin and Negroids have dark coloured skin?

The word is vague, very subjective and used inconsistently and as such it has no place in the article.

86.44.158.144 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds P.O.V., budd. Don't confuse racialism with racism. You also use "white" and "non-white rather uncritically. I would rather have this debate with someone that is not so question-begging. Also, you seem to think that if something is subjective then it doesn't really exist. How institutionalized are you? Teetotaler 30 November, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hutcheson

He did not teach Hume, as is said, And what is the evidence that Ruby Hogue was the woman Hume fell for? The whole article is irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.88.26 (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Should Hume be classified as a Scottish agnostic?

There is a category of Scottish agnostics in Wikipedia, and I would have thought that Hume should go here. As the article says, he did not quite declare himself an atheist; my understanding is that he was an agnostic, even though he lived before that word had been coined by Thomas Huxley. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a subject of academic dispute whether Hume ought to be considered a deist or an atheist/agnostic. His addition to the list would seem to be the arbitrary assertion of one side of this dispute, ignoring plausible reasons for thinking the contrary. For that reason I think there's grounds to avoid it. (I say this as someone who strongly favours the atheist interpretation. The reasons are too research heavy to be appropriate for wikipedia) 86.31.95.227 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Influences/Influenced

I think Descartes was more of an influence on Hume than Locke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.129.111 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether someone might provide an argument for thinking Hume influenced d'holbach significantly. I realise they travel in similar circles (literally, when Hume was in France) however there doesn't seem to be strong reason for thinking their work is significantly related (or even that Hume had read anything by d'Holbach prior to meeting him, if the anecdote about his 'surprise' regarding the latter's atheism is accurate). You can't just assert that of any two enlightenment figures one influenced the other. 86.31.95.227 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem of miracles

The new section beginning: "Hume's main argument concerning miracles is the following" is suspect. As well as reading as rather chatty, it seems to be someone's view of what Hume meant - but there are no citations. It concerns itself with the example of the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus. I can't find any mention of Jesus or resurrection in Hume's work. Myrvin (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have amended the section significantly. You are correct that Hume makes no explicit mention of Jesus or Christianity in the essay (save for the concluding passages) and some scholars (M.A./Sandy Stewart, referenced in the article I quoted on your talk page) consider that autobiographically significant. Where citations are felt to be needed, I can only attempt to assure you that the interpretation I have given here is not controversial and where Hume's notions of belief are mentioned Flew's Hume's Philosophy of Belief may be cited and where specifically On Miracles is mentioned Buckle's account amongst others has been offered in support. In the amendation I am live to the fact that much is now left redundant as regards the rest of the section however (a) I can't help but feel the new segment now expresses those points considerably more clearly and concisely and (b) I would ask you do not cut the segment wholesale in so far as it still contains that mention of the ironic conclusion which was the basis of controversy between us and which I consider, as do the scholars I offered you by way of citation, to be an important detail in the ongoing dispute over Hume's actual religious convictions. 86.31.95.227 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC) (I am aware I really ought to be logging in to make significant amendments, only as a junior academic I don't normally edit articles in ways which might be controversial. I'd ask my right to editing despite anonymity is respected on this isolated occasion. I can assure you I'm not David Hume therefore I'm not in breach of the most significant rule regarding anonymous edits!) :D

Gosh! There's much more on my talk page. Myrvin (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There, appears (amongst an addtional 41 lines in response to my removal of 6 letters) the following:

Harris offers in a footnote the following list to support his claim that this is the standard interpretation; Flew's (1961) Hume's Philosophy of Belief, Mackie (1982) The Miracle of Theism (1982) p29. The conclusion of 'Of Miracles is "of course... only a joke". Buckle's Hume's Enlightenment Trace (2001) p269-70 Hume intends the remark as no more than "an ironical allusion to the errors of religious 'enthusiasts'". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.95.227 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Myrvin"

Also, D, the mysterious 86.31.95.227 , says: "It is unfortunate if the end result does offend you as a believing Christian". Which is touching, if quite erronious. My initial objections have all been met; including the removal of the crude insult to Christianity. My objection was actually more to the crudity than the sentiment. Anyway, I surrender: ironic it is - presumably. Myrvin (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the "tone" problem?

An editor has questioned the { { tone } }, which may be reasonable, but hasn't pointed to examples so that we can repair the "tone". I'm leaving the template in place, pending explanation of what the editor is questioning. TomS TDotO (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Grunge introduction

There have been several edits by User:Grunge6910 that have expanded the introduction quite a bit. Much of this expansion seems to repeat what is in the body of the article (eg Kant's slumbers), and some seems to be uncited opinion (eg prose stylist). Surely, in an article such as this, the intro should generally be quite short with the detail in the rest. It is not an essay in its own right. Myrvin (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can provide a few citations to things which may need them, like the prose stylist thing. But WP:LEDE says the lead section should "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." I think I've done that. Erroneous and minor facts such as about his economic theory were emphasized before, saying nothing about Hume's epistemology, metaphilosophy, his subsequent followers, major works, or even his most famous ideas. I've tried to cover all the main bases, thereby "summarizing the main points."Grunge6910 (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And now the article has been flagged saying that the intro is too long. Oh my prophetic soul. Myrvin (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction: Whig, Tory or neither?

According to this article

Hume was politically a Whig

However, it is also claimed that

..he [Hume] resisted aligning himself with either of Britain's two political parties, the Whigs and the Tories...

Moreover, later in the article we find that

Hume's history was that of a Tory, in sharp contrast to the Whiggish works then prevailing

Top.Squark (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction and The History of England/Great Britain discrepances

So i'm about to change the intro a bit. I think the second paragraph is completely unnecessary, since the titles aren't given context yet, so it's like reading a list of things you have no idea about. Anyway the same info is covered in the Career section, which is very early in the article. This will help make the intro shorter.

The names History of England and History of Great Britain are being used interchangeably, however this is not the case. The complete six volumes are The History of England. However, the last two volumes of this History were sometimes published/refered to as two separate volumes, under the name History of Great Britain. British Library will confirm this, History of Great Britain in 2vols = History of England vols 5+6. So i'm just gonna tidy this up for consistency.

But there is a problem, in that there is no present article "The History of England" for Hume's work. A link points to a disambiguation page for a few other works with that title. The History of Great Britain does exist, but is a stub with little more than a statement that it is not the title of Hume's work. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(Schnitz123 (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

I've just made an article for Hume's "The History of England", and added a link from the disambiguation page. I also edited the History of Great Britain article, to say that, hoping that people would therefore just click the link for the new History of England article. (Schnitz123 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

Has anyone ever done this? (except maybe Thomas Anderson?)

"Without direct impressions of a metaphysical "self," he concluded that humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self." How exactly would you have direct impressions of a metaphysical self? What else would you be capable of if you could do that? --TheLastWordSword (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The idea is that in order for you to be aware of a metaphysical self, you would need to have a direct impression of it. But because for Hume we can only have impressions of what we directly experience, and we do not experience any concrete self, therefore we are not aware of the self. He is saying that the whole idea of a self is more or less unintelligible. Grunge6910 (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Race

