Talk:David Hume
|
|
| This article is part of WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Contents |
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.
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)
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
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)
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.
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 (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9367549&query=david%20hume&ct=) quotes May 7, soI guess that April 26 is an old style date?