Talk:David Hume/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Who is Bryan Magee?

Why are we told what Bryan Magee thinks in the second line of the Hume article? Doesn't anyone else find it rather embarrassing to begin a supposedly encyclopedic discussion of one of the most important philosophers of all time with a quotation from some obscure figure as if we need to prop the importance of Hume upon the back of Bryan Magee? Who even is Bryan Magee? Anyway, it is hardly an idiosyncratic judgment to regard Hume as the most important philosopher to write in English. Who else would even be a reasonable candidate? I think few philosophers would take Locke or Berkeley over Hume apart from each's influence on Hume. I could perhaps see reasonable arguments for Bacon or Hobbes, though I probably would take each as philosophers still working in Latin, rather than English. I could also see Dewey or James as somewhat plausible suggestion, though I do in fact think it would be very difficult to make the case that Dewey or James was more important than Hume. I do not see any other plausible candidates for "most important philosopher to write in English." So I take it that the actual situation is that Hume is overwhelmingly likely to be regarded by Philosophers as the most important to ever write in English; and there was a recent poll of English-speaking philosophers that verified that Hume was most likely to be chosen as the historical philosopher whom the pollee most strongly identified their work with. So I take it that we ought to revise the initial presentation of Hume's importance quite a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, the lede proposal just above is rather better than what is currently there; I agree with others that this article needs work and does very little to give an idea of Hume's importance or philosophical interest.Kingshowman (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Bryan Magee is one of the most famous living British philosophers. DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What university does he work for? I cannot find his academic affiliation. I strongly vote for the Isaiah Berlin quote to be returned to its place over the Magee quote. Surely we can all agree that Isaiah Berlin's opinion counts more than Bryan Magee's.^^^^Kingshowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not have both? DuncanHill (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I've taken your advice and just added Berlin's take to the existing Magee quotations. Kingshowman (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

I'd like to fix up the next sentence too; I don't think the implied contrast between Hume failing to win a university career but going on a few diplomatic missions makes much sense at all. Kingshowman (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

I've made a bunch more changes to the lede, trying to make it give a better idea of Hume's thought quickly. Kingshowman (talk)Kingshowman — Preceding undated comment added 11:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Generally I would say that quotes should be kept out of the lead section, which is supposed to simply give a summary of the article as a whole. The lead is already much too long and should be shortened to conform with the policy on WP:LEADLENGTH. Cutting the quotes paragraph would be a good way to achieve this. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the quotations, Maunus. Incidentally, would you apply the principle that quotations do not belong in the lead section to other articles on philosophers, such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I would in general unless there is an extremely good reason to think the quote is essential to the goal of summarizing the article.i Some philosophers may for example be known only for a single quote in which case it makes sense to include it. But these kinds of evaluative quotes I think should always be left out since they do not necessarily express anyones view except the person saying them, and because it always invites fruitless debates about which quotes to include and which to exclude. For example if some other philosopher can be quoted for saying Hume is irrelevant should that quote be included etc. Just a magnet for irrelevant discussions, and doesnt really help the Lead achieve the goal of summarizing the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe quotations need to be essential to be included; they only need to be appropriate. It's reasonable to include quotations about famous figures (eg, W. H. Auden's comments about Sigmund Freud) when they are well-known or the person who made them is himself famous. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that belief is clearly not in line with either policy or practice for leads. You should see WP:LEAD and read the lead sections of some FA article - to see how many of them include quotes and what kind of quotes. Leads should be a general summary and there should be nothing in the lead that is not essential to that task. Non-essential quotes can be included in the article body, but in the lead only with the utmost circumspection. Sure there are cases where including a quote in the lead may be warranted, but the way it is done here is not in my view marinally close to being such a case. There is no way the article with the current lead would pass either a GA or FA review, it is both much too long and does not adequately fulfill the function of summarizing the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that Magee is all that notable, and thus I don't think the Magee quote itself is notable, but you could shake a tree and find a dozen other philosophers who have said the same thing. I think the general point that Hume is consensually regarded as the most important philosopher to write in English belongs in the lead, because it represents a scholarly consensus. I don't think there are many particularly plausible candidates for this honor above Hume (as I argued above.). Kingshowman (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