Hume's racism is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. While I won't go in against those who apparently really want this part to be in the article, I will go in against giving this notion undue weight, like it has been given in the present article. It is given as a subcategory in his "Science of Man", which lists essential aspects of his philosophy, such as causation, or the problem of miracles. His racism, on the other hand, is mostly incidental, and is not what he remains known for. To give it this amount of weight is an anachronism of people wanting to make this a prominent part of a person's beliefs - at the time, however, racism simply wasn't a real distinguishing factor. Given that it doesn't hold an important place in Hume's philosophy, it shouldn't be listed with essential parts of it. It can be added elsewhere in the article, probably only as a single sentence; to grant it more is simply giving the issue undue weight. Let's face it - Hume's views on race do not need as large a paragraph as his views on sentiment-based ethics. DDSaeger (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely and would encourage you to make the change you suggest in the latter part of your comment. It shouldn't even bear repeating that historical figures cannot, should not, be judged by 'modern' ethical, sociological norms. -Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that Hume's views on race are a very minor issue, albion moonlight made a good point about why the issue needs to be dealt with. Currently, the matter only gets three sentences, plus a quote for context. Perhaps the quote should be snipped to its essentials? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this section per the above reasons. I looked for a place in the "Life" section to put it but really can't find a relevant point of entry. If Postmodern Beatnik can find a spot, fine. But you know this whole entry is really at bottom agenda based. The race card could be played against almost any pre-nineteenth century European historical figure but is unjustified, in my opinion, unless that person was actively promoting and practicing racial oppression. David Hume does not fall into that category. Taking a single footnote from a body of work consisting of literally tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of entries, both historical & philosophical, seems to me not only absurd, but making a prejudicial point where none actually exists. -Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no objections to leaving this out of the article, nor is it something that I ever wanted in. But I also did not want to push my POV onto the article. In light of what I was told about the footnote having been made relevant due to the attention given it by modern writers, however, I figured it might be notable and thus worth addressing. I also found albion moonlight's motives more noble than Halaqah's. But again, I have no objections to your edit. Indeed, I have been doubtful of the section all along. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.jstor.org/pss/2709889 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.155 (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I find his racism interesting and I for one as a reader would like to know all views of a philospher. I think the reader should decide whether this is irrelevant or not. I've put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.30.183 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the claim of racism as it violates WP:V (not BLP as I erroneously put in my edit summary). For such a claim there needs to be a reliable source to back it up. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources added. Serkalem (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, first of all thank you everyone for your feedback and edits regarding Hume's view on racism. I'll try to make my points clear,

1. Hume was a racist. This is not a POV but a fact. If you doubt this please see his writing "Of National Characters" and refer to the definition of racism.

2. How important is this to be included in the article? Hume was a philosopher. He has spoken about ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of mind, etc. I think a reader of this article would be interested to know his views on race as well and how he backs up his arguments. For example, he could have looked back at history to understand that black people have art. He speaks of a person who has learnt a language like a parrot. I think we can all agree that slaves did have their own language! There are more things I can say but I think this suffices to show that he was rather arrogant in his assertions rather than being reasonable. This is a POV of course but I think readers should be given the chance to know that he thought race to be an important factor in the issue of the human mind.

3. "Everyone at that time had racist views so this is not important". As I previously mentioned somewhere, great philosophers, as what they are called, are people who have contributed to how people perceive things, reason, etc. The views of a "great philosopher" such as David Hume are hence important. This is why we have a large portion of the article dedicated to his views. "Great philosophers" such as David Hume have become "great" because they have outstanding views. They think and reason differently, extensively, or however you see it. So I think it is infact interesting to know how they have failed to see obvious things (such as the things I mentioned in point 2) and decided to agree with the majority.

4. Somebody mentioned that this was not what he was famous for. This would have made sense if the article's title was something along the lines of "Works of David Hume for which he is famous for". I'm not trying to be satirical but that is really what it boils down to. "Great people" like David Hume are seen as respected so much that people do not want to hear about their failures or they simply deny them. Einstein used to sleep with young women while his wife was in the next room and Hitler is said to have been a vegetarian because of his love for animals. Regarding Einstein, it is interesting to see that he was a selfish person. It is also interesting to see that Hitler had some love, care, or whatever you want to call it, inside him. This is a POV of course. But such things are important enough not to be categorized as too minor just because they are not issues that a person is famous for.

Thank you for reading.

Serkalem (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are determined to put this information into the article you need to address the issues stated above. It must first of all be NPOV in nature and should conform to the specifics found under the Undue Weight section. As I stated above I find this argument for inclusion, based on a single footnote in Hume's works, to be agenda based and without merit. But as I also said: if someone who disagrees can find a suitable place and emphasis (perhaps say a footnote), I am willing to go along.

Please explain why, although you admit POV in two places above, you still think the arguments warrant inclusion? This is not Wikipedia policy as far as I understand it. Labeling Hume a racist is most assuredly not fact but a point of view. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION BY REQUEST I'd have to say to leave it out. First, I think it is a problem with undue weight- we're literally taking up the same space here as in the original. The more important point is this: the source doesn't say he was racist; we're supposed to imply that he was racist because of what the source says. That's synthesis. It's not always a problem, but it is if it's improper synthesis, which I think this is. "Racist" would tend to indicate that he was racist relative to society at the time, which he wasn't- his was a commonly held belief. This section would need A) secondary sources saying he was racist, and/or B) something showing he went above and beyond society's views of race. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: NPOV in nature, it is NPOV you see. The footnote did not come from a book by another author. This is Hume's work. I hope you understand that this is a fact. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.

RE: The work being a footnote. Wikipedia does not have any policy that says footnote cannot be included. A celebrity may whisper a few words and that on it's own be reason to talk about his views. On the other hand, someone may write a whole book about different races and not conclude anything. One cannot stand up and say the author was a racist simply because he wrote a whole book on race. All conclusions must be reasonable. The reason behind can be a word spoken, a book, a footnote or whatever that we know for sure happened. What we should ask ourselves is whether the conclusion is important enough to be included. What I am saying is this conclusion is very important. *This* is my point of view not the fact that he was a racist. Those who say it is not important, don't you think that is POV as well? You think it is not important that a person who is said to be one of the greatest philosophers, who has worked on the human mind, ethics and moral, used to think that race was an important factor in human abilities? Can you write down your reasons and convince me why I should take your statement as NPOV?

RE: "The source doesn't say he was racist". First of all thank you JeremyMcCracken for joining our discussion following my request. I appreciate it. Yes, the source doesn't say he was a racist. But don't you think it is pretty straight forward? His statement can be given as a typical example of racist views. Do we need to cite a reference that David Hume was a philosopher? It just isn't important. I hope you don't confuse racism with slavery, violence, or the like. Here is a random definition of "racist" from thefreedictionary.com: "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.". Now can you relate Hume's statement with this definition? His statement can be cited as a typical example of a racist statement. I do agree with what you said about "relative to the society at that time". I agree that it is fair to mention it was a common belief. It'll give the reader a fair background to perceive the statement.

I wait for your responses. Thank you.

Serkalem (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head in the last part- I do not think it's straightforward. It's racist by today's standards, but not by the time in which that piece was written. That he was racist by today's standards, but not by those of the past, is a statement that could be applied to thousands of biographies on WP; I don't think we ought to start here. If this had some influence other than that footnote (e.g. it had a major influence on the bulk of his work) it would be important to note, but with one instance, it's not really a notable characteristic. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is you seem to be confused about the whole NPOV issue and in particular the related weight assessment. The fact that this is a single footnote (basically an aside which btw he expunged from later editions) out of a voluminous life's work applies to the latter (Undue Weight). One footnote does not equate to a whole section under his philosophy labelling him racist. I would advise you to read the appropriate guidance carefully.

Can you not see a problem with your quoting from an electronic dictionary of 2008 and applying its definition to a man who died in 1776? I agree with Mr. McCracken on this score. He makes a good point in that if we accept your criteria of inclusion and take it to its logical conclusion, we would then be talking about many dozens of articles that would fall under the same category and would also require "Racism" sections. If, as it seems, you're intent on publicising this quote of Hume's, a better place to do it would be in the article section Racism#In history.~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

JeremyMcCracken, you said "That he was racist by today's standards, but not by those of the past, is a statement that could be applied to thousands of biographies on WP; I don't think we ought to start here.". I agree with the first part of your statement but why not start here after all? That sounds a POV to me. RE: "not considered racist in his time", please see Hitler's wikipedia entry which does talk about his racist views. A valid point of argument, as I've said before, is whether this is significant or not. I've explained why I think it is.

