Talk:David Hume

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).

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

The design argument

Part of this section sounds opinionated, the phrase “many are convinced Hume killed the argument for good” uses a weasel word and makes it POV, I think it’s enough to leave it as a classical criticism, I’m going to cut out the “and though the…argument for good.” Part.

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.

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)

See my comment on Talk: Thomas Reid. The world of professional philosophy is full of this kind of surface inconsistency. Postmodern Beatnik 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Michaeltomli (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)

induction not evolutionary

The claim at the end of the problem of induction section that

"This is the closest thing possible during his (pre-Darwinian) time to an evolutionary account of our inductive tendencies, and Hume here has lit on a central feature in any properly atheistic Science of Man, placing him firmly in the naturalist tradition of great thinkers."

seems to be POV espescially without a source It is also innaccurate as it seems to suggest some innate ideas about induction which contradicts hume's blank slate idea of the mind. We may well read evolution into his account and he probably would have too had he known of it but there's no indication that this occurred to him.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Template:Hume on induction

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)

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