My personal preference was to replace the Magee quote and the BBC quote with the Isaiah Berlin quotation, who is obviously a great deal more notable (and that quote is a rather famous quotation that one finds on Hume's book jackets today) but I left the other two quotes in there in deference to other editors, who protested. Kingshowman (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

As I've noted, I agree on cutting the BBC quotation. I tried to get rid of this earlier. I only added the silly comment "the BBC said" because the sentence as written earlier made no absolutely no grammatical sense without it.

As for the blog, it is the most widely read philosophy blog on the internet, but I can understand the judgment. I think I can link to a more enduring and formal assesment by the profession--I perhaps could link to another poll of professional philosophers when I can find the link, (not from a blog, I think this is the philpapers Chalmers poll) where Hume was voted the historical philosopher that contemporary philosophers most judged themselves to identify with. (The poll is also mentioned in Garrett's Routledge reference work on Hume, that much of this is drawn from) Point is, I simply wanted to close the lead with an rough scholarly assesment of Hume's importance. If people think no such assesment belongs, however, I'm fine with leaving it out.

As I have suggested below without response, I'm much more keen to add to the body of the article some biographical info on the Hume/Rousseau episode (we currently have a single line of text on this highly notable episode, of which Hume wrote an interesting account that we at least ought to link to). Substantively I think we should add philosophical info on Hume's influence on Kant, more than the one quote about slumbering dogmatically, and some philosophical information on Hume and Newton to the article (both of these are notable enough to have their own SEP article. They deserve more than a cursory one-line mention in Wikipedia's Hume article to be encylopedic, in my estimation.) if anyone has any feedback on any of these three suggestions, I'd be happy to hear. To clarify, I'm considering brief additions (to the main of the article) not the lead. Kingshowman (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

I agree that writing the body is more important, because the lead has to summarize the body so it makes sense to write the lead when the body is already written. I think it would make sense to mention the Leiter vote in a section on legacy and reception. But not in the lead.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I think that's fair.Kingshowman (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Hume's desire for Literary Fame, and the autobiographical note?

Is it not mentioned elsewhere in the article that Hume declared that his "ruling passion" was his desire for literary fame (in his own brief biographical essay)? Is the short end-of-life biographical essay mentioned elsewhere in the article? I propose we include something on Hume's Self-Assesment in "My Own Life" , found here: https://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/humelife.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC) I've added a paragraph on Hume's autobiographical note, that is mainly a pull of the relevant quotations from the very brief autobiography. I think it's helpful for the article, as it's often one of the best sources of information we have on Hume's life. But let me know if there are any problems or suggestions. Kingshowman (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Removed as WP:synthesis of a WP:primary source. Vsmith (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

How exactly, pray tell, Vsmith, is this a "synthesis" of a primary source? With what is it being synthesized? Quotation is now equivalent to "synthesis?"

It is becoming increasingly clear that you: 1) do not, in fact, know what the word "synthesis" actually means, and should yourself read the article you directed me to earlier, as it will help you to understand why including quotes from Hume's autobiography does not thereby make a synthesis. 2) are hunting me around on articles to revert me out of your pure pettiness-- I'd love to hear why Hume's autobiography is unworthy of encylopedic inclusion, and why quoting it is synthetic, if you aren't pursuing a petty, petulant grudge against me.