Alcmaeonid, with all due respect, I think you forget the purpose biographies. A biography is not written to glorify a person. A biography is not written to defame a person. A biography is written to tell things as they were. And yes, if it means editing thousands of articles, it should be so - as long as there is no lie in what we are saying. I'm glad that he expunged it in later editions. I read somewhere that he later removed Asians (and maybe others too) and talked about black people only. Maybe he thought he was wrong, I just don't know. If you have citations, it'd be very nice to include that too! This is what a biography should look like!

Three things I've taken away from this talk are 1. Background should be given (the society had racist views at that time) 2. It could be wrong to put it under the section "Science of Man" because "Of National Characters" (where the footnote is) may not fall under this. So perhaps put it on it's own section instead. 3. I see nothing wrong in saying "he was a racist". If this seems inappropriate to most, it can be rephrased to "he had racist ideology", "he thought race to be an important factor in ...", etc. The truth is he had racist views and there aren't any "nice" words to explain racism.

I'd have questioned myself if I heard consistent reasons from those who opposed my idea. But so far I've been told "no reference", "just a footnote", "defaming", "not what he is known for", "reference does not say he was racist", "not considered racist in his time", etc. I don't have time for edit wars though.

Thank you everybody for your responses. JeremyMcCracken, thank you again for accepting my request to come here!

Serkalem (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, you can't just invite another person to speak and then discount what they say because you don't agree with it. If you weren't prepared with the possibility of somebody taking the opposite stance, you shouldn't have brought somebody else in. It seems like poor sportsmanship on your part. As for the idea of "comparing Hume with today," that is completely unfair and unrealistic. Also, your attempt at argument ad Hitlerum is unfortunate because modern psychology had existed for some time before Hitler acted on his beliefs. Hume believed in racial inferiority because, whether you happen to like it or not, that was what the systems of evidence in his time showed. He was unaware that education, environment, and geography account for intelligence as well as genetics. He simply looked at numerous examples of white European achievement and chalked up failures of other races to keep up to genetics. Genetics was the only theory they had at that time, and even that was rudimentary. A more accurate definition of "racist" is "one who believes in the inherent genetic superiority of certain races despite evidence to the contrary." By your earlier cited definition, if we changed the topic to scientific knowledge, then Galileo was an "idiot" because he possessed false ideas about "gravity and objects in a vacuum" despite merely operating on available information at the time. I suspect you have something against Hume personally as a POV compromise that is causing you to create problems where they do not exist. 98.114.89.231 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As for starting here- for starters, I don't think it's relevant to put a modern label on an historic figure, and that brings me to another part of that- should we also apply modern labels, besides racism? For example, how political figures line up with modern definitions of liberal/conservative? Or this- because the accepted definition of racism has changed since Hume's time, I'd argue that this comparison on racism would be like referring to George Washington as "low-income" because his pay as president was $25,000 per year. Obviously, the value of the dollar has changed drastically since Washington's time, but similarly, so has the definition of racism since Hume's time. Washington wasn't low-income at the time, but Hume wasn't racist at the time. Washington is low-income by today's standards only, just like the comparison with Hume. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comparing him with today. I'm comparing him with himself. Please go on to the article and read about his works - induction, causation, ethics, etc. Compare this with his statement on the races. He was a racist by his own standards and his arguments were nonsense by his own standards.

Think of it this way: if his statement was about the jews, by now he will probably be known as anti-semitic. The issue of what is relevant and what is not is complex. That is why I'm leaving this for now.

Serkalem (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Relocation of religion

I have put the "Religion" section back to where it was. First of all, I think that there should be a reason given for such a change. But also, the change as made breaks the flow of the discussion. In particular, Hume's later influence on philosophy of induction is improperly located in the section "Religion". I do not object to relocation, but I think that these two concerns should be addressed. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

David Hume was a racist

‘I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilised nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or in speculation. No ingenious manufacture among them, no arts, no sciences”.- David Hume

and please dont excuse this and say he was a man of his time, if he was so intellegent then how could he have this stupid mindset? --Halaqah 22:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Because.... he was a man of his time. That's not an excuse, it is a fact. Find me ANY figure from that time period who didn't hold atleast *some* racist views and I'll be amazed. Even highly intelligent people can fall victim to social prejudices, and yes... even a great skeptic like Hume.

Please please please, "some" racist view? Read what he said. The man in the bar cursing Africa is uninformed, this man spoke from reflection and conviction. It was his observation. That doesnt excuse any form of racism "man of his Time". Why can i look into the history of other people and find this "opinion" funny i find a more informed view. When the Greeks wrote on Kemet they were more "of our time" in their thinking. --Halaqah 08:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Hume was 'racist' as we call people now who generalise about people with certain physical appearance. But I ask for evidence that Hume should have known that there were people of that complexion eminent either in action or in speculation, ingenious manufacture, or in the arts and sciences” in 18c. In short, was Hume substantially wrong? It is more than likely that Hume's experience encompassed no signficant contact with any of that complexion, other than slaves in Bristol, but before condemning him in modern terms, should we not demonstrate his error? Note too that he was careful to say that he was 'apt to suspect', not that he was certain.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying that Hume's racism should be excused or overlooked, my point was that it shouldn't really be a suprise. I expect, when looking into the views of 18th century figures, to find opinions which today we would consider "backwards." Also, it isn't something we should condemn him too heavily for. But yes, it was a flaw in his character, and that should be noted.

Not very clear to me why the extent of the prevalence among his contemporaries of the notion that whites are superior to blacks or the lack of evidence of 'civilizational' achievement by blacks would mitigate or negate the notion that David Hume was a racist. It may very well be the case that David Hume and most of his Scottish contemporaries held his view, and yet one would be perfectly justified in calling him and those who held his views racist. Also: the fact that Hume may not have had any evidence that blacks had achieved 'civilizational greatness' is beside the point. His explanation of the lack of such 'civilizational greatness' is obviously racially based. That he was a man of sophisticated thought and learning and perhaps best disposed in his time to come up with a more sophisticated alternate explanation puts on his shoulders a bit more guilt than the common man. But then again, he was an Empiricist and his racist position follows from the myopic evidence he had at hand. --Didou 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. For me, it is odd that he was a racist. His views on causation and induction show how advanced his thoughts were. Being a "Great thinker" of his time, I would expect him to question even the widely accepted views of the society. I see a major flaw in his thinking there.

Hume's remark does not make him racist, he was simply remarking on an observation. Why do people cry racism where there is none? I think Halaqah is on a witch-hunt. 86.42.251.4 (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hume said "I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites", and went on to cite evidence for this view. Essentially he said that the evidence available to him was consistent with the hypothesis of racial inferiority, and in view of this he was inclined to suspect that that was indeed the case. The word "racist" is a woolly and undefined term, tending to be used to mean almost anything to do with race which is disapproved of by the person using it. That being so I cannot say whether Hulme was a "racist" or not until I am given a definition of what "racist" is being used to mean here. However, there are certain things which we can say of Hulme's comment quoted above. For example he did "question ... the widely accepted views of the society": having questioned the accepted view he concluded that, on the balance of evidence available to him, the accepted view was likely to be true, but that the evidence was not sufficient to come to a definite conclusion on the matter; this is why he used the word "suspect". To take his comment as indicating an unquestioning acceptance of society's view strikes me as a complete misreading, and I don't see what meaning can be attached to "suspect" by anyone who reads it that way.

