What do you think?
Rate this book
A Companion to Hume
Comprised of twenty-nine specially commissioned essays, A Companion to Hume examines the depth of the philosophies and influence of one of history's most remarkable thinkers.
Demonstrates the range of Hume's work and illuminates the ongoing debates that it has generated
Organized by subject, with introductions to each section to orient the reader
Explores topics such as knowledge, passion, morality, religion, economics, and politics
Examines the paradoxes of Hume's thought and his legacy, covering the methods, themes, and consequences of his contributions to philosophy
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
595 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2008
3 people are currently reading
28 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 19, 2020
I bought this book seven years ago, started listening to it and gave up in complete frustration and contempt for the picayune inscrutable discussions for which made no sense to me whatsoever. I would even say I thought the book made philosophy seem silly, trite and beyond my ever wanting to learn what this book was trying to get at. Now, seven years later, I realized the fault was with me not the book. Well written books on a topic as interesting as on what Hume thought and what he means in today’s vernacular are well worth educating oneself in order to understand what the hell it means to be human and why, for example, experience and observation can be so foundational to how we understand the world.
This book, in the introduction makes the point that Bertrand Russell skewed incorrectly how we should think about Hume. In the latter essays there is a discussion on whether Hume is more of a realist or more of an anti-realist, and whether should we think about him as a non-cognitivist. I actually had to look that word up to make sense of what was being considered in the essay. Just in case you don’t know what it means let me give a quick definition, ‘the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences do not express proposition and thus cannot be true or false’ (it’s sort of a fundamental given among the logical positivist. These concepts relate back to whether Hume is as much of a logical positivist as Russell made him out to be. The answer is probably not (imo) as spread across some of these essays. Russell writes a great book on the history of philosophy but when one really learns about the philosophers that he talks about one realizes that Russell is often in left field. He’s great for an introduction, but beware of taking him at face value. He is wrong about Hume and he is painfully wrong about Hegel, as just two examples.
After I had bought this book and listened to it the first time and thought it was full of crap while never thinking the fault lied with me, I decided to read Hume on my own. I first read his Dialogs Concerning Religion and loved it, then I read his Inquiry Concerning Understanding and loved it. I just recently realized that this book, Companion to Hegel was still in my library and knew I was ready to retackle it. I’m really glad I did.
There is just something about realizing how wrong I was when I blamed the book for my not understanding when it was me not understanding enough about the topic before approaching this book. Oddly, Hume’s most important book Inquiry Concerning Understanding was a complete dud when he first had it published. People in his time period said it was too abstruse. I can speak for my time period and say it was not, but one definitely needs to read that before attacking this book.
When one has enough background behind them, they will find this book incredibly rewarding in its own right. The essays are written such that the reader needs a little familiarity with Hume in order to understand, but when that foundation is achieved the fluency of these essays will open one’s worldview in areas that were once foreign. This only hints at why I enjoyed this book as much as I did. When a topic within philosophy is discussed by experts and written at such a level that even I can follow the points, the cross talk highlights many concepts for which I had been familiar with but now get to learn what they really mean. Within philosophy, there are about six problems that always get played with such as self-identity, nature and freewill, cause and effect, existence as predicate or not, appearance v. reality, and why is there something rather than nothing. All of philosophy plays with those kinds of questions, and it’s safe to say that Hume and this book dissect those problems and add perspective to them while edifying the reader of these essays with what it all really means.
Hume is a bridge between Hobbes and Berkeley such that Kant will be able to synthesize Hume and Leibnitz (and Berkeley) to undo all philosophy before him and start the world towards anti-realism. This sentence is packed and full of short hand, but I don’t want to dwell on it so I’ll move on. I would say that Hume’s Inquiry and his Dialogs on Religion are two of the top 100 books ever written. They are not difficult reads and should be required reading for all sentient beings and especially for those who crave understanding. Also, something that these essays didn’t really mention, Schopenhauer’s book, Will and Representation is a reworking of Hume and Berkeley (if you don’t believe me just read Schopenhauer for yourself and you will find that he says that himself) and without Hume Schopenhauer would probably not have happened (but, of course, Schopenhauer would have said that it is best to not have been at all!).