Tell me, does your interest in David Hume and in editing the Hume article extend further beyond your wish to revert my edits or is that the only delight you get out of this?Kingshowman (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

I included absolutely no "analysis" of the autobiography (unless stating the fact that it is "less than 3000 words" counts as an analysis.) Every sentence about the autobiography is a quotation of Hume's own remarks. Which of the sentences did you find to be "synthetic?" I merely reported what Hume himself said, which seems to be notable enough to include in an encyclopedic article on David Hume. I really don't understand what your problem is. Kingshowman (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingshowman: The material you added is an original WP:SYNTHESIS because it entails your interpretation of the important or interesting points of the autobiography. You have cited no source other than the autobiography itself to show that any analysis of this work, or any claim of importance or "notability" of Hume's statements in the work have been noted in any published sources. This is, fundamentally, your own interpretation of the work, and therefore disallowed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Where did I analyze? I will check again, but as I recall, I only added quotations, aside from saying it was notable. I was also correcting what seems a major omission to not even have Hume's own autobiography mentioned within his article.Kingshowman (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Also, a request could simply have been made for a citation, if it was felt that my addition was not properly cited, rather than pre-emptively deleting the work, which took time to grab those quotations for your article. I included only the blandest of judgments on it. I will add a couple citations right now. Kingshowman (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Dan, VSmith, you'll see that I provided 3 peer-reviewed citations regarding Hume's autobiography, verifying its brevity, and continuing interest to scholars. Kingshowman (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if you still see any problems. And I'd also ask that before accusing me of "synthesis" and "original research" you consider whether or not I have just not yet added a citation for something which is a well known fact, and that I'd failed to consider even needs a citation, or for which a link to the primary source had appeared sufficient. (And trust me, original research is too difficult and enormously costly for anyone to waste it by freely uploading it to an encylopedia, for no scholarly credit-- this is my break from original research!)Kingshowman (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingshowman: Yes, the fact that you have now found published scholarly material to back up the analysis of Hume's autobiography validates the material. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hume and Rousseau

I don't really want to write anything just yet, but I'm suggesting we add a paragraph to the biographical information under later life about the famous brief friendship and "quarrel" between Hume and Rousseau, which Hume describes here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004851885.0001.000/1:3?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

The feud is very, very briefly mentioned but I think it's interesting enough to expand slightly to give a bit more information.Kingshowman (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Right now, the entire coverage of the incident consists of this: "While there he met and later fell out with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. " I think one could stand to say a little more if no one objects.Kingshowman (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

As a general comment, the biography section seems a bit thin to me, particularly the career section. Kingshowman (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Hume and Newton

I also think one might say more, in the more philosophical part of the article, about the relation of Hume to Newtonianism in Physics. There's an entire article up on SEP on this, and I think it would be worthwhile to add something here. Particularly I think it might be worth adding the idea, mentioned here, that Hume sees himself as a kind of Newton of Moral Philosophy in certain respects. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-newton/ Kingshowman (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)kingshowman

influence section

this now needs to be cleaned up. also, there were some earlier deletions that could be put in here.

We might put back the Magee quote that a few of you liked here (though I still can't find who he is), and the Leiter poll that got tossed, which is indeed informal, but does reflect the opinion of 900 professional philosophers. We might add the Chalmers philpapers.org poll data too, which is also revealing of most contemporary philosophers most strongly identifying with Hume of any historical philosophical figure.

There are some (kind of silly) polls on Hume being "the most imprtant Scot of the last thousand years" if someone wishes to add these as well.

I think Foucault's commentary on Hume in his classic The Order of Things could be useful to add, if I recall, something to the effect of "the individual known as 'Hume' has now become possible." Maybe one can make a mention Deleuze's book on Hume, which is notable, and I think it would be interesting to add a couple non-"analytic" assessments of Hume, from a couple important philosophers. Kingshowman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Whitewash

See Talk:David_Hume/Archive_1#Race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.242.111 (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This has been discussed. Interesting. Much thanks for this. My own opinion is that it probably shouldn't be mentioned directly, and I'm not going to add anything on it, because it's not really in Hume's work. (If one really wants to dig, one finds that Hume said a couple extremely unfortunate and stupid things that are nevertheless typical of his time.) I'd suggest perhaps putting it on the "scientific racism" page with a link, if someone really wants to write something on this. (The brief instance's of Hume's racism aren't quite as awful as Kant's comments, however.)Kingshowman (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Per policy, it can be included only to the same extent that it has been discussed in the secondary literature about Hume. There is quite a literature on Kant's view on race, but I have not seen any evidence of a similar interest in Hume's views from scholars.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