Why does considering the evidence and coming to a tentative "suspicion" as to what that evidence might indicate, but withholding judgment indicate a "stupid mindset"? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

JamesBWatson: Well said. Thanks for your input.86.44.149.39 (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The arguments in favor of Hume on this issue, both that "everybody thought that way about black people" and that "he was going on the available evidence," are unfortunately bunk. Here's the full Google view of James Beattie's Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth: http://www.google.com/books?id=mLgwAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=james+beattie+essay&cd=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false --- On page 286, Beattie, Hume's contemporary, addresses the footnote in question and completely dismantles Hume's argument. This proves that Hume, as a mid-to-late 18th century Scot, was not simply "going with the flow." People during the Enlightenment were just as equipped as we are to see that racism is an unnecessary dogma, as Beattie proves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.14.75 (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hume's supposedly "racist" suspicion concerning "the Negroes" appears to be supported, at least in part, by the vast majority of psychometric data on the subject. African Americans, for instance, have consistently been shown to obtain a mean IQ score of approximately 85 points. It's worth noting that the extent to which this deficit is caused by genetic factors versus environmental factors has not been completely elucidated, however the existence of a disparity is more or less agreed upon by most academics attuned to the subject. --Mr. Deltoid (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The concept of "racism" wasn't invented by Leon Trotsky until 1930. Just because in the West at present, it is impolite or politically "incorrect" to state what Hume stated, doesn't mean (A) That he was incorrect in his observatiosn (B) that we should artifically apply partisan, faddish epithets to him (so-called "racism"). - 90.212.77.135 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur and agree completely. We look back on history with the minds of 20th and 21st century educations. When Hume wrote, there were no theories of psychology dealing with environment and external influences on intelligence. Such things were a product of Freud and James. Also, as an empiricist, Hume, like Plato, probably attributed most traits to the nature (in this case genetics) of an object (in this case a people). Additionally, his conclusions are rational and true based on the evidence of the time. The landmark achievements of blacks in America and Europe followed two generations after his life, however he only ever saw information detailing the supposed shortcomings of blacks. Due to their environment, blacks could not compete with the intellectual achievements of whites at the time. Hume recognized the latter part of this fact, however was completely unaware that environment could be a critical circumstance in determining intelligence. Looking back at him and calling him a "racist" for this conclusion would be tantamount to looking back at Newton and calling him a "fool" for failing to anticipate Relativity.98.114.89.231 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There's room for a middle position on this. Hume's making an empirical claim, and not arguing for a moral one. The two disheartening (and, I suspect, uninformed) comments above somewhat endorsing those statements aside, Hume's not known for his great strides in anthropology. If you demonstrated to him the wrongness of his position, I'd imagine he'd admit that no observation is necessary, and move on.184.77.32.182 (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Connexion

The [sic] has been removed from "connexion" by Theldorrin, because it is "common English". That I doubt, but it's just a matter of time before some smartypants changes it to 'connection'. There are one or two sics in this article to slow down over-zealous editors. I think it should remain. Myrvin (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The use of "connexion" in the article only appears in direct quotes by Hume himself. At the time Hume was writing "connexion" was indeed a common way of spelling that word, so I agree with the editor who removed the superflous "sic". As the "sic" is thus not correct, I don't think it is a good way of deterring any future wrongful edits. That can only be prevented by vigilant supervision. For example I have several articles on my watchlist that deals with subjects in 18th century France, and I just have to accept that that entails occasionally reverting good intentioned but wrongful edits that changes parlement to parliament, and livres to lives. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course the quote is correct, but people often think it is poor English and change it. Chambers has: "sic - (Latin) so, thus — printed within brackets in quoted matter to show that the original is being faithfully reproduced even though incorrect or apparently so." (My emphasis). There were several changes for "uncontroulable" until I put a '[sic]' next to it. It has remained untouched for nearly a year. So it seems to have worked. But, we shall see. Myrvin (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "Connexion" doesn't even show up on spellcheck on my browser. I've seen examples of this spelling in British English that are relatively contemporary. It seems wrong to say that it is incorrect.184.77.32.182 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction: Whig, Tory or neither?

According to this article

Hume was politically a Whig

However, it is also claimed that

...he [Hume] resisted aligning himself with either of Britain's two political parties, the Whigs and the Tories...

Top.Squark (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Had a go at fixing this. Myrvin (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Template for Hume's argument regarding induction

Is there anyone willing or able to help with this template. Perhaps some boffins wouldn't mind fact checking while others iron out the techo stuff.

If you look at Chapter 5 of http://www.davidhume.org/documents/1996PhD.pdf, you will see detailed criticism of Stove's diagram. Alternative diagrams of the argument, as presented in the Treatise and the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (which are different) can be found in the Appendix of that thesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.235.110 (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC) {{Hume on induction}}

Atheism

Hume was an atheist, evident in his writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.1.231 (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.55.59 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hume's use of 'Induction'

An editor has added some precautionary words at the front of the Induction section. I have put an tag on it because it seems to be the editor's own view. However, there may be something in the idea that Hume thought induction was fine and some other form of reasoning was dodgy, or that maybe he was using the word 'induction' in some different sense to the modern, and had the word applied to his work only much later. I haven't seen this before, and I don't think anyone else I have read gives this warning. If it is true, then we need some citations to back up and clarify the assertion. So far, I have come across this: [[2]] which does apply the word to Hume's work in 1846. I shall continue to search. Myrvin (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Myrin, thanks for watching this. I've added a citation to an article by Milton ("it is notorious that he [Hume] rarely used the word, and never in the passages where his inductive scepticism has been located") and have altered the final sentence to reduce the scope of its claim. John P. McCaskey (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

More Critical Analysis is Needed

Why aren't there more counter arguments offered in the article? I know that they are out there. It would be most helpful to those desiring to understand the strengths and weaknesses of Hume. Professor Douglas Groothuis, for example, wrote on Questioning Hume's theory of Meaning (http://www.ivpress.com/groothuis/pdf.php/doug/000111.pdf). Quintessential1 (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hume and Religion

It said Hume held notoriously ambiguous views of Christianity. While it his clear that his arguments against knowledge, design, and miracles, do challenge Christianity, Hume has not expressed any positive views of Christianity.

Hume could have been an agnostic, deist, atheist, or anywhere between those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.116.30 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This should be noted in the opening of the article. While to say Hume's views of Christianity were ambiguous rather than negative is less controversial, its less accurate. And this should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.116.169 (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion: Secondary source

I have removed the following:

Nevertheless, he was capable of writing in the introduction to his The Natural History of Religion that "The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author". Hume affirms this through the Law of Causality, writing, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause." He writes at the end of the essay: "Examine the religious principles, which have, in fact, prevailed in the world. You will scarcely be persuaded, that they are anything but sick men's dreams", and "Doubt, uncertainty, suspence of judgement appear the only result of our most accurate scrutiny, concerning this subject".

I can't find this stuff in Hume. Apart perhaps from the letters reference, all the other quotes seem to come from the writers collected in "Hume on natural religion", by S. Tweyman[3]. Myrvin (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

parts are quoted in a RS: Roy Porter. Rjensen (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Racism (again)

Why are his racist remarks described as "racist"? I wasn't aware something was racist or "racist" depending on who says the words and when. Suppose I uttered the same words now; I'd be accused of racism, not "racism" (I hope). Why do what, at first sight, appear to be mealy-mouthed (I presume Scottish) Humeans get to effectively censor the article? Why is not even a mention of such matters permitted? The previous talk page discussion came to no definite conclusion as far as I can see; the last person to post suggested putting in an ungarnished mention of his racist views balanced with a mention of his early anti-slavery stance. If the argument is that he is a philosopher, therefore the article should only be about his philosophy, we need to undertake a rather massive consistency project to eliminate all mention of racism from all the other articles to which an identical or analogous argument can be applied.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it can we deal with Hume's homophilia, shoplifting, and jaywalking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.114.202 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to 71.245.114.202's comment, it is hopeless for amateurs to extract particular text written by someone who died over 200 years ago, and quote that text to suggest a particular point of view as understood by readers in the 21st century (a very specialized historian would be required—someone who has studied all the subject's writing and life, and commentary thereon, and with detailed knowledge of the context and norms of the time). When an editor extracts text like that, it is known as WP:SYNTH. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He was a racist. It could be that it was the accepted view at that time but that doesn't make him not-racist. The fact that he was a philosopher, one who can make complex logical arguments, also make this significant. I debated this point years ago but the text in the article and the talk page have both been removed. If he thought the Jews were inferior it would have been more notable - according to our currently accepted view. "I am apt to suspect the negroes, and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other com-plexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMANthSe, present TARTARhSav, e still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are NEGROE slaves dispersed all over EUROPE, of which none ever discovered any symptom of ingenuity; tho’ low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In JAMAICA, indeed, they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ’tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly." - David Hume Tesatafi (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