In this book, there’s an essay or two on Hume’s History of England and why it is so meaningful today. Of course, that made me look it up and buy all six volumes for 99 cents, and so far, I must say that I love that too.
So, be aware of reading this book since it might lead to reading other books by Hume, and it might make you realize as it did for me that it was me that was trite, silly and dense not this book and it only took me seven years to realize it.
This book, in the introduction makes the point that Bertrand Russell skewed incorrectly how we should think about Hume. In the latter essays there is a discussion on whether Hume is more of a realist or more of an anti-realist, and whether should we think about him as a non-cognitivist. I actually had to look that word up to make sense of what was being considered in the essay. Just in case you don’t know what it means let me give a quick definition, ‘the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences do not express proposition and thus cannot be true or false’ (it’s sort of a fundamental given among the logical positivist. These concepts relate back to whether Hume is as much of a logical positivist as Russell made him out to be. The answer is probably not (imo) as spread across some of these essays. Russell writes a great book on the history of philosophy but when one really learns about the philosophers that he talks about one realizes that Russell is often in left field. He’s great for an introduction, but beware of taking him at face value. He is wrong about Hume and he is painfully wrong about Hegel, as just two examples.
After I had bought this book and listened to it the first time and thought it was full of crap while never thinking the fault lied with me, I decided to read Hume on my own. I first read his Dialogs Concerning Religion and loved it, then I read his Inquiry Concerning Understanding and loved it. I just recently realized that this book, Companion to Hegel was still in my library and knew I was ready to retackle it. I’m really glad I did.
There is just something about realizing how wrong I was when I blamed the book for my not understanding when it was me not understanding enough about the topic before approaching this book. Oddly, Hume’s most important book Inquiry Concerning Understanding was a complete dud when he first had it published. People in his time period said it was too abstruse. I can speak for my time period and say it was not, but one definitely needs to read that before attacking this book.
When one has enough background behind them, they will find this book incredibly rewarding in its own right. The essays are written such that the reader needs a little familiarity with Hume in order to understand, but when that foundation is achieved the fluency of these essays will open one’s worldview in areas that were once foreign. This only hints at why I enjoyed this book as much as I did. When a topic within philosophy is discussed by experts and written at such a level that even I can follow the points, the cross talk highlights many concepts for which I had been familiar with but now get to learn what they really mean. Within philosophy, there are about six problems that always get played with such as self-identity, nature and freewill, cause and effect, existence as predicate or not, appearance v. reality, and why is there something rather than nothing. All of philosophy plays with those kinds of questions, and it’s safe to say that Hume and this book dissect those problems and add perspective to them while edifying the reader of these essays with what it all really means.
Hume is a bridge between Hobbes and Berkeley such that Kant will be able to synthesize Hume and Leibnitz (and Berkeley) to undo all philosophy before him and start the world towards anti-realism. This sentence is packed and full of short hand, but I don’t want to dwell on it so I’ll move on. I would say that Hume’s Inquiry and his Dialogs on Religion are two of the top 100 books ever written. They are not difficult reads and should be required reading for all sentient beings and especially for those who crave understanding. Also, something that these essays didn’t really mention, Schopenhauer’s book, Will and Representation is a reworking of Hume and Berkeley (if you don’t believe me just read Schopenhauer for yourself and you will find that he says that himself) and without Hume Schopenhauer would probably not have happened (but, of course, Schopenhauer would have said that it is best to not have been at all!).
In this book, there’s an essay or two on Hume’s History of England and why it is so meaningful today. Of course, that made me look it up and buy all six volumes for 99 cents, and so far, I must say that I love that too.
So, be aware of reading this book since it might lead to reading other books by Hume, and it might make you realize as it did for me that it was me that was trite, silly and dense not this book and it only took me seven years to realize it.
Displaying 1 of 1 review