A Treatise of Human Nature - The Original Classic Edition

Before he chose to diddle away his later years writing book after book of history, playing house with Rousseau, annoying the religious authorities, and forging a lasting reputation as an all-around good guy, Hume dedicated his youth to writing the this book, which is nothing less than the single greatest work of philosophy in the English language. Indeed, I dont think there are even any other close competitors for that title. Naturally, then, this work was largely ignored during Humes lifetime.

Notwithstanding the widely told, and somewhat accurate, standard story of the history of modern philosophy according to which Kants rearguard action in response to Hume is the culmination of the modern period, I think that this book rather than Kants First Critique is where its at. Certainly, no book of modern philosophy compares to this complex, intricately argued, inspiring, maddening, imaginative, iconoclastic, encyclopedic tome when it comes to influence on contemporary philosophers in the Anglo-American analytic tradition. And while its true that Kants system is almost unparalleled in the breadth of its influence, defenders of the traditional story of modern philosophy need to remember that almost. For it seems to me that, among the moderns, Hume got there first. He, and not Kant, is the first modernist whose importance is manifest in all the main areas of philosophy: epistemology (skepticism and the problem of induction), metaphysics (causation, personal identity, etc.), philosophy of mind (action theory, rationality) meta-ethics (meta-ethical subjectivism, proto-noncognitivism, reason vs. emotions, moral psychology, etc.), normative ethics (importance of benevolence, justice as an artificial virtue, etc.).

Why is Hume so important? I think there are two reasons, each corresponding to one of the influential interpretations of Humes work as a whole. The first interpretation of Humes corpus sees it as shot through with a radical skepticism about anything and everything, and corresponding to this interpretation is a conception of Humes importance as consisting in his occupying the place of the philosopher opponent of common sense par excellence. Hume, according to this interpretation, takes the empiricism of Locke, which in his hands looks like nothing so much as self-conscious common sense, and wields it as a weapon against more or less everything we tend to believe. That is, we should see Hume as taking up the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley and pushes it to its logical conclusion: a thoroughgoing skepticism. Think you can know there is a mind-independent world of physical objects? Think youre a single person who persists through time? Think things stand in causal relationships to one another? Think you can know whether the sun will explode tomorrow? You should think again, Hume says, and hes happy to show you why empiricism leads to this conclusion. So, if this is right, the importance of Humes project consists in its status as a for rationalists, for non-skeptics of all stripes, and for all ordinary, right-thinking folks.

To whom do I recommend this book? The answer, in short, is everyone. If youre even slightly interested in philosophy, you simply cant get by without reading this. If youre at all interested in the history of ideas, you need to read this. If youre the slightest bit curious about our modern worldview and its origin, it would be a good idea for you to read this. If youre interested enough in Hume to have come across this review and read it to this point, youll want to read this.

Dettagli