What do you think?
Rate this book
Ensayos morales y literarios (Filosofia-los Esenciales De La Filosofia)
Recientemente, se ha impuesto la necesidad de inscribir a David Hume en el contexto intelectual de la Ilustración Escocesa del siglo XVIII. El campo de la filosofÃa moral fue uno de los preferidos por estos filósofos. El filósofo moral debÃa indagar si las cualidades morales podÃan surgir de una sociedad expuesta a las tent
296 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1758
62 people are currently reading
1538 people want to read
About the author
David Hume
3,108 books1,674 followersDavid Hume was a Scottish historian, philosopher, economist, diplomat and essayist known today especially for his radical philosophical empiricism and scepticism.
In light of Hume's central role in the Scottish Enlightenment, and in the history of Western philosophy, Bryan Magee judged him as a philosopher "widely regarded as the greatest who has ever written in the English language." While Hume failed in his attempts to start a university career, he took part in various diplomatic and military missions of the time. He wrote The History of England which became a bestseller, and it became the standard history of England in its day.
His empirical approach places him with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others at the time 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. In opposition to the rationalists who preceded him, most notably René Descartes, he concluded that desire rather than reason governed human behaviour. He also argued against the existence of innate ideas, concluding that humans have knowledge only of things they directly experience. He argued that inductive reasoning and therefore causality cannot be justified rationally. Our assumptions in favour of these result from custom and constant conjunction rather than logic. He concluded that humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self.
Hume's compatibilist theory of free will 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.
Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent western philosophy, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive philosophy, theology and other movements and thinkers. In addition, according to philosopher Jerry Fodor, Hume's Treatise is "the founding document of cognitive science". Hume engaged with contemporary intellectual luminaries such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, James Boswell, and Adam Smith (who acknowledged Hume's influence on his economics and political philosophy). Immanuel Kant credited Hume with awakening him from "dogmatic slumbers".
In light of Hume's central role in the Scottish Enlightenment, and in the history of Western philosophy, Bryan Magee judged him as a philosopher "widely regarded as the greatest who has ever written in the English language." While Hume failed in his attempts to start a university career, he took part in various diplomatic and military missions of the time. He wrote The History of England which became a bestseller, and it became the standard history of England in its day.
His empirical approach places him with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others at the time 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. In opposition to the rationalists who preceded him, most notably René Descartes, he concluded that desire rather than reason governed human behaviour. He also argued against the existence of innate ideas, concluding that humans have knowledge only of things they directly experience. He argued that inductive reasoning and therefore causality cannot be justified rationally. Our assumptions in favour of these result from custom and constant conjunction rather than logic. He concluded that humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self.
Hume's compatibilist theory of free will 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.
Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent western philosophy, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive philosophy, theology and other movements and thinkers. In addition, according to philosopher Jerry Fodor, Hume's Treatise is "the founding document of cognitive science". Hume engaged with contemporary intellectual luminaries such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, James Boswell, and Adam Smith (who acknowledged Hume's influence on his economics and political philosophy). Immanuel Kant credited Hume with awakening him from "dogmatic slumbers".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
October 14, 2019
During his twenties, Scottish philosopher David Hume had the idea to write a huge treatise, composed of five volumes, that deals with the ‘Science of Man’. His plan was to model his study of human beings on the very successful and influential system of Newton. What Newton did for natural science, Hume wanted to accomplish for the science of man. Back in the days, this was literally the science of man, since its object of study comprised humanity in all its facets. In short: what Hume planned to do was to empirically study how human beings perceive, think, feel, act, and socialize – psychology, morality, politics, even literary criticism.
In 1739, Hume published the first part of a Treatise of Human Nature, dealing with both human knowledge (Volume 1) and human emotions (Volume 2); in 1740, he published Volume 3, on morality. But as Hume himself wrote, his Treatise fell “dead-born from the presses”, attracting almost no attention. After overcoming his initial depressed mood, he decided to abandon the project and deal with the subjects of morality, politics and criticism in shorter essays, to be bundled in one book. This is what the Essays Moral, Political and Literary (1758) are: a collection of dozens of small essays ranging from economic questions like ‘mercantilism versus free trade’ to political subjects like analyses of British governments.
During his time, Hume was mostly known for his Essays and his huge project on the History of England. For contemporary readers, Hume is mostly known for his sceptical and naturalistic philosophy and his penetrating criticisms of religion. For centuries after his death in 1776, Hume was barely read, and it was only in the middle of the twentieth century that he became a subject of interest in the universities (mainly in the Anglo-Saxon world).
This historical context makes the Essays both interesting – to understand how his contemporaries saw Hume and what they knew of his ideas – and superfluous – since most of the interesting stuff was not contained in these essays.
I read a couple of essays of him on taste, peace of mind, and economics, but I paid the most attention to two infamous essays: On Suicide and On the Immortality of the Soul.