He was certainly not the only case of racism in that "enlightened" century: see, for instance Voltaire, who, in the company of many others, was a "scientific racist". The "scientific" (in fact, pseudo-scientific) qualifier, when appended to racism, is (should be, anyway) an aggavating factor, not an alleviating one. --Miguel de Servet (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Misreading the early development of science in modern terms of social correctness is a fruitless exercise, and articles should be based on reliable expert sources on the topic of the article, not on such speculation. While you may be aggravated by the work of Carl Linnaeus, that does not make it pseudo-scientific. . . dave souza, talk 22:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever to do with "modern terms of social correctness". "Scientific racism" is purely and simply an un-scientific prejudice. --Miguel de Servet (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a loaded term when applied to historical attitudes which were common during the development of science, and not in themselves unscientific. As in Linnaeus. . dave souza, talk 12:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If Mr. Hume (one time under-Secretary of State, in effect for Colonial Affairs so I suppose well aware of the question) was not a racist, he was ignorant of the reality of the black people life in his same Country as some of his contemporaries (James Beattie, James Ramsay) pointed out to him and as more recent research about black people life in Britain established. This is also to say that at that time not everyone thought as Hume and there were any 'historical attitudes common during the development of science'. Hume was criticized for what he wrote; at some point he has revised his note by removing references to all non-whites (perhaps someone noticed him that there were Chinese or Indian civilization) but he retained all the point about blacks despite the fact that he only had to meet some former slaves to understand how he was mistaken about their capacity. [4]--2.40.156.188 (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the extremely important aspects of this topic is that of how a thinker can assume that his subjective, internal idea corresponds to objective, external actuality. This is at the heart of Hume's philosophy. As a result of a few experiences, Hume supposed that his own mental idea was true of the outside world.Lestrade (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Krugman quote for economics

Do you think it'd be helpful to add Paul Krugman's quote that he thinks David Hume "created what I consider the first true economic model" (referring to this essay) under the section "Contributions to economic thought"?

For now, I thought, I'd add this, and then if we found it to be unnecessary, we could remove it. -- And Rew 21:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

yes it's very good info. Rjensen (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Political Theory

This section seems quite misleading with regard to his actual political views on several points. Despite the assertion that "He thinks that society is best governed by a general and impartial system of laws, based principally on the "artifice" of contract; he is less concerned about the form of government that administers these laws, so long as it does so fairly (though he thought that republics were more likely to do so than monarchies)" this lacks citation and the points on republics actually seems contrary to his views. The point on his emphasis on the rule of law is correct. He despised factions and felt these were more likely to develop in republics as he noted in his studies of Greece and Rome. He preferred the stability of monarchies. He is largely hard to classify in a typical manner because he essentially saw political abstraction on legitimacy to be a dangerous source of conflict, such as contract theory or jacobite advocacy of the stuarts, and felt that the existing form of whig government of Walpole with its semi-corrupt patronage system should be maintained for the sake of stability. "Hume was also, in general, an optimist about social progress, believing that, thanks to the economic development that comes with the expansion of trade, societies progress from a state of "barbarism" to one of "civilisation". Civilised societies are open, peaceful and sociable, and their citizens are as a result much happier. It is therefore not fair to characterise him, as Leslie Stephen did, as favouring "...that stagnation which is the natural ideal of a sceptic."[96]" These statements draw a conclusion contrary to a source based on reasoning in the previous sentences which is not sourced. The sentences on his view of progress in history are in fact true, but the conclusion drawn in the last sentence quoted is a stretch given his earnest support of the status quo as described above. Elsewhere the article spends an inordinate amount of time attempting to define Hume in moderns terms which it admits are anachronistic, or describe him with relation to republican ideals and the American revolution that fails to give equal weight to his opinions on contemporary British politics on which he had more definite ideas.

I can give this section a substantial rewrite a couple weeks from now if there are no objections or additions of citations. Kilkeel (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Kilkeel

Top image.

What is the date/story behind this image of Hume? Does anybody know, i.e what kind of hat is he wearing?--82.8.226.105 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I'm leaning towards the theory that it's a Bacon turban. Presumably these were invented by angry Sikhs who are fed up with being confused with Muslims, and since Hume was a follower of Bacon he'd naturally want one. Strangely the article doesn't mention this. 118.208.0.241 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Read Early History

Just read the earliest history, from Caesar on. While Hume does a great deal of analysis, a lot of it is poorly written from a 21st century pov. A terrible bigot. Doesn't really stand the test of time, IMO. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggest reading some of this history. There is nothing subtle about it. He is no Edward Gibbon. Don't understand all the philosophical airs bestowed on Hume. He is obviously well-read for his time, just simply a bigot and when there is no one around to blame for a king's failure (or even when there is), clerics are blamed. (like Gibbon) The phrase "clerics are not anti-clerical" did not make sense to me. That may be true, but Hume was not a cleric, nor a Presbyterian, nor any of the rest of the "antis" either. Student7 (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

An editor has politely asked me to erase the above.

I just happened to be reading "The History of England, Volume 1." Probably downloaded from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10574. Doubtless there are other sites. While it demonstrates scholarship (he had to read a lot of books), it doesn't seem to demonstrate common sense.

As an example, I am also reading a book by Plutarch summarizing the ideas of famous ancients about cosmology. The results are mostly laughable since they include manifest guesswork with legends about gods and no decent instruments for recording ephemeris. Plutarch's scholarship problem is he felt he had to include everybody. Herodotus had the same problem with his history.

Anyway, by Hume's time, scholars had more sense. Hume tries to reconcile ancient myths with each other, Bede, Anglo Saxon Chronicles, etc. The results are often nonsense. Okay, he was writing 25 years before Gibbon, so maybe scholarship improved a lot during that time.

This Wikipedia article appears awestruck at Hume's wisdom. I don't agree with Gibbon either but at least he made the attempt to get his facts straight. Hume doesn't have the references that Gibbon did for his subject but uses them anyway. The results are less than profound.

Today, Gibbon is widely read. I doubt than anyone would recommend, except for laughs, Hume's History any more than Plutarch's summary. Herodotus is at least fun to read!

My point on improving the article is questioning the material more seriously than it apparently has been. No reader of the History by Hume can come away "impressed" with his scholarship today. Maybe in 1760, but that is different.

Some of the footnotes are revealing.

