Talk:Thomas Reid

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Aesthetics / Metaphysics / Epistemology / Ethics / Mind / Modern Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Aesthetics
	Metaphysics
	Epistemology
	Ethics
	Philosophy of mind
	Modern philosophy

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Early comments[edit]

Reid was a theist. He therefore had to make his philosophy conform to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Also, he misunderstood Berkeley. Reid could not mentally grasp that the way an object appears depends on the observer's brain.

Schopenhauer praised Reid because Reid realized that raw sensations do not, by themselves, represent objects. Sensations are mere feelings. Another mental process, which Schopenhauer called "understanding," represents objects to the mind by applying the forms of space, time, and causality to data provided by sensations.

I try to expand on Reid's notion of common sense and Ryan Delaney deletes my posting. Is it informative to merely say that Reid was a common sense philosopher? Isn't it more educational to explain how he thought that human knowledge can be anlyzed through common sense? Are we writing for third graders?

64.12.117.12 12:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Bruce Partington[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the policy article Wikipedia:No original research. To say that Reid misunderstood Berkeley is original research, and not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It would be better to cite a source that said he misunderstood Berkeley. ⟳ausa کui ^× 13:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I, personally, judged that Reid misunderstood Berkeley. That is my opinion. In the future I will be sensitive to such subjective points of view. 152.163.101.12 02:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Bruce Partington[reply]

Hume & Reid[edit]

The David Hume 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 this 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.

Welcome to the world of professional philosophy. Love/hate relationships between colleagues with antagonistic theories are the norm. Reid wanted Hume's brilliant mind editing his works before they hit the presses, protecting him (Reid) from quick refutation, but he didn't want Hume in a prestigious academic position. Politics. (Of course, that's my opinion and would count as original research, so we shouldn't go putting this in the article.) Postmodern Beatnik 16:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those facts are false: Reid never petitioned against Hume, Hume never edited Reid's work, and Reid's critique of Hume was not "Christian." Wikipedia is horrendous when it comes to philosophy. Get fewer science/math/computer nerds on here and more humanities nerds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.14.75 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually what you say is not entirely true. Hume certainly did edit/review an early manuscript of Reid's Inquiry. In 1762 Reid sent Hume (through their mutual contact Hugh Blair) a large portion of the still unfinished Inquiry for Hume's comment (It appears the parts actually reviewed were the chapters on smell, taste, hearing and touch. The chapter on sight and the conclusion were still in their early stages). On another point, there definitely was religious conflict between Hume and the Aberdeen Philosophical Society (as well as the Scottish clergy). However, this criticism certainly did not extend to Hume's ability as a philosopher. Members of the Aberdeen, as well as Reid, respected Hume as a philosopher and historian (even if they disagreed on many things). Diehl1am (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks to have a typo in the quote. Currently it reads as follows:

         Hume responded that the "deeply philosophical" work "is wrote in a lively and entertaining matter,"

It seems likely tht manner is intended, not matter as stands at present. Does anyone have the source reference, to check?

( Two typos, it might seem: current southern Brit. Eng. would have is written not is wrote: but that may well be diachronic or dialectal variation and anyway isn't important. Still, if anyone has the source . . ? )

- SquisherDa (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Done: thanks Eissink[reply]

You are right. On page 256 (not 255) of the given source (ed. Brookes, 1997), Hume's letter to Hugh Blair (4 July 1762) begins:

Sir I have read over your Friend's Performance & read it over with Pleasure, because it has a Quality seldom to be met with in Performances of that Nature; which is that it is wrote in a lively entertaining manner & will be able to fix the Attention even of those who are the {least} curious about metaphysical Reasoningss. You desire me also to give my Judgement of the Argument and of {the} Piece in general: I own this is not easy, unless one had seen the whole; because the Scope [of] and Tendency of the Parts is not other wise easily discover'd. However, such an imperfect Judgement as I can form, I shall very candidly deliver {to you leaving you to [deliver] {transmit what part of it you think proper to the ingenious Author. etc.

The remark "deeply philosophical" is, as one might expect, not to be found in that letter. Eissink (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Expansion of Article[edit]

This article clearly needs to have a lot of work done to it. I have begun to work on expanding on the biographical information of Reid (life, education, career, etc...). While it is still pretty rough, if anyone wishes to see what I have so far and comment on things to be added or changed you can go check out on my user page in my sandbox. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks. Diehl1am (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP's secular presentism[edit]

There seems to be a secular presentism on Wikipedia and I don't like it. Mind you, not out of any religious sentiment (which I am without), but the Wikipedia reader/user/patron will be left with a distorted view of history. My present edits give a more historically accurate picture of Thomas Reid.Ingram (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probable typo in quote[edit]

The article quotes Reid (@Exploring sense and language, final para) as writing " The great Lord Verulam had a perfect comprehension of this when we called it an interpretation of nature." "When he called it .. " seems much more likely. Can anyone with access to the cited source check? - SquisherDa (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You were right, again. Eissink (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]