In On Suicide, Hume sets out to dismantle the customary objections to suicide, labelling it a crime. According to Hume, there are three types of objections people usually make: (1) suicide is a transgression towards God, (2) towards society (especially kin folk), and (3) towards the self.
He uses most of his text on objecting to (1), which again shows his critical stance on religion. According to Hume, man, as a part of nature, is determined by natural laws, the same laws that govern everything else in the universe (i.e. matter and motion). It cannot be a transgression to disrupt these natural processes, since a fundamental part of human nature is exactly the power to fight against natural laws. In the grand scheme of things, the universe (or God) cares as much for us as about an oyster or a stone. But not only is this indifference striking, it is also blatantly absurd to claim natural laws should be obeyed – this would mean that any human intervention in the natural world would be an insult to Providence. This would reduce the digging of canals, the leaving of the room where I’m currently at, and dodging the stone that’s about to fall on my head, to the status of insults to Providence. Clearly this is not how we perceive things to be. Hume sharply remarks that empirical evidence proves the naturalness (even goodness) of intervening in the natural course of things – the onus is on the religious believer to explain why suicide is an exception to this general rule.
Also, the objection that suicide is a transgression towards society (2) fails. Hume claims that someone who steps out of his or her life doesn’t do harm, the person stops doing good. These are two different things, with the latter being the least hurtful towards society (for example, crimes are much worse since they actually harm society). Hume’s objection to (2) centres around the common conception that we ought to do good to society – which clearly is not unlimited. Again, he empirically observes that no person can be required to undergo more harm than he or she benefits society. For example, when people grow old and become a burden in the work force, they cannot be asked to work until they die – they retire willingly and respectfully. When the scale begins to tip, and I become a burden, or even harm, to society, it can even be honourable (let alone acceptable) that I end my life.
For Hume, the happiness calculus (if we’re allowed to use this anachronistic term) is most important: certain or highly probably personal future harm, with the loss of net benefit of me to society, is a legitimate argument to commit suicide. In other words: if I’m terminally ill and I know I’m about to die in horrible pains, while I cannot do much for society in any way, it is perfectly reasonable to end my life. But I believe Hume would even favour a voluntarily chosen termination of life (a hot topic in Western Europe nowadays), since in these situations the persons involved receive much more harm than they can benefit society.
The third objection to suicide, the transgression towards the self (3), is a contradiction in terms. Suicide can never be a transgression towards myself, since if I will it, there is no ‘self’ to object. Suicide is a personal calculation, even if unconsciously made, in which I evaluate the proportionality between future happiness and future suffering. These differ per person and per situation, so on a personal level there is no objection to be made.
Hume’s stance on suicide is an example of his empirical method: he analyses the facts and induces from these the general way of things. Most objections are reasonable, but cut off from the real world – religious or moral objections to suicide almost all centre around non-existent and/or non-provable metaphysical concepts, and hence should have no place in a rational discourse on (for example) suicide. It is a fact that a structurally depressed person is not a social asset, neither to herself nor to society. Hume simply seems to couple utility with happiness and in this sense is a kind of precursor to later utilitarians Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
The second essay that drew my attention was the one on the immortality of the soul. Hume displays the same method and analysis. Again, he distinguishes the different types of arguments for a claim – in this case the claim that an immortal soul exists – and he refutes them one by one.
The first type of argument is metaphysical, and is rooted in Cartesian substance dualism. According to this line of thought, the mind or soul is substantially different from the body and all other matter in the universe. Since the material world, including bodies, is finite, perishable and material, the world of the mind cannot be those things and hence is infinite, immortal and immaterial.
Hume smartly remarks that empiricism proved the impossibility of the existence of substances. All our ideas derive from sense experience and reflection, and there is no sense impression of reflection that correlates with a material substance, hence this concept is empty and feigned by the mind, so to speak. Since this argument holds for material substances, it even more so holds for immaterial substances (because how do we even perceive immaterial things?). Also, all attributes which we ascribe to this ‘soul’ are gradually present in animals as well, so either animals have partial souls (which religionists deny) or these attributes are emerging properties of bodies (which they also deny).
The second type of argument is moral. The typical argument says morality has to do with the soul, since it’s the soul that’s perfect and hence in need of goodness and happiness, and the body is simply an obstruction to these aims. The soul survives our bodily death and it is thus important to secure your happiness by aiming at the next life. But Hume reverses it: our passions are clearly aimed at this life, and our powers are clearly explained best in terms of our tasks in this life, so this cannot be the object of any reward or punishment in the afterlife. Here we see again clear empirical observations of the way things are, dispelling the illusions of abstract reasonings.