I did not wish to become an article editor and was just recording my opinion of the work thus far. A presumably involved editor objected. Student7 (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You introduced the words "ant-Catholic and anti-clerical" with the edit note "As historian of England: anti-Catholic. But then, so was everybody". I reverted the edit and questioned your justification, because not everyone was anti-Catholic (especially Catholics). I also added that clerics were not anticlerical to question why you said H was anti-clerical. (I assumed you thought everyone was, like everyone was anti-Catholic). I see now you have added "anti-Christian", with a citation from the Catholic church, but left out the anti-clerical. There should really be a citation to justify the otherepithets in that sentence - unless the Wertz reference is meant to do all that. I, and I see others, do find your style of writing here very odd for (as you have been called) "a seasoned editor." Myrvin (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see why these 4 paragraphs in quite a long article make you say that the entire article is "awestruck at Hume's wisdom". The historian section reads to me to be reasonably neutral, but it could probably do with a few more citations. It doesn't say people should read him as a historian, nor says the histories stands the test of time. Your response seems to be completely OTT. If there is good reason to criticise him as a historian, then that could be done with relevant references. The article as a whole seems much more concerned with his philosophy. Ah! But you say "Don't understand all the philosophical airs bestowed on Hume". Myrvin (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Student7 I asked you to remove your personal opinions on Hume ("a terrible bigot", "doesn't really stand the test of time") as they have no place on this talk page (as clearly laid out in WP:NOTOPINION). Frankly I'm surprised you would fall into the old trap of judging historical figures based on 21st century POV's. It almost seems you have a personal agenda against Hume for some reason. He has always been a lightning rod for criticism but it's always a bit of a surprise to find it materializing again in 2013. Some first rate thinkers (e.g. Kant & Schopenhauer) referred to him as the best mind of his time. Again, please remove all personal opinion and leave your suggestions on article improvement. Thanks in advance. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Who's judging? You've rm an existing citation listing his biases, which were rather lengthy. I admit that he is not worth considering further. I'm not going to argue that a bad scholar is a bad scholar. Let someone else try reading him and arrive at a different conclusion. Student7 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The only opinions that matters regarding his level of scholarship are the ones that can be found in reliable secondary sources. As such your opinion voiced here, or anyone else who have "tried reading him" is of no relevance to this article. Please refrain from using this page or any other talk pages on Wikipedia to voice your personal likes and dislikes as per WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Character flaw does not necessarily make an individual less brilliant and their contributions less significant. "A terrible bigot" or not does not lessen the impact Hume has had. Attacking his character accordingly seems more of an attempt to discredit him for personal reason, and is clearly biased. However, it does mirror his career as dictated on his page; marred by his tarnished reputation as an Atheist. Haters are going to hate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCTramirez (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Invalid citation

In the section Religion, I found these two propositions attributed to the same citation, viz., Hume's Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion "Hume asserts that god exists beyond doubt" and "Hume asserts that the nature of god can neither be confirmed nor denied". In fact, the first statement seems to derive from the understanding of the personae Demea and Cleanthes at page 41 that no-one in his right mind would question the existence of God—a healthy and pragmatic position from a 17th-century viewpoint; and the second is the view of Demea that [the nature of God is] "altogether incomprehensible and unknown to us." Neither of the propositions has the status of an assertion by Hume. It is in the nature of a dialogue that contrary propositions are canvassed. Some following opinions lacked justification, necessitating deletion of them, too. Bjenks (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Religion Section

Why isn't there more talk about Hume's religious views? His contributions to religion have an important significance, especially to the debate on God. In the world today we believe that religion is based on cause and effect. God is the cause but David Hume assumed that the causation is actually unknowable & that we do not know if there is a God. He essentially says that you can't prove or disprove that there is a God and that this complex idea of God is created in our mind. I believe that David Hume's contributions are important for modern times because there are a lot more people today who would agree with his philosophy on religion. I, myself, find this guy to be very interesting and would love to learn more about his views.

It is also important to mention within the religion section his works from "Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion", which was one of his more important reflections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.245.191 (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree there could be more. Now's your chance. You've seen a gap in the article; you know about the sources; you should write the section. I suggest that the general works on religion go in the Thought part, somewhere before (or including) his miracles piece. The Religion section is meant to be about his personal religious views. Go for it! Myrvin (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've even started it for you. Myrvin (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

From reading the last part of the religion section, it seems like David Hume had a real sense of humor. I would almost think his page could have a section dedicated to his character, as he seems like a really personable guy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonTCole (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

History

I removed this from Career:

In this work, Hume presented the political person as a creature of habit, with a disposition to submit quietly to established government unless confronted by uncertain circumstances. In his view, only religious difference could deflect people from their everyday lives to think about political matters.

I can't find the idea anywhere. Myrvin (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Buridan's ass

I am trying to find where Hume refers to this. Or can anyone get access to Richard Wright's book Understanding religious ethics? Can anyone help? Myrvin (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I did a web search and found this and this; perhaps this helps? My web search also found the book you require at numerous booksellers, including Amazon for £12.17. (I have been through this myself, purchasing used books in the areas I am researching. My shelf is full now. Maybe also your local library? Good luck.) Prhartcom (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I too keep coming across the ass in the general area of Hume, but nowhere where Hume actually refers to it directly. I'm wondering if this Hume/ass connection has been inferred somewhere, but not actually from Hume's writings. I'm looking again at his Morals, where the introduction writer mentions the ass, without saying where in Hume it lives (or dies). Myrvin (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Things are confused by the fact that Jean Buridan may well not have written about this ass either. He may have commented on Aristotle's indecisive dog. Myrvin (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting; wouldn't that go against many centuries of scholar's assertions? If you're right, then set the record straight here for all time! Prhartcom (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I found the reference in Aristotle, and it seems to be men not a dog. Maybe Buridan turned the men into a dog and someone else turned the dog into an ass. I could imagine someone saying that Hume's view on the will was against the concept of Buridan's ass starving. But I can't find that either. Maybe someone out there has the Wright book. I don't think I'll buy it just to find out. We have no reason to doubt that it is an RS and says what the editor says it says. It's irritating though.Myrvin (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

One reason for doubt is that Google searches don't seem to find Hume commenting about asses or donkeys or Buridan, and my guess would be that just about everything Hume published was on the Internet. It is possible that the source considers the issue of free will/determinism and gives one POV with the donkey as an illustration, then offers Hume's thoughts on the question, with the source reaching a conclusion about how Hume's reasoning would resolve the donkey's problem. It appears the text was added by HumphreyBurke in this edit on 1 December 2012. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewording it all. Still not that happy though.Myrvin (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Influence on modern theology

Hume has not only written on religion, he was engaged in various exchanges with important theologians of his time, e.g. Joseph Butler. His critical notion of various aspects of the church does not allow to claim him for the brutish / Dawkins version of new atheism. Actually, via German Scottish theologian Johann Joachim Spalding, Hume critical thought has influwenced and contributed to a new paradigm in (German) theology, the de:neologie school, which is of importance till today. Some online available Sources

1. de:Friedrich Wilhelm Graf in Süddeutsche Zeitung September 11th 2007: [http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/religion-und-wissenschaft-der-liebe-gott-als-blutruenstiges-ungeheuer-1.879879/ Review of Graf of Richard Dawkins und Christopher Hitchens books refering to Hume
2. de:Friedrich Wilhelm Graf in FAZ Feulleton, print version Nr. 249 / Page 39 October 27th 2003: Von David Hume ließ er sich nicht die Butter vom Brot nehmen - Ein Ausweis der aufgeklärten protestantischen Theologenelite ist wieder zugänglich: Johann Joachim Spalding in vorzüglicher Edition (Spalding never let Hume get the better of him, about a new edition of a mainstake of the enlighted protestant theological elite) Review of Graf of a new edition of Spaldings works refering to Hume

I plan to add a section on the theological influences, which are not mentioned yet and think that should help to put e.g. Humes dealings with religion in general and theology as a science in a larger picture. Serten II (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds all right; just FYI: the article is in the middle of a GA review. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw that from your edit stats ;) Think that would be a mutually positve endeavour anyway, but in an article with ongoing controversies or reviews I prefer to announce my plans before starting to hopp in. Theologist FW Graf is an old favorite of mine and I'll plan to translate his entry anyway. 15:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten II (talk • contribs)

Thank-you for this expansion. I will have to re-read it, actually; (I am not positive that beginners to the article are going to be enraptured while reading it in its current state; we may need to stay more on the immediate topic of David Hume and keep the prose crisp and clear and avoid getting bogged down in scholarly details). Allow me to thank-you again for your help to bring insight to the article. Anyone's help is appreciated. Now, I would like to return control of the article to the nominator, who is actively working to cut and add whatever is necessary to bring this article to their level of satisfaction, which is then being actively reviewed by the co-reviewer and I. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Language wise I would be interested in the rules for scottish (or is it scotch ;) ?) language, sounds like the deWP's rules for Swiss related articles. Any further info to that would be welcome.

