I've always been a big fan of David Hume and, in general, empiricism. It's nice to see that there is attention made to his point that a healthy human life consists of a 'mixed kind' between higher intellectual activities as well as common mundane activities.
Often times, at least in academia, his philosophical skepticism is presented as the main and only point. From my perspective, his skepticism is way of targeting those already reading philosophy (and thusly more likely to favor pursuing intellect over the body) in the hopes of persuading them into more healthy balance. Because of that tho, I almost never suggest reading him as a first introduction to Philosophy for new students. Instead, he seems a nice counter point to the works of philosophers who are better suited for introductory texts (Plato, Descartes, Aristotle, etc)
Totally agree. He was one of the few greats that really understood the importance of balancing intellectualism with real life.
Will also add that his skepticism (which I love about him) by nature requires understanding what it is that he is skeptical about. It's very dialectical in nature.
I do wish Hume was more included in academic philosophy curriculum. My first encounter with Hume was more based on following a footnote. Hat tip to Philosophize This! podcast for including Hume front and center.
I finished my undergrad in philosophy at a religious uni in the US about 20 years ago. We had a bit of Hume. The monks (most of the philosophy professors were monks) were more into ancient and medieval philosophers, with the exception of Nietzsche and Heidegger. One monk in particular loved teaching Nietzsche and Heidegger.
I would have preferred more Hume, as I later discovered.
We were almost the exact opposite; I don't think we really touched on ancient and mediaeval writers at all. Not much in the religious vein either, we more topic-centric (personal identity, ethics, formal logic etc) than philosopher-centric.
I did one of my four years at a very large public university, and my experience there was much more like you describe. I would have preferred that, ultimately. I didn't know at the time.
Possibly, college kids (or secondary school kids heading into college) don't commonly understand there could be a significant difference in instruction. Or maybe it was just me.
This article used so many words, I still don't know what makes Hume unique or interesting. I wish the author had more time, to make it shorter - or whoever is paying him, the wisdom to not pay per page of text.
My view on Hume is that his philosophy was a version of Pragmatism. I mention this because he is generally seen by analytic philosophers as some sort of materialist or radical skeptic.
13 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 42.2 ms ] thread...is by far one of my favorite quotes of his, and I'm glad they included it in the article.
EDIT - they also got ‘Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions,’ which is another one of my favorites that I'd forgotten!
Often times, at least in academia, his philosophical skepticism is presented as the main and only point. From my perspective, his skepticism is way of targeting those already reading philosophy (and thusly more likely to favor pursuing intellect over the body) in the hopes of persuading them into more healthy balance. Because of that tho, I almost never suggest reading him as a first introduction to Philosophy for new students. Instead, he seems a nice counter point to the works of philosophers who are better suited for introductory texts (Plato, Descartes, Aristotle, etc)
Will also add that his skepticism (which I love about him) by nature requires understanding what it is that he is skeptical about. It's very dialectical in nature.
I would have preferred more Hume, as I later discovered.
Possibly, college kids (or secondary school kids heading into college) don't commonly understand there could be a significant difference in instruction. Or maybe it was just me.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html