The religious person takes passions that are functional in this life, and transposes them to a hypothetical afterlife, in which they acquire totally different – and unprovable – roles. So the passion between the sexes has a clear function: to seek out sex and reproduce. Hume simply stops here and rests contented. The religious believer not: he not so much denies the function of amorous passions, but he sees it as a dangerous bulwark to a rewarding afterlife, and hence views its function as a divinely ordered ordeal – we should overcome our biological impulses and this supposedly leads to a reward. The believer fails to make clear why we should accept all his hidden assumptions, though. He simply takes a natural phenomenon (amorous passion), rejects its original function (reproduction), and gives it a new function (a test). But this is, ultimately, an empirical claim, and should empirically be verified – the hidden assumptions (an afterlife, an immortal soul, God, heavenly reward, etc.) are never argued for and cannot be derived from sensations or reflections.
Another sharp criticism of Hume is that all religious conceptions are dichotomous: heaven-hell, good-bad, reward-punishment, etc. The believer is a radical and loses all nuance, since, as Hume remarks, “the greatest part of mankind float between vice and virtue.”
But then, what is morality for Hume? It is a product of us reflecting on the interests of society as a whole. Morality doesn’t prove we have an immortal soul, it proves our sentiments, our moral feelings, are a natural object and serve a purpose. Their purpose is to live together with other human beings, and this is founded on sympathy, compassion for our fellows. Observations and historical study prove this.
The third type of argument is physical. Hume claims that physical facts prove the soul is mortal. When we sleep we are simply not there; many diseases disturb the mind, pointing towards its materiality and finitude; and fear of death is a universal emotion, pointing to the finiteness of human life. Again, empirical observations show us an ‘immortal soul’ is senseless.
In short, Hume claims we have no impressions that justify our ideas of immortal souls while all analogical reasonings fail miserably. As far as we know, immortal souls do not exist.
In both his essays on suicide and the soul, Hume illustrates both his humility and his severity. He is sharp in his criticism of senseless and nonsensical concepts, while being humble in his own claims to truth. Hume’s naturalism makes him explain everything in terms of observations of the way things naturally appear to us, while his scepticism labels his own claims with ‘probable’ – more probable than alternative explanations that use concepts which do not relate to experience. I think these essays are a great and lively introduction to Hume’s main philosophical doctrines, and they’re a real treat for those of us who love literary works. (Nevertheless, I haven’t read all of his essays in this bundle, due to constraints of time, so take this review for what it’s worth.)
In 1739, Hume published the first part of a Treatise of Human Nature, dealing with both human knowledge (Volume 1) and human emotions (Volume 2); in 1740, he published Volume 3, on morality. But as Hume himself wrote, his Treatise fell “dead-born from the presses”, attracting almost no attention. After overcoming his initial depressed mood, he decided to abandon the project and deal with the subjects of morality, politics and criticism in shorter essays, to be bundled in one book. This is what the Essays Moral, Political and Literary (1758) are: a collection of dozens of small essays ranging from economic questions like ‘mercantilism versus free trade’ to political subjects like analyses of British governments.
During his time, Hume was mostly known for his Essays and his huge project on the History of England. For contemporary readers, Hume is mostly known for his sceptical and naturalistic philosophy and his penetrating criticisms of religion. For centuries after his death in 1776, Hume was barely read, and it was only in the middle of the twentieth century that he became a subject of interest in the universities (mainly in the Anglo-Saxon world).
This historical context makes the Essays both interesting – to understand how his contemporaries saw Hume and what they knew of his ideas – and superfluous – since most of the interesting stuff was not contained in these essays.
I read a couple of essays of him on taste, peace of mind, and economics, but I paid the most attention to two infamous essays: On Suicide and On the Immortality of the Soul.
In On Suicide, Hume sets out to dismantle the customary objections to suicide, labelling it a crime. According to Hume, there are three types of objections people usually make: (1) suicide is a transgression towards God, (2) towards society (especially kin folk), and (3) towards the self.
He uses most of his text on objecting to (1), which again shows his critical stance on religion. According to Hume, man, as a part of nature, is determined by natural laws, the same laws that govern everything else in the universe (i.e. matter and motion). It cannot be a transgression to disrupt these natural processes, since a fundamental part of human nature is exactly the power to fight against natural laws. In the grand scheme of things, the universe (or God) cares as much for us as about an oyster or a stone. But not only is this indifference striking, it is also blatantly absurd to claim natural laws should be obeyed – this would mean that any human intervention in the natural world would be an insult to Providence. This would reduce the digging of canals, the leaving of the room where I’m currently at, and dodging the stone that’s about to fall on my head, to the status of insults to Providence. Clearly this is not how we perceive things to be. Hume sharply remarks that empirical evidence proves the naturalness (even goodness) of intervening in the natural course of things – the onus is on the religious believer to explain why suicide is an exception to this general rule.