I think there is much more to find in the Saumagen / Haggis German Scottish connection here. There is more to it than just quoting Immanuel Kant, either Spalding (and Kieerkegard and Berlin) ) are major aspects of Humes global reception and insofar belong to the "immediate topic of David Hume". I assume reduscing focusing in the lede and moving some of my and others contributions to the main text is a way to go.

Hume has been used by "brutish new atheists" (Graf) like Dawkins to use him as a poster child for new atheism / against intelligent design. The actual discussion in the time of hume was much more complex, much of what Dawkins brings up as being brand new has been dealt with long ago, with somewhat surprising results and is - see Isaiah Berlin - not quite as simple as it has often been proposed. Serten II (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting; agreed that Hume is far more complex than that. Yes, agreed, moving the new text from the lede into its own section (or actually: into it's own article?) would be appropriate. (Does the idea of a separate article sound intriguing? Then, the focus on this aspect could truly be delved into. This article before the expansion was already lengthy, understandably so for such a topic, and should be as clear and concise as possible—it is likely this article will be the introduction of Hume for many.) Let us now allow the nominator to continue their work, whom I urge to cut where necessary to return to this goal. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominator here. I'm twiddling my thumbs - or living my life - while awaiting JM's next tranche. I think the influences section is a bit thin as it is anyway, and could do with extending. We want to be careful though that we don't have too much on people who thought Hume was wrong or worth ignoring - that's a different type of influence. I would think theologists might be among those, rather than among the people whose work benefitted from Hume's scepticism. Myrvin (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's got me toying with that section. Actually took something out! Myrvin (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Prhartcom I am fully aware that the lede should contain major impacts. I therefore have provided just some sketchy impressions of three rather different icebergs. 1) Humes despite of french rationalism as inspiration for German irrationalism (the Berlin essay) 2) the influence on scholarship, preaching, various theology schools (Kierkegaards fideism, Spaldings enlightened preacherman and others, locally German and scandinavian protestant but global impact), and 3) a major breakthrough on comparative religious studies as a topic. Myrvin, Its a trademark of great philosphers, as Hume, that their thinking leads to results and impacts which might not being intended by themselves. I doubt your generic statement about "all theologists" being among those who disliked or ignored him. The theologists and philosphers refered to took Hume rather serious and used his tools, e.g. Hume's law. A good example and fourth iceberg swimming along is Friedrich Heinrich Jacobis influential book on "David Hume über den Glauben, oder Idealismus und Realismus (1787)" (Hume and faith, or Idealism versus Realism), which elaborates Humes sensualism in a pro faith manner.

1. Humes despise of crude French rationalism allowed for fideism in Kirkegaard's interpretation and German Irrationalism (sort of lead to the Holocaust btw., not to be neglected).
2. Johann Joachim Spalding translated Butler, dealt en detail with Hume and agreed with a lot of Humes findings. He was a major figure and role model for generations of German preachers, covered as well by and novels of Goethe and Lenz. his Books, e.g. Über die Nutzbarkeit des Predigtamtes und deren Beförderung ("useability of preaching and enhancing it") or "Thoughts concerning the value of feelings in Christianity" deal and use important aspects of Humes thinking and moral philosphy.
3. According Hans Joas Humes “A Natural History of Religion” was a major breakthrough to address a generic (comparative) history of religions, which does not base its finings on faith related statements. Hume contributed to the transformation of (Christian, most of Islam is still way behind that) theology in the enlightenment and thats an impact on organizations with billions of members ;).Serten II (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't actually say "all", but I should have said "some". Myrvin (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way. I don't see that Dawkins makes a great deal of Hume. He does say that Hume didn't explain the complexity of nature - that was Darwin. Myrvin (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dawkins wrote a whole book (the watchmaker), motivated by Humes counterclaims against the watchmaker analogy. (I read it at the lake after a nice Steiner school lass lended it to me :) Dawkin claimed that before Darwin, god was needed to explain the complexity of life, but not at all afterwards. Hume just didnt need Darwin to counter the argument of design, and he wouldnt bother to accept Dawkins simplistic philosophy. Serten II (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Perhaps you should read it again. Hume wrote before Paley, so didn't counterclaim him. Also, Paly ignored Hume's work. Dawkins doesn't mention Hume that often at all. He notes that Hume's ideas of course, but Dawkins is much more interested in explaining complexity using Darwin. Perhaps you have a quote that disagrees? Myrvin (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dawkins writes in Chapter1:

Paley knew that [complexity in nature] needed a special explanation; ... As for David Hume himself, it is sometimes said that that great Scottish philosopher disposed of the Argument from Design a century before Darwin. But what Hume did was criticize the logic of using apparent design in nature as positive evidence for the existence of a God. He did not offer any alternative explanation for apparent design, but left the question open. An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.'

Not exactly a poster boy Myrvin (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked the watchmaker and the conversation with the philospher you refered to, sorry for the misunderstanding. The posterboy use happens however, see (the Graf review I had been quoting in the article) of the God illusion and Hitchens. Nevertheless Dawkins claim (in rather oldfashioned preacherstyle) of a new godless era starting 1859 is as simplistic as easily parried, take Stephen Barr quote on the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, I just inserted the source there. Hume's But as all perfection is entirely relative, we ought never to imagine that we comprehend the attributes of this divine Being, or to suppose that his perfections have any analogy or likeness to the perfections of a human creature. Wisdom, Thought, Design, Knowledge; these we justly ascribe to him; because these words are honourable among men, and we have no other language or other conceptions by which we can express our adoration of him is imho a good example why we all should work on this article, under Erik Wielenberg's motto in Dawkins’s Gambit, Hume’s Aroma, and God’s Simplicity "One moral of my story will be that theists and atheists alike ought to put away The God Delusion and open (or reopen) Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". Cheers Serten II (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we agreed that the German theology text is to be moved to the body of the article? I suggest to the Influence section. The lead is now looking too big, and this part id too detailed. Myrvin (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Please do so; you are the decision maker at this point. Among the many goals of this review, an important one for me is avocation of a readable article. We want to ensure the article is suitable for those who are being introduced to Hume. It should draw the reader in and make them want to keep reading, fascinated by what they are learning for the first time. (Contrast that to a different article that would have an unrelated goal of advanced exploration of Hume; something we are not doing.) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I owuld go a step further and reduce other sections of the lede as well, but keep the entry with Berlin and Kierkegaard for mouthwatering. ;) 16:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't intend to do too much in the middle of a GA review. I have a few comments though:

• Russell doesn't mention Reid. We need a source for this.
• Isn't Butler only mentioned in Russell as someone Hume was against. Does this count as 'interacted'. This [5] says Hume tried to see Butler and failed. It may be that Hume was influenced by Butler. This [6] is better.
• The Russell mention of Hume's atheism or not is already mentioned in Religious views. Also, there's no such word as irreligionous'. I'll delete this reference, so the word will go.
• We need translated quotes to support Hume's influence on the German theology. Readers won't easily be able to follow a German source.
• The Kierkegaard book has several volumes. Ah I see: it's the Philosophy one. Is the text in italics a quote? I don't see how the words in italics lead to fideism. I'm getting there. This [7] is the place.
• Which Isaiah Berlin essay is this in? Need page numbers. I think I can work that out - it's in the citation. Myrvin (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I just had moved Reid and Butler, so no source was gioven before

According Russel (The Riddle of Hume's Treatise: Skepticism, Naturalism, and Irreligion) page 131) Hume had a quite positive view of Butler, he saw him as an eminent figure and was anxious to have a feedback on a publication from hime. again, butler was in the lede before.