[Here is one article about the topic. http://www.africaknowledgeproject.org/index.php/jap/article/viewArticle/6] [And one more http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709889?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents]. [And another http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=12646017].This means that it is possible to write about this in the article, but it still accounts for a tiny part of the total literature about him and should not be given undue weight. Probably a sentence or two is as much as can be justified. (note that one of these say that Humes footnote on race has been widely used by proponents of racist practices)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As a note, maanus, I agree it shouldn't be included. It has received some attention from scholars, though. I could add a couple citations, but I've chosen not to.Kingshowman (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Academic blogs

academics' blogs aren't suitable as sources? that sounds like a stupid, asinine, and unreasonable policy. What can possibly be the justification? Scholarly blogs can't be cited for an opinion of people in the field? I thought policy here was to "ignore rules" and not fetishize your rules in ways that damage the articles and remove helpful information to impoverished sections. I'm going to restore it unless you can provide a more cogent reason than the mere fact that I've cited a blog.Kingshowman (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with blogs, even academic ones, is that they are self-published sources and therefore lack verifiability, one of the most important policies on Wikipedia. While I might agree with the material added to the article from this blog, I don't think it is needed, as it reduces Hume's stature to a bit of a popularity contest (what number he ranks in relation to other great thinkers is not exactly encyclopedic). I hope you agree and I otherwise thank-you for your recent additions to this article. (Off the subject comment: I hope someone will bring this article to WP:GA someday!) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Academic blogs are eligible as sources in so far as their authors are respected scholars. I think rankings may well be encyclopedic if they are referred to by other sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As for GA status, I suggest that the article could stand to add sections on Hume and Kant, and Hume and Newtonianism, each of which gets its own article in SEP. Anyone have thoughts on these proposed additional sections, drawing from other encylopedias?Kingshowman (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll delete this and the PhilPapers survey (which I just added) if people have a problem with surveys of philosophers' opinions, which I think is a more reasonable objection than its coming from a "blog." I moved them to the end of the influence section. Again, if others would rather delete either or both of the surveys, I don't have a problem with it, though I find it interesting to know what the profession thinks. Kingshowman (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I already removed it; please don't take it personally. What this article needs is more research from books about Hume, if you've got any? Thanks again for your contributions. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't that attached to this. I've tried to throw in a lot of cites to the new Routledge Hume by Garrett, which I regard as a fairly consensual, strong introductory source. Much of the material here that's been added is sourced to there, and I should probably cite it more often here. https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415283342

I'm hoping to add sections as well based on the SEP articles on "Hume and Kant" (there are actually more than 1) and the SEP article on "Hume and Newtonianism".

The Kemp Smith book should also probably be mentioned more often, since it's historically important work on Hume. Kingshowman (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd also wanted to mention Foucault on Hume in Order of Things, and Deleuze's book on Hume, to strike some balance between Analytic and Continental sources.Kingshowman (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, these would all be useful additions. Maybe a slightly longer quotation from Isaiah Berlin, who also wrote quite a bit of interest on Hume, and is a rather notable historian of philosophy. Kingshowman (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Garrett book looks terrific; I see it just came out (I am so behind on my own reading); I see the article already cites that author's 1996 book. Yes, citations from the available library of respected Hume experts is what should push this article closer to GA. Since you're ahead of many of us on your reading about Hume (certainly ahead of me), best wishes as you strive to improve the article from these sources! Prhartcom (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely where much of the new material that's been added to this article has been drawn from. I do recommend it. It is more intended for general readers and as an introduction than the 1996 book as well, so probably more suitable for the encylopedia. And the Routledge series on great philosophers, is , I think very well regarded. I strongly recommend it.!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That blog is basically just a bit of fun for the philosophers concerned. I expect they would probably be mortified to see it being used as a source in an encyclopedia. It's quite unnecessary to use it anyway, as there are plenty of more respectable sources - published books, articles in peer-reviewed journals, etc, that can be used to show what contemporary philosophers think of Hume. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Out-consume?