Also, the objection that suicide is a transgression towards society (2) fails. Hume claims that someone who steps out of his or her life doesn’t do harm, the person stops doing good. These are two different things, with the latter being the least hurtful towards society (for example, crimes are much worse since they actually harm society). Hume’s objection to (2) centres around the common conception that we ought to do good to society – which clearly is not unlimited. Again, he empirically observes that no person can be required to undergo more harm than he or she benefits society. For example, when people grow old and become a burden in the work force, they cannot be asked to work until they die – they retire willingly and respectfully. When the scale begins to tip, and I become a burden, or even harm, to society, it can even be honourable (let alone acceptable) that I end my life.
For Hume, the happiness calculus (if we’re allowed to use this anachronistic term) is most important: certain or highly probably personal future harm, with the loss of net benefit of me to society, is a legitimate argument to commit suicide. In other words: if I’m terminally ill and I know I’m about to die in horrible pains, while I cannot do much for society in any way, it is perfectly reasonable to end my life. But I believe Hume would even favour a voluntarily chosen termination of life (a hot topic in Western Europe nowadays), since in these situations the persons involved receive much more harm than they can benefit society.
The third objection to suicide, the transgression towards the self (3), is a contradiction in terms. Suicide can never be a transgression towards myself, since if I will it, there is no ‘self’ to object. Suicide is a personal calculation, even if unconsciously made, in which I evaluate the proportionality between future happiness and future suffering. These differ per person and per situation, so on a personal level there is no objection to be made.
Hume’s stance on suicide is an example of his empirical method: he analyses the facts and induces from these the general way of things. Most objections are reasonable, but cut off from the real world – religious or moral objections to suicide almost all centre around non-existent and/or non-provable metaphysical concepts, and hence should have no place in a rational discourse on (for example) suicide. It is a fact that a structurally depressed person is not a social asset, neither to herself nor to society. Hume simply seems to couple utility with happiness and in this sense is a kind of precursor to later utilitarians Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
The second essay that drew my attention was the one on the immortality of the soul. Hume displays the same method and analysis. Again, he distinguishes the different types of arguments for a claim – in this case the claim that an immortal soul exists – and he refutes them one by one.
The first type of argument is metaphysical, and is rooted in Cartesian substance dualism. According to this line of thought, the mind or soul is substantially different from the body and all other matter in the universe. Since the material world, including bodies, is finite, perishable and material, the world of the mind cannot be those things and hence is infinite, immortal and immaterial.
Hume smartly remarks that empiricism proved the impossibility of the existence of substances. All our ideas derive from sense experience and reflection, and there is no sense impression of reflection that correlates with a material substance, hence this concept is empty and feigned by the mind, so to speak. Since this argument holds for material substances, it even more so holds for immaterial substances (because how do we even perceive immaterial things?). Also, all attributes which we ascribe to this ‘soul’ are gradually present in animals as well, so either animals have partial souls (which religionists deny) or these attributes are emerging properties of bodies (which they also deny).
The second type of argument is moral. The typical argument says morality has to do with the soul, since it’s the soul that’s perfect and hence in need of goodness and happiness, and the body is simply an obstruction to these aims. The soul survives our bodily death and it is thus important to secure your happiness by aiming at the next life. But Hume reverses it: our passions are clearly aimed at this life, and our powers are clearly explained best in terms of our tasks in this life, so this cannot be the object of any reward or punishment in the afterlife. Here we see again clear empirical observations of the way things are, dispelling the illusions of abstract reasonings.
The religious person takes passions that are functional in this life, and transposes them to a hypothetical afterlife, in which they acquire totally different – and unprovable – roles. So the passion between the sexes has a clear function: to seek out sex and reproduce. Hume simply stops here and rests contented. The religious believer not: he not so much denies the function of amorous passions, but he sees it as a dangerous bulwark to a rewarding afterlife, and hence views its function as a divinely ordered ordeal – we should overcome our biological impulses and this supposedly leads to a reward. The believer fails to make clear why we should accept all his hidden assumptions, though. He simply takes a natural phenomenon (amorous passion), rejects its original function (reproduction), and gives it a new function (a test). But this is, ultimately, an empirical claim, and should empirically be verified – the hidden assumptions (an afterlife, an immortal soul, God, heavenly reward, etc.) are never argued for and cannot be derived from sensations or reflections.
Another sharp criticism of Hume is that all religious conceptions are dichotomous: heaven-hell, good-bad, reward-punishment, etc. The believer is a radical and loses all nuance, since, as Hume remarks, “the greatest part of mankind float between vice and virtue.”
But then, what is morality for Hume? It is a product of us reflecting on the interests of society as a whole. Morality doesn’t prove we have an immortal soul, it proves our sentiments, our moral feelings, are a natural object and serve a purpose. Their purpose is to live together with other human beings, and this is founded on sympathy, compassion for our fellows. Observations and historical study prove this.