With regard to the atheism aspects, I have used http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/hume-religion/#10 - a subsection of Hume on Religion, so no need for another quote (I am no GA addict, honestly ;). Quote The most accurate and informative label for describing Hume's views on this subject, I suggest, is irreligion. I therefore coined irreligionous, and ask for forgiveness.

Ooutsch with regard to translated quotes. Wasnt there something like Babelfish for weblinks since decades? Lets see what I am willing to do.

I didnt quote Kierkegaard, I took the suggestion from the guy that read Kierkegaard, and he gives much more examples.

Isaiah Berlin, thnx. Serten II (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

See what it looks like now. Myrvin (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Your moving and copyediting most of my contributions to the very end allowed me to look through the article and I give you a feedback then. As said, I would prefer to have Kierkegaard and Berlin in the lede, since they are the most "hooky" (DYK speech) amd will tease readers to have closer look. I promise to elaborate on them as on the Spalding connection in the influence section or d something in the Religious views - irreligion included, thnx ;)

With regard to the influence section, as such, I rather dislike it, it is momentary a rather "great quotes of great people" collection, but not providing actual influences on institutions and policy. The easy thing would to move some parts of the lede downstairs as suggested. I have a a major problem with the Writings on religion (but wouldn't bother to work on it before GA) with its overly large points about Design argument and Problem of miracles, which are completely overstating two tiny aspects of Humes views and understating his actual interaction and impact on religous figures, studies and theology. You could boil that conflated sufflé down to a fifth without loosing content. Point is, you want to get it through the GA provess, sorta dress to impress is the way to go. I would support to leave it now at it is and do changes afterwards, when the Waldorf and Statler fraction has had it say. Humes writings and breakthrough with regard to religious history has been of much higher importance e.g. for academic curricula and studies.

Two points I find lacking now, which may sound a little bit Marxist, but may help with GA

1. You provide nearly nothing about the Scottish Enlightenment and why Hume, surely not an aristocrat could raise to such a major role in it. I am currently editing some articles dealing with the educational parts of the Prussian reforms, some sources are on record to compare the military defeat of Prussia 1806 and the raise of major figures from the rather specific social class Bildungsbürgertum with the "new middle class" in Edinburgh (the base of the Scottish enlightement) after the political power went from there to London. If youre interested, i have a look on Hume related input for a smaller section in here.
2. According the german article, Hume made about 1.000 pounds during his work with the Marquis of Annandale and his diplomatic missions with General St. Clair, thats been the material base for years of further studies. De WP quotes his David Hume: My Life and Heiner F. Klemme: David Hume zur Einführung on that. Essential. Serten II (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
3. I corrected a link to a wrong lord ;). I think one should mention his history of england in the lede, as it was Humes breakthrough (as well moneywise) and one has to call call him as well a diplomat. Serten II (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please Serten, I don't think I can take any more GA reviewers. Two is more than enough. Also, please make your edit suggestions here rather than putting them in the article. They need to be copyedited first. Thanks for the Lord fix. 07:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. As said, I am not aware of the enWP process, in de:WP you face a dozens of regulars and anyone which may come around :) Serten II (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What happened to GA review

Should we have lost all sight of the GA review from the Talk page? Myrvin (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Lowercase sigmabot III archived the include to the GA review here; thanks for pointing that out. Have reported the bug to the bot's owner. Prhartcom (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

While waiting for J Milburn, I have taken it upon myself to do a JM on the rest of the article. I am likely to have missed a lot though. Myrvin (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Update

I won't revert Prhartcom generic update myself. I doubt the article is now all projects and perspectives generically good, B, C or bad. I doubt the GA review process in general ;) Serten II (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hume and Kant

My final suggestion is that something more should be said about Hume and Kant than just the "dogmatic slumbers" Kant quotation. I think these would all be helpful areas to expand.Kingshowman (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)kingshowman

=PGAllert

Hi. You'd earlier made some constructive critiques of the syntax, referencing, and wording of the lead. I've made quite a few changes (particularly correcting the writing in what had previously been the 3rd paragraph, which had previously described nearly everything as "Hume concluded."). Aside from quite a bit of line-editing, I also swapped the second and 3rd paragraphs and combined the 4th and 5th to deal with some flow issues and slightly compact the length. Hopefully you can check this over and see if there's been improvement. Kingshowman (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Gender views

Hume had some pretty outrageous views on gender and women, I didn't find anything about that in the article. It might be a good idea to include, if nothing else then to show how one perhaps shouldn't accept Everything a 'great mind' says... (also I believe he does generalize and go against his own is-ought rules there, when saying that because women are made to feel shame, society ought to keep making women feel shameful)

That is from the section on chastity, isn't it? Hume didn't violate the is-ought rule there; he was describing an "is" and not an "ought". He was talking about why it is that all human societies levy such a stigma on flirtarious women. He said that men get very possessive about their property and don't like to think that a child may not be their own, so they expect women to be modest and reserved. I think that was a reasonable explanation. You may disagree, but I don't see how it's outrageous.

Exactly. Hume was using his moral psychology to explain observable social phenomena. It's called A Treatise of Human Nature for a reason.

Even worse are Hume's racial views, which may be notable enough to include, but perhaps would distract too strongly from the main thrust of the article.Kingshowman (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Hume's doctrine of the Mind as consisting of Impressions and Ideas

Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong or if I've overlooked something, but I see no mention of Hume's basic doctrine of the Mind and its Perceptions as consisting of two categories: Impressions and Ideas. This would seem to be a major omission needing correction.Kingshowman (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

My suggestion in this respect, is that there should be a new section under Hume's Writings with something like the title "Impressions and Ideas" which states at least the following points, for Hume: 1. The mind consists of "Perceptions", the basic mental entities, or objects of mind 2. Perceptions divide into "Impressions" - Feeling, or Sensations and "Ideas" --Thinking, or Thoughts 3. Thinking and Feeling are distinguished by their "degrees of Force/Liveliness/Vivacity" 4. Ideas are therefore "faint" impressions 5. "Copy principle": any "idea" is a copy of some original "impression" to which it is traceable

Personally, I would cite these two works, though others may have differing opinions: Henry Allison, Custom and Reason in Hume: A Kantian Reading of Book 1 of the Treatise, I would also suggest Don Garrett Custom and Cognition in Hume's PhilosophyKingshowman (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is at the very opening of Hume's major philosophical work, and it's kind of the centerpiece of his thought, so I think it's kind of damaging for our credibility to not include any mention of "Impressions and Ideas". Just a suggestion though.Kingshowman (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I added a really brief note on this. There should be a lot more, and this article could use a lot more improvements, but I think most of the glaring omissions have been fixed. I'm finished editing this for awhile. Enjoy. Kingshowman (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede

Is the Lede OK now or still too long?Kingshowman (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Lead section that I considered to be too long was 654 words in five paragraphs, the current section is 770 words in three paragraphs. And that is not counting the references, just the readable prose. So it is not shorter at all, but in fact considerably longer. It also doesnt have fewer quotes, but rather more.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Where can you find the word count? Would be easier than going off paragraphs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 07:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I had to cut and paste the two lead versions into word documents. Unfortunately we dont have that function on wiki.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Also those two quotes are direct terms from Hume. They're included as examples of "concepts" rather than evaluative quotations. Should I not include the "reason is and ought to be slave of the passions" or "nothing but sophistry and illusion"? I'm making some cuts now.Kingshowman (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought the Hume quotes were fine. I referred to adding Kant, Berlin and the Stanford encyclopedia at the end.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK- I now have 630 words in 3 paragraphs. Anything else you would like to cut?Kingshowman (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is much improved by your trimmings. By all means do add the quotes in the influence section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I added them to the influence section, though that section now needs to be fixed. I'm done with the lede if anyone else wants to make changes. I think it's much improved too, thanks for the feedback and help.Kingshowman (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Hume/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations-- has some WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK terms and self-referencing pronouns Needs to be copyedited for spelling.

Last edited at 23:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)