The article does make clear if he could out-consume or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.180.136 (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could speak more clearly.

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.

Since the argument is still used he obviously didn't kill it. BTW the explanation given of his argument against design is hardly convincing. This suggests that it needs to be redone, or that the argument is actually weak.106.51.106.127 (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of Hume's philosophy

In most other articles of other philosophers or philosophies there is usually a section that criticizes their views. Why is there none for Hume? I can't believe it is beyond criticism or that no one who came after him criticized his views. Why this lacuna?106.51.106.127 (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing anti-semitism section

Hey and regards. Yes, where is the section detailing his hatred of jews? I can't find the passages at the moment but many prominent scholars have demonstrated his antipathy and there are important passages which foreshadow, for example, mein kampf. This is another dwem who is given a free pass on what amounts to forward collusion. there should be a prominent subsection, information in the lede, as well as several category inclusions. I was hoping that a scholar could provide those sections, Thanks and regards, Leopold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.124.196 (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:David_Hume/Archive_ 1 #Race

Every time Hume's racialism is put into the article, it is taken out by his supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

See http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709889?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, guys. But Hume wasn't alone in his negative views on some of our fellow humans. Kant for example has been criticised for similar tendencies. But I suppose it is the degree of relevance of these things to the main thrust of their philosophical contributions which has led to their receiving less attention. Rightly or wrongly, that explains but does not really justify the near silence about this. Times move on...

TonyClarke (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Spelling variant

Just wondering why the AmE version of skepticism/skeptic is used in this article. Should it not be changed to BrE? Silas Stoat (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, no other opinions, so I made the change. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

There already was an opinion in favour of "sceptic(ism)", since the article already has the instruction "Use Scottish English". However, Hume wrote in English or British English, so I wonder whether the instruction should be "Use British English". Wikiain (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable. I'll add the tag to this Talk page in a few days, if there are no other views forthcoming. Thanks. Silas Stoat (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Link farm

I believe the section at the end of the article is a [[WP:LINKFARM]. Rjensen disagrees, considering the links WP:USEFUL, but there is a lack of discrimination in selection I think.

The first four I list are uncontroversial, they provide direct links to free online source material.

• Works by David Hume at Project Gutenberg
• Error in Template:Internet Archive author: David Hume/Archive 2 doesn't exist.
• Works by David Hume/Archive 2 at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• Morris, David William. "David Hume". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Now:

• The Hume Society - possibly OK
• The David Hume Collection at McGill University Library - possibly OK but redundant to SEP and the free libraries above
• Books by David Hume at the Online Books Page - largely redundant to Gutenberg and Internet Archive
• davidhume.org All of Hume's philosophical works in authoritative searchable editions, with related resources (including articles, bibliography, and the original manuscript of the Dialogues) - no authorship and is largely redundant to Gutenberg and Internet Archive
• David Hume at the Online Library of Liberty - published by a right wing think tank and is largely redundant to Gutenberg and Internet Archive
• David Hume resources including books, articles, and encyclopedia entries - curated by some random dude, looks like a fan site more than anything
• David Hume readable versions of the Treatise, the Abstract of the Treatise, the two Enquiries, the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, and four essays - these are, I think, all included in the free libraries above
• A Bibliography of Hume's Early Writings and Early Responses - website of a bookseller, likely refspam
• Peter Millican. Critical Survey of the Literature on Hume and his First Enquiry (Surveys around 250 books and articles on Hume and related topics) - 404, Millican is an authority but without the text there's no way of knowing whether this is copyright or not
• David Hume/Archive 2 at Curlie - ex DMOZ, adds nothing to Stamford and the free online sources
• El Monetarismo Amable de David Hume - no real idea
• David Hume (1711–1776). Library of Economics and Liberty (2nd ed.). Liberty Fund. 2008. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) - published by the same right wing think tank as the online library of liberty