The third type of argument is physical. Hume claims that physical facts prove the soul is mortal. When we sleep we are simply not there; many diseases disturb the mind, pointing towards its materiality and finitude; and fear of death is a universal emotion, pointing to the finiteness of human life. Again, empirical observations show us an ‘immortal soul’ is senseless.
In short, Hume claims we have no impressions that justify our ideas of immortal souls while all analogical reasonings fail miserably. As far as we know, immortal souls do not exist.
In both his essays on suicide and the soul, Hume illustrates both his humility and his severity. He is sharp in his criticism of senseless and nonsensical concepts, while being humble in his own claims to truth. Hume’s naturalism makes him explain everything in terms of observations of the way things naturally appear to us, while his scepticism labels his own claims with ‘probable’ – more probable than alternative explanations that use concepts which do not relate to experience. I think these essays are a great and lively introduction to Hume’s main philosophical doctrines, and they’re a real treat for those of us who love literary works. (Nevertheless, I haven’t read all of his essays in this bundle, due to constraints of time, so take this review for what it’s worth.)
December 12, 2010
Absolutely phenomenal. This collection contains more history and philosophy than many books of essays three times its size. David Hume was a genius. Even when I do not agree with his positions, I can find his arguments persuasive and complete. Of particular note are "On Avarice" and "On the Meanness of Human Nature"
November 1, 2023
Ya era HORA de escribir reseñas de los libros leídos. Este libro surgió a raíz de la recomendación de mi amorchito, que me dijo que leyera a Hume y me iba a gustar💛💛💛. Y la realidad es que me ha encantado (es normal, amorchito nunca se equivoca🔮)! Todos los ensayos están chulos, aunque esperaba un mejor desenlace para la norma del gusto. Me gustó la importancia que le da a la amistad, llegando a decir que lo mejor es ser de clase media, porque el rico solo llega a una amistad falsa, y el pobre solo vive lleno de necesidades. Tiene muchas ideas innovadoras y revestidas de la experiencia de la vida cotidiana, que para él siempre es más importante que cualquier especulación o escepticismo. Me ha dejado con muchas ganas de leer el resto de ensayos que tiene y de leer el Tratado de la Naturaleza Humana, por la sencillez y fluidez de su escritura. Pero con tanto libro que leer para clase y Simone de Beauvoir todavía me queda un poquito de tiempo.
Te amo infinico mi corazonchito prechioso 💛🥰🐱 chiempre juntitos mi amorchito
Te amo infinico mi corazonchito prechioso 💛🥰🐱 chiempre juntitos mi amorchito
August 7, 2017
[Just a heads up my review isnt taking into account his essays on religion and suicide as I plan to tackle them separately]
Ever wondered what noted philosopher David Hume thought about trade deficits and the status of the Jacobite controversy in the 18th century? Well boy you are in for a treat.
Jokes aside like any collection of works not all of them are equal some are certainly 5 star worthy others less so, my ranking is therefore a rough average.
The general format he takes is - Introduction of an issue-description of the issue as it currently exists - lengthy and precise comparisons to that issue as it was in ancient Rome/Greece - conclusion. All wrapped up in erudite prose with sprinklings of dry wit.
Whilst some of the essays are universal lot of them are very specific to the time and place they were published in - great if that insight is what you are after - and whilst its possible to squeeze out some lessons and useful insight if you are going to that much effort you may as well read fiction.
Some of the essays I would recommend are"
- Of eloquence
- The epicurean
- The stoic
- The platonist
- The sceptic
- Of polygamy and divorces
Would recommend to Humeboos or people who think all literary innovation after Montaigne was a mistake.
Bonus quote for reading all this -Hume tricking a woman into studying history
"I remember I was once desired by a young beauty, for whom I had some passion, to send her some novels and romances for her amusement in the country; but was not so ungenerous as to take the advantage, which such a course of reading might have given me, being resolved not to make use of poisoned arms against her. I therefore sent her PLUTARCH'S lives, assuring her, at the same time, that there was not a word of truth in them from beginning to end. She perused them very attentively, 'till she came to the lives of ALEXANDER and CÆSAR, whose names she had heard of by accident; and then returned me the book, with many reproaches for deceiving her."
Ever wondered what noted philosopher David Hume thought about trade deficits and the status of the Jacobite controversy in the 18th century? Well boy you are in for a treat.
Jokes aside like any collection of works not all of them are equal some are certainly 5 star worthy others less so, my ranking is therefore a rough average.
The general format he takes is - Introduction of an issue-description of the issue as it currently exists - lengthy and precise comparisons to that issue as it was in ancient Rome/Greece - conclusion. All wrapped up in erudite prose with sprinklings of dry wit.
Whilst some of the essays are universal lot of them are very specific to the time and place they were published in - great if that insight is what you are after - and whilst its possible to squeeze out some lessons and useful insight if you are going to that much effort you may as well read fiction.