I do not think these links are of obviously high quality and authority, in fact I think several of them are essentially spam. Cruftbane 20:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Cruftbane thinks too highly of amateur efforts like Gutenberg. Likewise Internet Archive is not selective at all--it is an anonymous omnibus collection. However sites controlled by universities & research centers with philosophy programs are much more authoritative. Hume has indeed been a hero to libertarians & right wing think tanks and they spent a lot of time building useful web sites so to reject them as "cruft" shows political bias. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

for example one of the sources that got bounced was Peter Millican (" Critical Survey of the Literature on Hume ..." see the article on Millican--he is professor of Philosophy at Oxford and for years edited the Hume Journal--and he has spent years building an extremely useful bibliography that is free to all at https://davidhume.org/scholarship/millican These are papers written by Millican which he is making available. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I was sort of expecting you to actually read my justification. For example, you assert that Millican is a valid source, which I stated, but you ignored the fact that the link is 404, so cannot possibly add anything. And Wikipedia prefers Gutenberg to sites that are advancing an agenda (e.g. "Liberty Fund", a right leaning libertarian think tank) because we prefer free culture and also we try not to spoon feed the reader biased wrappers around content that is available freely online from neutral sources. Cruftbane 14:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I went through the list, re-ordered one thing, added some descriptions. The list as it stands today seems excellent to me and WP:NPOV. Kfein (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Lede proposal

David Hume (/ˈhjuːm/; 7 May 1711 NS (26 April 1711 OS) – 25 August 1776) was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist known especially for his philosophical empiricism and scepticism. He was one of the most important figures in the Scottish Enlightenment, and in the history of Western philosophy. He is the philosopher "widely regarded as the greatest who has ever written in the English language." Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent philosophy, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive philosophy, theology and other movements and thinkers. Hume is often grouped with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others as a British Empiricist.

Beginning with his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume strove to create a total naturalistic "science of man" that examined the psychological basis of human nature. Hume advocated a compatibilist theory of free will that proved extremely influential on subsequent moral philosophy. He was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on feelings rather than abstract moral principles, and expounded the is–ought problem. In opposition to the rationalists who preceded him, most notably René Descartes, he concluded that desire rather than reason governed human behaviour.

Hume's thinking, expressed by e.g. the suggestion that the role of reason is not to make us wise but to reveal our ignorance allowed for its use (probably against Hume's own intention) for fideism in e.g. Søren Kierkegaard's interpretation and, according a famous essay of Isaiah Berlin in his book Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas (1976), for German Anti-rationalism.

Proposal: to add a spell-speak for Hume's surname, e.g. HYOOM as with other names w/ambiguous spellings. 70.169.248.254 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC) - Kyle C.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten II (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 December 2014

Nationality

Isn't it just a little ridiculous to label Hume Scottish? Wasn't he actively hostile to Scottishness and prone to referring to himself as North British? Isn't this tantamount to historical revisionism and whitewashing to start going back and applying terms like this to people who were actively against such a description, nevermind people who aren't recorded as identifying as anything from these times. What happened to neutrality? He was a citizen of Great Britain so his legal nationality was British. Even if Scotland were to separate from the UK in the 2000s, David Hume will still have always been a citizen of Great Britain and have been British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Edmund Clerihew Bentley commented on Hume's ancestry in his Biography for Beginners:

DAVID HUME
That you have all heard of Hume
I tacitly assume;
But you didn't know, perhaps,
That his parents were Lapps.

But I hesitate to amend the article accordingly - though perhaps (only?) in Lapland one could find his mysterious "noble ancestry" mentioned under the heading Career. Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)