Some of the essays I would recommend are"
- Of eloquence
- The epicurean
- The stoic
- The platonist
- The sceptic
- Of polygamy and divorces
Would recommend to Humeboos or people who think all literary innovation after Montaigne was a mistake.
Bonus quote for reading all this -Hume tricking a woman into studying history
"I remember I was once desired by a young beauty, for whom I had some passion, to send her some novels and romances for her amusement in the country; but was not so ungenerous as to take the advantage, which such a course of reading might have given me, being resolved not to make use of poisoned arms against her. I therefore sent her PLUTARCH'S lives, assuring her, at the same time, that there was not a word of truth in them from beginning to end. She perused them very attentively, 'till she came to the lives of ALEXANDER and CÆSAR, whose names she had heard of by accident; and then returned me the book, with many reproaches for deceiving her."
April 15, 2019
I cannot say to have read the whole book - I was assigned particular essays to read for my degree and thus focused upon those that were assigned. Nonetheless, I am very inspired by the few which I did read: Hume’s Essays are clearly meant as timely interventions into the political and moral debates of his time - his meticulous and continual process of revising these essays, and the attention which he gives to his interpretations of Ancient Greek and Roman history show that he was keenly aware of his purpose and his audience in writing these essays.
I am impressed by his political philosophy but perhaps, even more so, by his analysis of political economy and commercial society - it is possible to find within these essays, arguments related to inflation, monetary policy, credit, credit bubbles, comparative advantage, free trade, and so on and so forth. This makes Hume’s arguments against the dominant mercantilist logic of his time, but the fact that his arguments can still resonate in this 21st century where we grapple with the contention between bounded political entities and a seemingly unbounded global economy is truly testament to the strength of his ideas. It comes as no surprise that contemporary economics owes its debts to Adam Smith, and Smith in turn has his debts to Hume.
I am impressed by his political philosophy but perhaps, even more so, by his analysis of political economy and commercial society - it is possible to find within these essays, arguments related to inflation, monetary policy, credit, credit bubbles, comparative advantage, free trade, and so on and so forth. This makes Hume’s arguments against the dominant mercantilist logic of his time, but the fact that his arguments can still resonate in this 21st century where we grapple with the contention between bounded political entities and a seemingly unbounded global economy is truly testament to the strength of his ideas. It comes as no surprise that contemporary economics owes its debts to Adam Smith, and Smith in turn has his debts to Hume.
March 29, 2025
Of the Delicacy of Taste and Passion—how and why must we cultivate good taste? It enlarges our capacity for happiness
June 5, 2011
While I consider Empiricism as a whole to be excessively close-minded and fundamentally wrong as a philosophic approach (not that it isn't useful; it is a vital part of the scientific method, after all), most of Hume's attacks against traditional knowledge are extremely well constructed, and pretty much correct in every way. Not only that, they're also hilariously offensive, but only after a little reflection. The man was a pro at insulting peoples, races and genders. Such subtlety, such delicate delivery!
If I had to point one thing I haven't liked about this book, it'd be just how disgustingly moderate he is about everything. It's like reading "Nicomachean Ethics" all over again. "The middle ground this, the middle ground that, the middle ground is always the best because blah, blah, blah"
Ugh.
(also, he's hilariously wrong when predicting future political developments.)
If I had to point one thing I haven't liked about this book, it'd be just how disgustingly moderate he is about everything. It's like reading "Nicomachean Ethics" all over again. "The middle ground this, the middle ground that, the middle ground is always the best because blah, blah, blah"
Ugh.
(also, he's hilariously wrong when predicting future political developments.)
November 19, 2013
Hume's ethical and political writings in a single collection.
June 6, 2024
To start my reading of David Hume, I chose a collection of 21 works, including a collection of essays, as well as a handful of his key treatises, such as his Treatise on Human Nature. I had every intention of reading the entire collection at once, but after reading the included essays, I decided to postpone reading the remainder in favor of providing a review for the essays. Plus, having read those essays, I am no longer certain that I will bother with reading the remaining pieces in the collection. Considering his persistent influence and stature in philosophy, perhaps his treatises are of a higher caliber than his essays.
An Enlightenment philosopher, Hume wrote on many of the same topics that preoccupied philosophers of the time (and adjacent times), including John Locke and Immanuel Kant. In particular, most of the essays included in the collection I read were political in nature, but unlike Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, they do not attempt to derive government from first principles, which may be part of why I found them to be less insightful. What is the point of philosophy if not to think things through from first principles? The essays, therefore, read more like editorials that invoke some philosophy than they do like philosophical essays.
This is not to say that there is nothing to be gained from reading Hume’s essays. Those that I read are particularly apt in their descriptions and warnings about the dangers of factionalism in democratic systems of government. Indeed, the history of democracies bears out this view, with many throughout history failing or deteriorating due to rampant factionalism and rife internal divisions. Perhaps it was Hume’s influence that led Washington to warn against the dangers of factionalism in his farewell address, and Benjamin Franklin may well have been referring in part to the same danger when he said that the new America had a “republic, if [they] can keep it.”
While I tend to avoid discussing politics on this site, except in the most abstract sense, it seems unavoidable to allude here to the present US political situation, which is surely the kind of rampant factionalism to which Hume referred. In one of his essays, Hume warns that factionalism, unchecked, leads democracies inevitably to either anarchy or tyranny. Deriding the possibility of this happening to the US requires a willful ignorance of historical perspective, for our democracy is not so very old as to be proven definitively the exception to the rule. In the scheme of nations, the US is quite young, and past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Democracy requires the active and thoughtful engagement of the people, which is not to be confused with the participation of the populous.
Aside from his insights into factionalism, the other significant takeaway from Hume’s essays is one of perspective, that reminder that even established systems of government are subject to change, and are affected by factors both internal and external. The British government, after all, evolved through various forms of aristocracy, feudalism, democracy, monarchy, liberty, and tyranny in the past thousand years or so. Hume was witness to some of the more dramatic of these incidents, which doubtless informed his philosophy, and is perhaps why his idea of the ideal government has more to do with stability than it does with a particular system or morality.
To say that Hume’s essays are not worth reading would be untrue. There is a reason that they endure, and, as is evident from this review, there are insights to be gained. Perhaps it is unfair of me to compare a collection of essays to some of the most influential works of political thought in the past thousand years, especially without having yet read Hume’s weightier works. That is why I’ve not removed them from my reading list, despite my disappointment with the essays. The warnings about factionalism are apt, but there are other treatments of that subject which can accomplish much the same. It might be better to wait until we tackle those treatises to begin your own interactions with the works of David Hume.
Read
April 15, 2025This is not a review, but a warning. I don't know which book the majority of "reviewers" on this page are actually reviewing, but it is not "David Hume on Morals, Politics, and Society" edited by Angela Coventry and Andrew Valls. So many essays referred to by others here are just not contained in this volume. What works are included are:
An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
Appendixes:
Concerning Moral Sentiment
Of Self-Love
Some Further Considerations with Regard to Justice
Of Some Verbal Disputes
A Dialogue
12 Essays:
Of the Liberty of the Press
That Politics May be Reduced to a Science
Of the First Principles of Government
Of the Origin of Government
Of Parties in General
Of National Characters
Of Commerce
Of Refinement in the Arts
Of Public Credit
Of the Original Contract
Of Passive Obedience
Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth
Then there are four other essays by modern contributors commenting on Hume's work.
This is not "Essays: Moral, Political and Literary".
I have not read the book fully yet, so I don't want to review it myself. However, part of the reason I bought it was because of others referring to a range of works that I was eager to read, but which were not actually included. Perhaps there is something wrong with Goodreads, or maybe there was an earlier edition, or maybe the American and European editions differ; I just don't know, but I find it immensely annoying. For what it's worth the ISBN is 978-0-300-20714-9. Just know what it is you are getting.
An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
Appendixes:
Concerning Moral Sentiment
Of Self-Love
Some Further Considerations with Regard to Justice
Of Some Verbal Disputes
A Dialogue
12 Essays:
Of the Liberty of the Press
That Politics May be Reduced to a Science
Of the First Principles of Government
Of the Origin of Government
Of Parties in General
Of National Characters
Of Commerce
Of Refinement in the Arts
Of Public Credit
Of the Original Contract
Of Passive Obedience
Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth
Then there are four other essays by modern contributors commenting on Hume's work.
This is not "Essays: Moral, Political and Literary".
I have not read the book fully yet, so I don't want to review it myself. However, part of the reason I bought it was because of others referring to a range of works that I was eager to read, but which were not actually included. Perhaps there is something wrong with Goodreads, or maybe there was an earlier edition, or maybe the American and European editions differ; I just don't know, but I find it immensely annoying. For what it's worth the ISBN is 978-0-300-20714-9. Just know what it is you are getting.
May 1, 2025
I aquí finalitza el petit cicle-Hume. Si bé en termes generals aquesta col·lecció no és tant interessant com la moral, alguns dels seus articles són decididament importants per a comprendre, per exemple, el punt de vista de Hume sobre la tradició contractualista —que finalitza, curiosament, amb un contemporani i conegut seu, Rousseau. Parlarà Hume també sobre l’obediència com a costum —La Boétie dixit— i sobre la revolució en termes menys enèrgics que Locke, a qui critica en diverses ocasions. Parlarà sobre el perill implícit en la creació de grupuscles o faccions com a desviació i cooptació del poder polític, tema present ja a Hobbes i que reprendrà Weil. I contra Rousseau de nou, qui xifrava l’explosió de l’art i la ciència en una decadència moral degut a l’abundància material, dirà Hume que són producte de la llibertat i la diferència inter i intranacional. En fi, Hume sempre val la pena.
March 9, 2025
Mira, uno puede encontrar en estos ensayos algunas ideas o preconceptos de teorías que muchos años después fueron desarrollados por otros autores importantes, es decir, aquí puedes encontrar ciertos destellos, al menos si nos enfocamos en términos de economía y/o política.
Si te soy sincero, me resultó en general muy tedioso, estuve perdido la mayoría del tiempo, tampoco es como que sea muy complicado de leer, la realidad es que no, pero sin más, no me gustó, me aburrió.
- 3/5⭐
- 16:04 ⌛
Si te soy sincero, me resultó en general muy tedioso, estuve perdido la mayoría del tiempo, tampoco es como que sea muy complicado de leer, la realidad es que no, pero sin más, no me gustó, me aburrió.
- 3/5⭐
- 16:04 ⌛
January 11, 2025
David Hume sintetiza de forma excelente sus creencias políticas o el deber ser en la política. Sus discusiones sobre la libertad de prensa y religiosa fueron avanzadas para su época. A su vez utiliza un lenguaje eficaz de forma simple.
July 2, 2020
Excellen editorial workmanship.
March 22, 2021
Difficult but worthwhile raed
December 18, 2022
While I don’t necessarily align myself with every single one of Hume’s notions or ideas (though he remains an excellent philosopher, and does supply us with some fascinating essays, some genuine wisdom, and some irrefutable pieces of logic), I am giving this book five stars for craftsmanship alone. It is full of very articulate thinking, set down in eloquent prose, and regardless of whether or not you agree with all of his arguments, it must be recognised that he advances all arguments into which he enters. The essays function as they are intended to, and the text is therefore philosophically effective. I think Hume is a brilliant essayist, an exceptional man of ideas, and a refreshing challenge to the intellect, as well as simply being a decent read.
read-an-excerpt
January 31, 2023Read Of the Standard of Taste, Of Refinement in the Arts, and Of the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences.
March 1, 2025
Najwybitniejszy przedstawiciel brytyjskiego Oświecenia.
Dowód intelektualnej uczciwości i tego jak da się być sceptykiem nie popadając w nihilizm moralny.
Dowód intelektualnej uczciwości i tego jak da się być sceptykiem nie popadając w nihilizm moralny.
Read
April 19, 2025I am not rating this because I am just reading it to write a Hunger Games essay so that seems unfair lol
December 2, 2025
Best een lieve man
Read
September 19, 2015"It is a very comfortable reflection to the lovers of liberty, that this peculiar privilege of Britain is of a kind that cannot easily be wrested from us, but must last as long as our government remains, in any degree, free and independent. It is seldom, that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Slavery has so frightful an aspect to men accustomed to freedom, that it must steal upon them by degrees, and must disguise itself in a thousand shapes, in order to be received. But, if the liberty of the press ever be lost, it must be lost at once. The general laws against sedition and libelling are at present as strong as they possibly can be made. Nothing can impose a farther restraint, but either the clapping an Imprimatur upon the press, or the giving to the court very large discretionary powers to punish whatever displeases them. But these concessions would be such a bare-faced violation of liberty, that they will probably be the last efforts of a despotic government. We may conclude, that the liberty of Britain is gone for ever when these attempts shall succeed."
October 9, 2015
I won't pretend that I am so erudite this all made sense to me. Maybe, with time and further study of old classics more will become clear. There were portions of this book that were clear, concise, and really profound; there were portions that I simply could not understand. No doubt differences between the world and English of the mid 1700s and the early 2000s had much to do with it. Still I gained much from this reading, enough so to finish the book. I'll keep my copy and after more study, in a few years perhaps, I'll have another go at this.
July 17, 2022
Wrote a paper on Hume and the Sensible Knave based on his account of morals, politics and society in the EPM. The EPM only mentions the sensible knave in the conclusion, but the knave's account draws upon Hume's conception of society and justice. Interesting read, but I do not think that Hume is always right in what he says. His conception of justice is limited in scope, especially to the role of property.
April 6, 2016
Published 1758. Of the Dignity or Meanness of Human Nature: He argues that genuine human virtue is possible. By comparing one person to another, we can argue that some have virtue (wisdom, beauty, etc.). Even if that virtue is constrained by a measure of self-love and other vices, it's still possible to argue that people have true virtue.
Read
February 4, 2009Reading for class now along with some of Hume's other works. Pretty good reading, interesting "historical philosophy"
Read
September 23, 2010"Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary by DAVID HUME (1985)"
December 12, 2014
Grade: 85% / 'B'
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews