What do you think?
Rate this book
İntihar
“Çocuklarınız sadece sizin oldukları için sevilmekteler, arkadaşlarınız da öyle; vatanınıza da ancak sizinle bağlantısı oranında bağlanırsınız. Ben fikri kaldırılsa sizi hiçbir şey etkileyemezdi.”
David Hume
David Hume düşüncenin insanlık tarihinde en önemli şey olduğunu söylemektedir.
Yalnızca kendi zihnimizde doğrudan ve aracısız olarak tecrübe ettiğimiz fikirleri, duyum ve izlenimleri bilebileceğimizi, bilgide kendi zihnimizin ötesine geçemediğimizi ve bundan dolayı herhangi bir şeyin insan zihninden bağımsız olarak varolduğunu söyleyemeyeceğimizi belirten Hume, insan zihnini bilgi bakımından analiz ettiği zaman, tüm içeriklerinin bize duyular ve deney tarafından sağlanan malzemeye indirgenebileceğini görmüştür, bu malzeme ise algılardan başka şey değildir.
David Hume
David Hume düşüncenin insanlık tarihinde en önemli şey olduğunu söylemektedir.
Yalnızca kendi zihnimizde doğrudan ve aracısız olarak tecrübe ettiğimiz fikirleri, duyum ve izlenimleri bilebileceğimizi, bilgide kendi zihnimizin ötesine geçemediğimizi ve bundan dolayı herhangi bir şeyin insan zihninden bağımsız olarak varolduğunu söyleyemeyeceğimizi belirten Hume, insan zihnini bilgi bakımından analiz ettiği zaman, tüm içeriklerinin bize duyular ve deney tarafından sağlanan malzemeye indirgenebileceğini görmüştür, bu malzeme ise algılardan başka şey değildir.
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1775
105 people are currently reading
4107 people want to read
About the author
David Hume
3,143 books1,675 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 - 30 of 89 reviews
Read
July 3, 2016Only about 10 pages of this is on suicide and what it has is very out of date: it doesn't even mention the best way to kill yourself, which is to attach one end of a rope around a lamppost, the other around your own neck, and then to get into your car and drive very quickly in whichever direction (pick your favourite direction).
The rest of the book is about other stuff that I guess seemed important at the time like compasses or whatever, but I didn't really try and read it in detail.
The rest of the book is about other stuff that I guess seemed important at the time like compasses or whatever, but I didn't really try and read it in detail.
September 6, 2020
Terrible. Worse than modern-day common sense on the ethics of suicide. However, this is historically important to the legalization of suicide. In the late 18th century everyone was "accusing" England of then criminally high suicide rates due to poor weather, which seems to have prompted a backlash from Hume and other European writers to decriminalize suicide:
Premise:
"If suicide be legal, it must be a transgression of our duty either to God, our neighbor, or ourselves"
Hume's Respective Responses:
1. "[I don't believe in God, even believers die by God's hands, so why would it matter to God?]"
2. "[suicide] does no harm to society: [the individual] only ceases to do good; which, if it is an injury, is of the lowest kind"
3. "'[suicide is a good example, which if imitated,] preserves the individual's chance for happiness in life and frees them from all danger of misery'"
Respective Errors:
-'Religious arguments are false, because I, personally, don't believe in religion'. Suggests his atheism is ontologically true, presumes God's will, presumes believer's beliefs. Makes no attempt to reconcile his argument with Scripture or the Church as an institution or faith community. Makes no attempt to reflect on other belief systems or religions.
-Suggests the cessation of good is the least evil, which is a highly debatable and complex generalization.Dismisses duty without mentioning debt. Hume does not acknowledge that his perspective may be maligned with societal duty, as he was an outlier, not having a steady job or a family.
-The whole essay really lacks empathy, but especially so in his hasty argument against it being a crime against the individual. Absurdly, he explicitly closes the essay suggesting . With more nuance and limitations this might form an argument for cases in terminal illness, but in its final form, it's carelessly repulsive.
It's arrogant and insensitive to try with only 20 pages of trite generalizations to come to a firm decision on the legal ethics of suicide. It's too complex and important to be this simple about. However, I think most agree that the legal change itself was for the best, for compassionate reasons absent from this essay.
-------
P.S.
"But the life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster"
When your arguments seem better at supporting cannibalism than your cause, then you've probably lost the debate. Schopenhauer probably has better insights from this pessimistic perspective...
Premise:
"If suicide be legal, it must be a transgression of our duty either to God, our neighbor, or ourselves"
Hume's Respective Responses:
1. "[I don't believe in God, even believers die by God's hands, so why would it matter to God?]"
2. "[suicide] does no harm to society: [the individual] only ceases to do good; which, if it is an injury, is of the lowest kind"
3. "'[suicide is a good example, which if imitated,] preserves the individual's chance for happiness in life and frees them from all danger of misery'"
Respective Errors:
-'Religious arguments are false, because I, personally, don't believe in religion'. Suggests his atheism is ontologically true, presumes God's will, presumes believer's beliefs. Makes no attempt to reconcile his argument with Scripture or the Church as an institution or faith community. Makes no attempt to reflect on other belief systems or religions.
-Suggests the cessation of good is the least evil, which is a highly debatable and complex generalization.Dismisses duty without mentioning debt. Hume does not acknowledge that his perspective may be maligned with societal duty, as he was an outlier, not having a steady job or a family.
-The whole essay really lacks empathy, but especially so in his hasty argument against it being a crime against the individual. Absurdly, he explicitly closes the essay suggesting . With more nuance and limitations this might form an argument for cases in terminal illness, but in its final form, it's carelessly repulsive.
It's arrogant and insensitive to try with only 20 pages of trite generalizations to come to a firm decision on the legal ethics of suicide. It's too complex and important to be this simple about. However, I think most agree that the legal change itself was for the best, for compassionate reasons absent from this essay.
-------
P.S.
"But the life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster"
When your arguments seem better at supporting cannibalism than your cause, then you've probably lost the debate. Schopenhauer probably has better insights from this pessimistic perspective...
June 16, 2020
Is suicide a crime? If so, to whom?
God?
'Is it because human life is of such great importance that it is a presumption for human prudence to dispose of it? But the life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster... Divine providence is still inviolate, and placed far beyond the reach of human injuries.'
Society?
'A man who retires from life does no harm to society: he only ceases to do good, which, if it is an injury, is of the lowest kind. All our obligations to do good to society seem to imply something reciprocal. I receive the benefits of society, and therefore ought to promote its interests; but when I withdraw myself altogether from society, can I be bound any longer? But allowing that our obligations to do good were perpetual, they have certainly some bounds. I am not obliged to do a small good to society at the expense of a great harm to myself. Why then should I prolong a miserable existence because of some frivolous advantage which the public may perhaps receive from me?'
Oneself?
'I believe that no man ever threw away life while it was worth keeping. For such is our natural horror of death that small motives will never be able to reconcile us to it; and though perhaps the situation of a man’s health or fortune did not seem to require this remedy, we may at least be assured that any one who, without apparent reason, has had recourse to it, was cursed with such an incurable depravity or gloominess of temper as must poison all enjoyment, and render him equally miserable as if he had been loaded with the most grievous misfortunes.'
God?
'Is it because human life is of such great importance that it is a presumption for human prudence to dispose of it? But the life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster... Divine providence is still inviolate, and placed far beyond the reach of human injuries.'
Society?
'A man who retires from life does no harm to society: he only ceases to do good, which, if it is an injury, is of the lowest kind. All our obligations to do good to society seem to imply something reciprocal. I receive the benefits of society, and therefore ought to promote its interests; but when I withdraw myself altogether from society, can I be bound any longer? But allowing that our obligations to do good were perpetual, they have certainly some bounds. I am not obliged to do a small good to society at the expense of a great harm to myself. Why then should I prolong a miserable existence because of some frivolous advantage which the public may perhaps receive from me?'
Oneself?
'I believe that no man ever threw away life while it was worth keeping. For such is our natural horror of death that small motives will never be able to reconcile us to it; and though perhaps the situation of a man’s health or fortune did not seem to require this remedy, we may at least be assured that any one who, without apparent reason, has had recourse to it, was cursed with such an incurable depravity or gloominess of temper as must poison all enjoyment, and render him equally miserable as if he had been loaded with the most grievous misfortunes.'
September 5, 2022
“What say you of natural affection? Is that also a species of self-love? Yes; all is self-love… Were the idea of Self removed, nothing would affect you: you would altogether be inactive and insensible.”
Hume contemplates the free disposal of one’s own life, the incurability of pleasure and pain, the melancholy that foreshadows them, and the incompleteness of life. These aspects reveal to us the thinly veiled illusion of security that is that attainment of happiness. Not a stranger to the philosophy of contemplating unhappiness and diluting the shock and despair that are often manifest in existence, some of David Hume’s ideas about the split between self and soul, mind and body, art and life, logic and sentiment ironed out many unrealized creases of my thoughts.
The essays speak about the nature of things, the changefulness of personal identity, and the fragile fabric of human sentiment when it mingles with an imagined appetite. I found more philosophical consolation in the questions that Hume puts across than in their purported answers; perhaps this says more about me and my philosophical temperament than it does about the philosophy of David Hume.
A book like this does plant the seed of an internal dialogue between any two halves of your Self; the one that rationalizes and intercepts pain and the one that is burdened to feel it.
The essays are, for the lack of a better word, prophetic in an ominous and comforting sense. If you indulge in a philosophy that strips away the certainty and desirability of the world, you reduce the capsule of your life down to the measurements of a speck of dust or, as Hume puts it, to the life of an oyster.
Ergo, human life is governed by fewer superficialities, exposing the brutal, fragile, and restless aspects of the human condition: a proof that existence and existing, being and becoming, life and living depend more on our estimation of our vanity than the natural forces that govern them.
Hume contemplates the free disposal of one’s own life, the incurability of pleasure and pain, the melancholy that foreshadows them, and the incompleteness of life. These aspects reveal to us the thinly veiled illusion of security that is that attainment of happiness. Not a stranger to the philosophy of contemplating unhappiness and diluting the shock and despair that are often manifest in existence, some of David Hume’s ideas about the split between self and soul, mind and body, art and life, logic and sentiment ironed out many unrealized creases of my thoughts.
The essays speak about the nature of things, the changefulness of personal identity, and the fragile fabric of human sentiment when it mingles with an imagined appetite. I found more philosophical consolation in the questions that Hume puts across than in their purported answers; perhaps this says more about me and my philosophical temperament than it does about the philosophy of David Hume.
A book like this does plant the seed of an internal dialogue between any two halves of your Self; the one that rationalizes and intercepts pain and the one that is burdened to feel it.
The essays are, for the lack of a better word, prophetic in an ominous and comforting sense. If you indulge in a philosophy that strips away the certainty and desirability of the world, you reduce the capsule of your life down to the measurements of a speck of dust or, as Hume puts it, to the life of an oyster.
Ergo, human life is governed by fewer superficialities, exposing the brutal, fragile, and restless aspects of the human condition: a proof that existence and existing, being and becoming, life and living depend more on our estimation of our vanity than the natural forces that govern them.
November 26, 2012
Hume never lived to see the full
Impact this work had on society. His paper caused an outrage at the time and Humes publishers had to print retracted versions, versions with preferences which totally distanced themselves from the author and so on. And the more moral outrage about the heresy that hume had committed, the more the paper was in demand.
What Hume did, though neither his intention or desire, was to force society to separate suicide from theology enough to allow proper public discussion on suicide which eventually lead to enough understanding to allow people to feel that they could seek help if they were at risk. Although this paper will not be helpful to anyone at risk or worried about someone, it is essential background reading for those working in the areas of intervention and prevention.
Impact this work had on society. His paper caused an outrage at the time and Humes publishers had to print retracted versions, versions with preferences which totally distanced themselves from the author and so on. And the more moral outrage about the heresy that hume had committed, the more the paper was in demand.
What Hume did, though neither his intention or desire, was to force society to separate suicide from theology enough to allow proper public discussion on suicide which eventually lead to enough understanding to allow people to feel that they could seek help if they were at risk. Although this paper will not be helpful to anyone at risk or worried about someone, it is essential background reading for those working in the areas of intervention and prevention.
April 17, 2019
"But providence guided all these causes, and nothing happens in the universe without its consent and cooperation. If so, then neither does my death, however voluntary, happen without its consent; and whenever pain or sorrow so far overcome my patience, as to make me tired of life, I may conclude that I am recalled from my station in the clearest and most express terms."
A fascinating essay as to how suicide isn't necessarily immoral. Although, he much more puts forwards means of making a more preferable life. As Hume was writing in the 18th century it is quite frankly revolutionary some of the points he is making and goes directly against the official dogma of the day.
Focusing on three ideas: Does your suicide violate God's plan for you? Is suicide a violation to your duty to your society? Does suicide violate your duty to yourself?
He argues against the notion of God's divine plan: "If I turn aside a stone which is falling upon my head, I disturb the course of nature; and I invade the peculiar province of the Almighty, by lengthening out my life beyond the period, which, by the general laws of matter and motion, he has assigned to it." You may be thinking that that has no general importance in disproving the original theorem, though it comes after "But the life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster." The idea here being of humans encroaching on God's divine plan by terminating their lives is in and of itself the same as preserving life when if nature was to take its natural cause it would have lead to the termination of a life (E.g saving a drowning man). [5]
Arguing against being an affront to society:
"allowing that our obligations to do good were perpetual, they have certainly some bounds ; I am not obliged to do a small good to society at the expense of a great harm to myself: why then should I prolong a miserable existence, because of some frivolous advantage which the public may perhaps receive from me? If upon account of age and infirmities, I may lawfully resign any office, and employ my time altogether in fencing against these calamities, and alleviating as much as possible the miseries of my future life; why may I not cut short these miseries at once by an action which is no more prejudicial to society?
But suppose that it is no longer in my power to promote the interest of the public; suppose that I am a burden to it; suppose that my life hinders some person from being much more useful to the public: in such cases, my resignation of life must not only be innocent, but laudable." [9]
On a lesser note from suicide:
His use of language is fascinating in the way he both contrives it, and also how he deconstructs it by showing errors in the way people use language (which still occurs today).
"When we find a man who arrives at such a pitch of wisdom as is very uncommon, we pronounce him a wise man: so that to say there are few wise men in the world, is really to say nothing; since it is only by their scarcity that they merit that appellation." [16]
"Euclid has fully explained every quality of the circle, but has not, in any proposition, said a word of its beauty. The reason is evident. Beauty is not a quality of the circle. It lies not in any part of the line, whose parts are equally distant from a common centre. It is only the effect which the figure produces upon a mind, whose particular fabric or structure renders it susceptible of such sentiments." [96/97]
On human nature:
"In my opinion there are two things which have led astray those philosophers that have insisted so much on the selfishness of man. In the first place, they found that every act of virtue or friendship was attended with a secret pleasure; whence they concluded, that friendship and virtue could not be disinterested. But the fallacy of this is obvious. The virtuous sentiment or passion produces the pleasure, and does not arise from it. I feel a pleasure in doing good to my friend, because I love him; but do not love him for the sake of that pleasure." [18]
Secondly, "It is very unjust in the world, when they find any tincture of vanity in a laudable action, to depreciate it upon that account, or ascribe it entirely to that motive.... vanity is so closely allied to virtue, and to love the fame of laudable actions approaches so near the love of laudable actions for their own sake, that these passions are more capable of mixture, than any other kinds of affection: and it is almost impossible to have the latter without some degree of the former. ... To love the glory of virtuous deeds is a sure proof of the love of virtue." [19]
Of the standard of taste:
"Beauty is no quality in things themselves: it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty... To seek the real beauty, or real deformity, is as fruitless an enquiry, as to pretend to ascertain the real sweet or the real bitter. According to the disposition of the organs, the same object may be both sweet and bitter; and the proverb has justly determined it to be fruitless to dispute concerning tastes.
On the problems of intellectuality:
"One that has well digested his knowledge both of books and men, has little enjoyment but in the company of a few select companions. He feels too sensibly, how much all the rest of mankind fall short" [63]
How to live a good life:
"Guard equally against the extremes of arrogance and fawning. Let it appear that your set a value upon yourself, but without despising others." [91]
How to be happy:
"where the temper is best disposed for any enjoyment, the object is often wanting: and in this respect, the passions, which pursue external objects, contribute not so much to the happiness as those which rest in ourselves; since we are neither so certain of attaining such objects, nor so secure in possessing them. A passion for learning is preferable, with regard to happiness, to one for riches." [99]
Bettering ourselves:
"Habit is another powerful means of reforming the mind, and implanting in it good dispositions and inclinations. A man, who continues in a course of sobriety and temperance, will hate riot and disorder: if he engages in business of study, indolence will seem a punishment to him: if he constrains himself to practice beneficence and affability, he will soon abhor all instances of pride and violence." [103]
A fascinating essay as to how suicide isn't necessarily immoral. Although, he much more puts forwards means of making a more preferable life. As Hume was writing in the 18th century it is quite frankly revolutionary some of the points he is making and goes directly against the official dogma of the day.
Focusing on three ideas: Does your suicide violate God's plan for you? Is suicide a violation to your duty to your society? Does suicide violate your duty to yourself?
He argues against the notion of God's divine plan: "If I turn aside a stone which is falling upon my head, I disturb the course of nature; and I invade the peculiar province of the Almighty, by lengthening out my life beyond the period, which, by the general laws of matter and motion, he has assigned to it." You may be thinking that that has no general importance in disproving the original theorem, though it comes after "But the life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster." The idea here being of humans encroaching on God's divine plan by terminating their lives is in and of itself the same as preserving life when if nature was to take its natural cause it would have lead to the termination of a life (E.g saving a drowning man). [5]
Arguing against being an affront to society:
"allowing that our obligations to do good were perpetual, they have certainly some bounds ; I am not obliged to do a small good to society at the expense of a great harm to myself: why then should I prolong a miserable existence, because of some frivolous advantage which the public may perhaps receive from me? If upon account of age and infirmities, I may lawfully resign any office, and employ my time altogether in fencing against these calamities, and alleviating as much as possible the miseries of my future life; why may I not cut short these miseries at once by an action which is no more prejudicial to society?
But suppose that it is no longer in my power to promote the interest of the public; suppose that I am a burden to it; suppose that my life hinders some person from being much more useful to the public: in such cases, my resignation of life must not only be innocent, but laudable." [9]
On a lesser note from suicide:
His use of language is fascinating in the way he both contrives it, and also how he deconstructs it by showing errors in the way people use language (which still occurs today).
"When we find a man who arrives at such a pitch of wisdom as is very uncommon, we pronounce him a wise man: so that to say there are few wise men in the world, is really to say nothing; since it is only by their scarcity that they merit that appellation." [16]
"Euclid has fully explained every quality of the circle, but has not, in any proposition, said a word of its beauty. The reason is evident. Beauty is not a quality of the circle. It lies not in any part of the line, whose parts are equally distant from a common centre. It is only the effect which the figure produces upon a mind, whose particular fabric or structure renders it susceptible of such sentiments." [96/97]
On human nature:
"In my opinion there are two things which have led astray those philosophers that have insisted so much on the selfishness of man. In the first place, they found that every act of virtue or friendship was attended with a secret pleasure; whence they concluded, that friendship and virtue could not be disinterested. But the fallacy of this is obvious. The virtuous sentiment or passion produces the pleasure, and does not arise from it. I feel a pleasure in doing good to my friend, because I love him; but do not love him for the sake of that pleasure." [18]
Secondly, "It is very unjust in the world, when they find any tincture of vanity in a laudable action, to depreciate it upon that account, or ascribe it entirely to that motive.... vanity is so closely allied to virtue, and to love the fame of laudable actions approaches so near the love of laudable actions for their own sake, that these passions are more capable of mixture, than any other kinds of affection: and it is almost impossible to have the latter without some degree of the former. ... To love the glory of virtuous deeds is a sure proof of the love of virtue." [19]
Of the standard of taste:
"Beauty is no quality in things themselves: it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty... To seek the real beauty, or real deformity, is as fruitless an enquiry, as to pretend to ascertain the real sweet or the real bitter. According to the disposition of the organs, the same object may be both sweet and bitter; and the proverb has justly determined it to be fruitless to dispute concerning tastes.
On the problems of intellectuality:
"One that has well digested his knowledge both of books and men, has little enjoyment but in the company of a few select companions. He feels too sensibly, how much all the rest of mankind fall short" [63]
How to live a good life:
"Guard equally against the extremes of arrogance and fawning. Let it appear that your set a value upon yourself, but without despising others." [91]
How to be happy:
"where the temper is best disposed for any enjoyment, the object is often wanting: and in this respect, the passions, which pursue external objects, contribute not so much to the happiness as those which rest in ourselves; since we are neither so certain of attaining such objects, nor so secure in possessing them. A passion for learning is preferable, with regard to happiness, to one for riches." [99]
Bettering ourselves:
"Habit is another powerful means of reforming the mind, and implanting in it good dispositions and inclinations. A man, who continues in a course of sobriety and temperance, will hate riot and disorder: if he engages in business of study, indolence will seem a punishment to him: if he constrains himself to practice beneficence and affability, he will soon abhor all instances of pride and violence." [103]
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 2, 2019
I believe that the margin of criticism that is allowed for us, modern readers, when dealing with great thinkers of prevalent depth and influence should not extend to the discussion of ideas, for a sound and "respectable" reader is ought to know the ontological limitations when broaching the topics of, say Existensialism while reading Sartre.
To put it simply, ideas are not to be discussed as much as the vessel of its transmission. That was my issue with Hume's work. His style is similar to nails on a chalk board: very poignant in a annoying way.
Yet, who am I to attack somebody who can convince to commit suicide without having to think about its "unethical" burden?! Who am I to do so?!
To put it simply, ideas are not to be discussed as much as the vessel of its transmission. That was my issue with Hume's work. His style is similar to nails on a chalk board: very poignant in a annoying way.
Yet, who am I to attack somebody who can convince to commit suicide without having to think about its "unethical" burden?! Who am I to do so?!
February 27, 2018
Clearer in language than the Camus from this series that I recently attempted, and largely agreeable in content (even if I have misgivings about his argument on suicide). Hume comes across as a philosopher I wish I'd read more of at university, seeing as how he seems to have his head screwed on right, and have a sensible outlook on most things.
March 12, 2020
“On Suicide” (for which I picked up the book) turned out to be the most uninteresting essay in this collection. Nothing too insightful, the main idea is basically written on the cover, and it’s not even too true in my opinion.
A little disappointed I went on to read “Of the Dignity of Meanness of Human Nature”, “Of Tragedy”, “Of the Standard of Taste”, and “Of the Delicacy of Taste and Passion”. I enjoyed Hume’s reasoning. I found a nice quote in one of those essays:
“Beauty is no quality in things themselves: it exists merely in the mind of which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.”
The last four essays: “The Epicurean”, “The Stoic”, “The Platonist”, “The Sceptic”, got me falling in love for Hume. He just talked about life as honestly as he could. Actually somewhere in the last essay he just told me:
“I am sorry, then, I have pretended to be a philosopher.”
A little disappointed I went on to read “Of the Dignity of Meanness of Human Nature”, “Of Tragedy”, “Of the Standard of Taste”, and “Of the Delicacy of Taste and Passion”. I enjoyed Hume’s reasoning. I found a nice quote in one of those essays:
“Beauty is no quality in things themselves: it exists merely in the mind of which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.”
The last four essays: “The Epicurean”, “The Stoic”, “The Platonist”, “The Sceptic”, got me falling in love for Hume. He just talked about life as honestly as he could. Actually somewhere in the last essay he just told me:
“I am sorry, then, I have pretended to be a philosopher.”
July 11, 2012
"I believe that no man ever threw away life while it was worth keeping."
The quotation sets the theme for one of Hume's more provocative 'pensées' concerning meaning derivatives within the milieu of human experience. For a volatile subject about which few will speak with open clarity, this little gem makes for a close friend and confidant.
The quotation sets the theme for one of Hume's more provocative 'pensées' concerning meaning derivatives within the milieu of human experience. For a volatile subject about which few will speak with open clarity, this little gem makes for a close friend and confidant.
October 10, 2021
Only the first essay, mandatory reading for Empirical Studies of Ethics.
From what I can tell, suicide is never committed by someone who has something to lose.
The act of committing suicide is not sacrilegious, as one is merely following Nature's Laws as intended by God. Moreover, it's not even a sin as living against one's nature is more sinful.
From what I can tell, suicide is never committed by someone who has something to lose.
The act of committing suicide is not sacrilegious, as one is merely following Nature's Laws as intended by God. Moreover, it's not even a sin as living against one's nature is more sinful.
February 3, 2016
Having accidentally read William Styron 19s brilliant Darkness Visible, I was curious to read a philosopher 19s point of view on the subject. I must admit I was disappointed, however it is well written and indeed the book has more than just the one subject in it; including Hume 19s own impressions of other philosophers 19 ideas. Indeed, if I were to quote Hume 19s first three sentences at the beginning of his essay 1CThe Sceptic 1D, it would sum up my own impression of his thoughts 1COn Suicide 1D ( 1C 26too much their principles 26 1D).
Read
June 27, 2020It was way too difficult for me to follow and focus on, it didn't feel like the point was clear and getting across. Maybe proposed some important ideas for it's time, but didn't give me any convincing/understandable arguments to remember. No pleasure of reading it whatsoever. I don't like reviewing books and even less when it comes to renowned philosophers but this was too much.
October 30, 2021
A short yet punchy essay, in which David Hume smacks down the position of the clergy upon suicide.
Is suicide a 'sin'? Far from that! If the laws of Nature are subjected to the will of a God, then nothing should let us presuppose that such laws don't, also, regulate human nature and our passions. Far from being an act going against the sanctity of life, then, suicide, as a reflection of our passion, should be seen as an act also subjected to the laws of God. Why, then, condemn it? He goes even further, by arguing that what is blasphemous is, on the contrary, to think that considering that a mere human being taking such decision is supposedly going against the natural laws set by God is to imply that, such human being mustn't have received his faculty to decide from such God, or, at least, that he embodies passions which are not subjected to its divine will.
From a purely theological/ atheist perspective, this is a brilliant reasoning, demonstrating how easy it is to argue for anything and its contrary when relying solely upon the supposed will of a God; a God we know nothing about for sure (let alone if it exists in the first place!) yet that we attribute with our own prejudices so as to try and resolve ethical questions. As a purely theological exercise in counter-arguing clerical positions, then, this is a powerful read. But...
But what about the ethical relevance of such an argument? David Hume, of course, doesn't make the apology of suicide! Nevertheless, he defends it here as a choice we ought to respect instead of condemn. Fair enough. But is it really a choice? Are people reaching the point of killing themselves really acting following a rational decision, or, are they feeling so desperate and hopeless that they feel death is their only way out? We no longer live in a society condemning suicide as a 'sin'; it doesn't mean we have to accept it as a 'choice'.
A short read, outdated (in my opinion) when it comes to how we ought to see what suicide really entails, but, nevertheless, a great demonstration of Hume's powerful intellect.
Is suicide a 'sin'? Far from that! If the laws of Nature are subjected to the will of a God, then nothing should let us presuppose that such laws don't, also, regulate human nature and our passions. Far from being an act going against the sanctity of life, then, suicide, as a reflection of our passion, should be seen as an act also subjected to the laws of God. Why, then, condemn it? He goes even further, by arguing that what is blasphemous is, on the contrary, to think that considering that a mere human being taking such decision is supposedly going against the natural laws set by God is to imply that, such human being mustn't have received his faculty to decide from such God, or, at least, that he embodies passions which are not subjected to its divine will.
From a purely theological/ atheist perspective, this is a brilliant reasoning, demonstrating how easy it is to argue for anything and its contrary when relying solely upon the supposed will of a God; a God we know nothing about for sure (let alone if it exists in the first place!) yet that we attribute with our own prejudices so as to try and resolve ethical questions. As a purely theological exercise in counter-arguing clerical positions, then, this is a powerful read. But...
But what about the ethical relevance of such an argument? David Hume, of course, doesn't make the apology of suicide! Nevertheless, he defends it here as a choice we ought to respect instead of condemn. Fair enough. But is it really a choice? Are people reaching the point of killing themselves really acting following a rational decision, or, are they feeling so desperate and hopeless that they feel death is their only way out? We no longer live in a society condemning suicide as a 'sin'; it doesn't mean we have to accept it as a 'choice'.
A short read, outdated (in my opinion) when it comes to how we ought to see what suicide really entails, but, nevertheless, a great demonstration of Hume's powerful intellect.
March 29, 2022
Abhorrent. David Hume can be called an 'ethicist' no more than Christopher Hitchens can be called a 'theologian' - nothing he writes in this short treatise is either ethical or insightful in the slightest. Mainly in response to St. Thomas Aquinas's arguments against suicide (Summa Theologiæ II-II, Q. 64, A. 5), Hume took no time in understanding the theological context of the latter, and then felt comfortable in attacking a strawman, which resulted in extremely embarrassing conversations such as: St. Thomas: "Suicide is a sin against the Christian God." Hume: "Suicide is not a sin against the Deist God."
February 4, 2021
David Hume covers an unpopular position and tries to justify suicide to god, society and oneself.
In its historical context this book makes sense, and especially when Hume (as a not conventionally religious thinker in a christian society) applies theological arguments, it shows that he made an effort to lay out the case to his contemporaries.
However, this train of thought completely goes missing after about a quarter of the book, where, after exploring the arguments and other insteresting phenomena (like the pleasure that derives from tragedy), things get so off-topic that I can't possibly connect them to the issue at hand.
In its historical context this book makes sense, and especially when Hume (as a not conventionally religious thinker in a christian society) applies theological arguments, it shows that he made an effort to lay out the case to his contemporaries.
However, this train of thought completely goes missing after about a quarter of the book, where, after exploring the arguments and other insteresting phenomena (like the pleasure that derives from tragedy), things get so off-topic that I can't possibly connect them to the issue at hand.
March 16, 2020
I bought this when I was a angsty teenager but never actually read it. Picked it uo because I’m going through my backlist. It was fairly interesting, but not interesting enough to keep my attention on a dense, philosophical text.
June 29, 2025
good pero no para tirar cohetes ya que me han faltado algunos apuntes de su pensamiento. igualmente, me ha gustado mucho la parte final donde va repasando diferentes corrientes filosóficas y va dando su punto de vista empirista.
July 23, 2022
What! Says he, Do you think there are no pleasures in the dark?
January 3, 2025
Some really solid essays, a lot that I didn't necessarily love, but well written and interesting perspectives
Read
March 30, 2025tbh why did i read this 🤨
January 5, 2019
As, on the one hand, the elements and other inanimate parts of the creation carry on their action without regard to the particular interest and situation of men; so men are entrusted to their own judgment and discretion in the various shocks of matter, and may employ every faculty with which they are endowed, in order to provide for their ease, happiness, or preservation.
What is the meaning then of that principle, that a man who, tired of life, and hunted by pain and misery, bravely overcomes all the natural terrors of death and makes his escape from this cruel scene; that such a man, I say, has incurred the indignation of his creator by encroaching on the office of divine providence, and disturbing the order of the universe? Shall we assert that the Almighty has reserved to himself in any peculiar manner the disposal of the lives of men, and has not submitted that event, in common with others, to the general laws by which the universe is governed? This is ...
It would be no crime in me to divert the Nile or Danube from its course, were I able to effect such purposes. Where then is the crime of turning a few ounces of blood from their natural channel?
A man, who retires from life, does no harm to society: He only ceases to do good; which, if it is an injury, is of the lowest kind.
I believe that no man ever threw away life, while it was worth keeping.
What is the meaning then of that principle, that a man who, tired of life, and hunted by pain and misery, bravely overcomes all the natural terrors of death and makes his escape from this cruel scene; that such a man, I say, has incurred the indignation of his creator by encroaching on the office of divine providence, and disturbing the order of the universe? Shall we assert that the Almighty has reserved to himself in any peculiar manner the disposal of the lives of men, and has not submitted that event, in common with others, to the general laws by which the universe is governed? This is ...
It would be no crime in me to divert the Nile or Danube from its course, were I able to effect such purposes. Where then is the crime of turning a few ounces of blood from their natural channel?
A man, who retires from life, does no harm to society: He only ceases to do good; which, if it is an injury, is of the lowest kind.
I believe that no man ever threw away life, while it was worth keeping.
December 3, 2021
Trigger Warning: This isn’t an existentialist book, however the first essay does focus on suicide, something that people may conclude is the best way to end an existential crisis or a unfulfilling life.
Summary: A very controversial idea tied in both nature as we know it, and God’s divine providence as we perceive it. Hume examines the cases made against suicide: the concept that human life is more significant than others, that it is not part of God’s plan for an individual to end their life, and the breaching of a humans duty to society. His conclusions are nonetheless the same for each case. It is indeed blasphemous to presume that a human can disrupt the order of God’s universe, suicide is like the natural erosion and eventual demolition of a building, when the seizure of life is more alluring than the painful prolonging, it is not harmful to prematurely arrive at the gates of eternity.
Thoughts: I find it difficult yet inviting to look at suicide from such a positive perspective. I’ve always seen it to be a taboo, often leading more towards the pushed concept in society that “things will get better in time” because I believe they will. But sometimes reading is about exposing your mind to these new ideas. Perhaps those who have committed suicide are not as fragile as we are told to think. This is a complex topic and each case of suicide comes with its own obstacles. I would always advocate for life, but if one does chose to go, who are we to judge anyway?
Favourite Quote: “But the life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster...”
Summary: A very controversial idea tied in both nature as we know it, and God’s divine providence as we perceive it. Hume examines the cases made against suicide: the concept that human life is more significant than others, that it is not part of God’s plan for an individual to end their life, and the breaching of a humans duty to society. His conclusions are nonetheless the same for each case. It is indeed blasphemous to presume that a human can disrupt the order of God’s universe, suicide is like the natural erosion and eventual demolition of a building, when the seizure of life is more alluring than the painful prolonging, it is not harmful to prematurely arrive at the gates of eternity.
Thoughts: I find it difficult yet inviting to look at suicide from such a positive perspective. I’ve always seen it to be a taboo, often leading more towards the pushed concept in society that “things will get better in time” because I believe they will. But sometimes reading is about exposing your mind to these new ideas. Perhaps those who have committed suicide are not as fragile as we are told to think. This is a complex topic and each case of suicide comes with its own obstacles. I would always advocate for life, but if one does chose to go, who are we to judge anyway?
Favourite Quote: “But the life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster...”
June 13, 2022
I picked up this book as my first stepping stone into the world of philosophy. I cannot claim to have the intellectual mettle to be able to grasp every lesson that this book had for me but I did like the overall arguments brought forth in it. Although not much of this book is about suicide - what the title would lead you to believe, I did appreciate the rest of the book which elaborates of the different personality types - such as the Stoic and the Platonist.
Written during a time when religion was far more dominant than it is today, David Hume made the case that individuals have a right to do what they please with their bodies and minds. If life is truly painful to live despite every measure that one has taken, the best way to relieve this pain would be to end the life and no so-called moral authority, acting on behalf of a so-called higher power can judge us. Now, the David Hume in no way condones suicide - as he rightly says, no one who can see another way out would willingly choose suicide and in such cases, it is probably more humane than forcing them to live in misery for no good reason than religious dogma.
I found On Suicide to be a thorough, well argumented, balanced case for one's right to compete control of his/her own body, destiny and decisions without guilt and would recommend this book to anyone wishing to dip their toes into the world of Western Philosophy.
Written during a time when religion was far more dominant than it is today, David Hume made the case that individuals have a right to do what they please with their bodies and minds. If life is truly painful to live despite every measure that one has taken, the best way to relieve this pain would be to end the life and no so-called moral authority, acting on behalf of a so-called higher power can judge us. Now, the David Hume in no way condones suicide - as he rightly says, no one who can see another way out would willingly choose suicide and in such cases, it is probably more humane than forcing them to live in misery for no good reason than religious dogma.
I found On Suicide to be a thorough, well argumented, balanced case for one's right to compete control of his/her own body, destiny and decisions without guilt and would recommend this book to anyone wishing to dip their toes into the world of Western Philosophy.
November 3, 2012
Un libro que tiene el encanto de la brevedad y de la aparente sencillez con que Hume argumenta las cosas. El opúsculo agrupa un conjunto de artículos que destacan por la claridad de pensamiento y por la sencillez y precisión con que utiliza el lenguaje. Ya se advierte en la introducción, y se puede apreciar en la lectura, que Hume era una persona especialmente dotada para la escritura.
Sin duda alguna, el escrito que trata sobre el suicidio es el más importante de todos y por ello no debe sorprender que se elija para destacarlo en el título de la obra. La originalidad del enfoque radica en que la defensa del suicidio se hace desde dentro, es decir, desde el creyente, desde la persona que sin poner en duda la existencia de Dios cree firmemente que en nada ofende al Creador que alguien se quite la vida. Y argumenta, además, que tampoco perjudica a la sociedad ni a la persona que decide acabar con su existencia. Estamos ante unas páginas importantes desde el punto de vista filosófico y del debate religioso, en las que Hume exhibe una notable capacidad para la argumentación.
En los otros escritos se podrá apreciar a un Hume imbuido de ideas liberales, aunque no tanto como para considerar a las mujeres al mismo nivel que los hombres, algo que para un lector o lectora actual provoca rechazo, pero que seguramente debía verse con naturalidad en la época en que publicó los escritos.
Sin duda alguna, el escrito que trata sobre el suicidio es el más importante de todos y por ello no debe sorprender que se elija para destacarlo en el título de la obra. La originalidad del enfoque radica en que la defensa del suicidio se hace desde dentro, es decir, desde el creyente, desde la persona que sin poner en duda la existencia de Dios cree firmemente que en nada ofende al Creador que alguien se quite la vida. Y argumenta, además, que tampoco perjudica a la sociedad ni a la persona que decide acabar con su existencia. Estamos ante unas páginas importantes desde el punto de vista filosófico y del debate religioso, en las que Hume exhibe una notable capacidad para la argumentación.
En los otros escritos se podrá apreciar a un Hume imbuido de ideas liberales, aunque no tanto como para considerar a las mujeres al mismo nivel que los hombres, algo que para un lector o lectora actual provoca rechazo, pero que seguramente debía verse con naturalidad en la época en que publicó los escritos.
November 30, 2021
Unul din avantajele considerabile ale filozofiei este faptul că e un antidot suprem la superstiţie şi la falsa religie. Toate celelalte remedii la această dezordine pestilenţială sunt în van, sau în orice caz nesigure. Doar bunul-simţ şi cunoaşterea lumii, care se dovedesc pe deplin suficiente în privinţa celor mai multe din problemele cotidiene, sunt adesea ineficace: istoria, la fel ca şi experienţa de zi cu zi, ne oferă exemple de oameni înzestraţi cu cele mai înalte calităţi pentru comerţ şi afaceri, care au fost întreaga lor viaţă sclavii celor mai grosiere superstiţii. Chiar veselia şi blândeţea caracterului, care sunt un balsam întremător pentru toate celelalte răni, nu oferă nici un remediu unei otrăvi atât de virulente; acest lucru poate fi observat mai cu seamă la persoanele de sexul frumos, care, deşi dotate cu însuşirile pe care li le oferă natura, îşi văd risipite frumoasele lor calităţi în faţa trecerii acestui intrus neavenit. Însă când adevărata Filozofie a luat în posesie spiritul, superstiţia este într-adevăr exclusă din el, şi putem afirma cu drept cuvânt că triumful său asupra acestui inamic este cu atât mai deplin în ce priveşte cea mai mare parte a viciilor şi imperfecţiunilor inerente naturii umane. Dragostea sau ura, ambiţia sau avariţia, prind rădăcini în umoare şi afect, în aşa fel încât cel mai sigur dintre raţionamente nu e aproape niciodată în măsură să le corecteze, ci, superstiţia fiind întemeiată pe opinii false, ea dispare imediat ce adevărata Filozofie a inspirat un remediu şi sentimentele cele mai juste, şi nimic nu poate împiedica acest remediu să se dovedească eficace, dacă nu este unul fals şi contrafăcut.
Ar fi inutil să exacerbăm aici meritele Filozofiei scoţând în evidentă tendinţa periculoasă a acestui viciu de care curăţă ea spiritul uman. Omul superstiţios, spune Cicero[1] e nefericit în toate împrejurările, în toate întâmplările vieţii sale; până şi somnul, care pentru nefericiţii muritori opreşte orice alte griji, îi este sursă de noi spaime; în timpul acestuia el îşi examinează visele, aflând în aceste viziuni nocturne vestea a noi calamităţi. Adaug că, deşi doar moartea poate pune capăt nefericirii sale, el nu îndrăzneşte să se refugieze în aceasta, ci prelungeşte în continuare o existenţă mizerabilă, de teamă să nu-l ofenseze pe Creatorul său utilizând puterea cu care această fiinţă generoasă l-a dotat. Darurile lui Dumnezeu şi ale naturii ne sunt răpite de acest crud duşman [i.e., teama de impietate], şi deşi un singur pas ne-ar putea îndepărta de zonele durerii şi tristeţii, ameninţările lui ne ţin încă în lanţurile unei existenţe ruşinoase pe care el însuşi [duşmanul] contribuie să o facă nefericită.
S-a observat de către cei pe care calamităţile vieţii i-au redus la necesitatea de a recurge la acest remediu fatal că, dacă grija atât de inoportună a prietenilor lor i-a privat de acest soi de moarte pe care-şi propuseseră să şi-o procure, ei mai încearcă după aceea rareori o alta, nemaireuşind să-şi ducă la îndeplinire planul a doua oară. Atât de mare e oroarea noastră de moarte, încât atunci când ea ni se prezintă indiferent sub ce formă, în afara celei cu care omul s-a străduit să-şi liniştească imaginaţia, ea dezvoltă, şi din cauza prea vlăguitului său curaj, spaime noi. Când însă la această teamă naturală se mai adaugă şi ameninţarea superstiţiei, nu-i de mirare că ea îi secătuieşte pe oameni de orice putere asupra propriei lor vieţi, şi chiar mulţime de plăceri şi amuzamente, către care suntem înclinaţi în mod natural, ne sunt smulse de acest despot inuman. Să ne străduim aici a le reda oamenilor libertatea lor originară, examinând toate argumentele curente împotriva sinuciderii, şi arătând că un atare act poate fi debarasat de orice culpabilitate sau blam, dacă ne referim la sentimentele asupra lui ale tuturor filozofilor din vechime.
Dacă sinuciderea este o crimă, aceasta trebuie să fie o încălcare a îndatoririi noastre faţă de Dumnezeu, faţă de semenul nostru sau faţă de noi înşine. - Pentru a dovedi că sinuciderea nu e deloc o încălcare a îndatoririi noastre faţă de Dumnezeu, consideraţiile care urmează vor fi poate de ajuns. Spre a guverna lumea materială, Creatorul atotputernic a stabilit nişte legi generale şi imuabile, prin care toate corpurile, de la planeta cea mai mare la cea mai măruntă particulă de materie, sunt menţinute în sfera funcţiei lor. Pentru a guverna lumea animală, el a dotat toate fiinţele vii cu puteri psihice şi mentale; de a simţi, de a suferi, de a dori, de a-şi aminti, de a judeca, prin care ele sunt menţinute sau diriguite în timpul vieţii care le e sortită. Aceste două principii distincte ale lumii însufleţite şi ale lumii materiale se prelungesc unele în altele, întârziind sau grăbind unul funcţionarea celuilalt. Puterile omului şi ale tuturor celorlalte animale sunt limitate şi dirijate de natură, iar calităţile corpurilor care-i înconjoară, şi deopotrivă schimbările şi acţiunile acestor corpuri, sunt neîncetat modificate prin acţiunea tuturor animalelor. Omul este oprit în calea sa de râuri atunci când vrea să străbată suprafaţa pământului, iar râurile, amenajate aşa cum trebuie, împrumută energia lor funcţionării maşinilor folosite de om. Dar deşi teritoriile puterilor materială şi animală nu sunt total separate, din aceasta nu rezultă nici o discordie sau dezordine în creaţie; dimpotrivă, din amestecul, din unitatea şi din contrastul între toate forţele diferite ale corpurilor neînsufleţite şi ale fiinţelor vii, se degajă această simpatie, această armonie şi acest simţ al proporţiilor care ne dă argumentul cel mai sigur în favoarea unei înţelepciuni supreme.
Ar fi inutil să exacerbăm aici meritele Filozofiei scoţând în evidentă tendinţa periculoasă a acestui viciu de care curăţă ea spiritul uman. Omul superstiţios, spune Cicero[1] e nefericit în toate împrejurările, în toate întâmplările vieţii sale; până şi somnul, care pentru nefericiţii muritori opreşte orice alte griji, îi este sursă de noi spaime; în timpul acestuia el îşi examinează visele, aflând în aceste viziuni nocturne vestea a noi calamităţi. Adaug că, deşi doar moartea poate pune capăt nefericirii sale, el nu îndrăzneşte să se refugieze în aceasta, ci prelungeşte în continuare o existenţă mizerabilă, de teamă să nu-l ofenseze pe Creatorul său utilizând puterea cu care această fiinţă generoasă l-a dotat. Darurile lui Dumnezeu şi ale naturii ne sunt răpite de acest crud duşman [i.e., teama de impietate], şi deşi un singur pas ne-ar putea îndepărta de zonele durerii şi tristeţii, ameninţările lui ne ţin încă în lanţurile unei existenţe ruşinoase pe care el însuşi [duşmanul] contribuie să o facă nefericită.
S-a observat de către cei pe care calamităţile vieţii i-au redus la necesitatea de a recurge la acest remediu fatal că, dacă grija atât de inoportună a prietenilor lor i-a privat de acest soi de moarte pe care-şi propuseseră să şi-o procure, ei mai încearcă după aceea rareori o alta, nemaireuşind să-şi ducă la îndeplinire planul a doua oară. Atât de mare e oroarea noastră de moarte, încât atunci când ea ni se prezintă indiferent sub ce formă, în afara celei cu care omul s-a străduit să-şi liniştească imaginaţia, ea dezvoltă, şi din cauza prea vlăguitului său curaj, spaime noi. Când însă la această teamă naturală se mai adaugă şi ameninţarea superstiţiei, nu-i de mirare că ea îi secătuieşte pe oameni de orice putere asupra propriei lor vieţi, şi chiar mulţime de plăceri şi amuzamente, către care suntem înclinaţi în mod natural, ne sunt smulse de acest despot inuman. Să ne străduim aici a le reda oamenilor libertatea lor originară, examinând toate argumentele curente împotriva sinuciderii, şi arătând că un atare act poate fi debarasat de orice culpabilitate sau blam, dacă ne referim la sentimentele asupra lui ale tuturor filozofilor din vechime.
Dacă sinuciderea este o crimă, aceasta trebuie să fie o încălcare a îndatoririi noastre faţă de Dumnezeu, faţă de semenul nostru sau faţă de noi înşine. - Pentru a dovedi că sinuciderea nu e deloc o încălcare a îndatoririi noastre faţă de Dumnezeu, consideraţiile care urmează vor fi poate de ajuns. Spre a guverna lumea materială, Creatorul atotputernic a stabilit nişte legi generale şi imuabile, prin care toate corpurile, de la planeta cea mai mare la cea mai măruntă particulă de materie, sunt menţinute în sfera funcţiei lor. Pentru a guverna lumea animală, el a dotat toate fiinţele vii cu puteri psihice şi mentale; de a simţi, de a suferi, de a dori, de a-şi aminti, de a judeca, prin care ele sunt menţinute sau diriguite în timpul vieţii care le e sortită. Aceste două principii distincte ale lumii însufleţite şi ale lumii materiale se prelungesc unele în altele, întârziind sau grăbind unul funcţionarea celuilalt. Puterile omului şi ale tuturor celorlalte animale sunt limitate şi dirijate de natură, iar calităţile corpurilor care-i înconjoară, şi deopotrivă schimbările şi acţiunile acestor corpuri, sunt neîncetat modificate prin acţiunea tuturor animalelor. Omul este oprit în calea sa de râuri atunci când vrea să străbată suprafaţa pământului, iar râurile, amenajate aşa cum trebuie, împrumută energia lor funcţionării maşinilor folosite de om. Dar deşi teritoriile puterilor materială şi animală nu sunt total separate, din aceasta nu rezultă nici o discordie sau dezordine în creaţie; dimpotrivă, din amestecul, din unitatea şi din contrastul între toate forţele diferite ale corpurilor neînsufleţite şi ale fiinţelor vii, se degajă această simpatie, această armonie şi acest simţ al proporţiilor care ne dă argumentul cel mai sigur în favoarea unei înţelepciuni supreme.
October 19, 2016
Just finished this book and some interesting ideas but sadly there is a middle section of around 40 pages which i found hard going, but it might be a lack of intelligence on my part.
But i got a few quotes from this book for example "Art may makes a suit of clothes, but nature must produce a man," then it made me think that if nature produced the man then man produced the clothes is that not part of nature, who knows.
I wasn't too keen on humes stlye of writing it seemed like he wrote for scholars not for plebs like me haha but ill try another book by him at some point.
But i got a few quotes from this book for example "Art may makes a suit of clothes, but nature must produce a man," then it made me think that if nature produced the man then man produced the clothes is that not part of nature, who knows.
I wasn't too keen on humes stlye of writing it seemed like he wrote for scholars not for plebs like me haha but ill try another book by him at some point.
August 1, 2017
Thick writing likely to give you a headache. But powerful and worth the read. The term 'commited suicide' is now an outdated term. Death by suicide. Or simply 'killed themself' is more apt a description. It's not a crime to kill yourself. David Hume tries his hardest to scholarly dictate why you shouldn't. Upon your ending, either by nature, accident or voluntarily the universe will continue on existing all the same. Nature existed before you where here and will carry on all the same once your gone.
Currently reading
May 8, 2007Given my dislike for philosophy, it is no surprise that, one year on, I am still reading this book. Crawling through the book on the train is a tricky business cos it attracts sideways glances and raised eyebrows. And in the wake of the London train bombings, it is not a good choice for rush-hour reading material.
July 17, 2012
"หากชีวิตมิได้เป็นของข้าพเจ้า ย่อมเป็นอาชญากรรมหากทำให้มันตกอยู่ในอันตราย เช่นเดียวกันการกำจัดมันทิ้ง; (เช่นนั้น) ไม่มีมนุษย์ผู้ใดสมควรแก่สมญาว่าวีรบุรุษ ผู้ซึ่งความรุ่งโรจน์และมิตรภาพของเขาลำเลียงไปสู่อันตรายอันใหญ่หลวงที่สุด ขณะที่ผู้อื่น สมควรแก่การประณามในฐานะผู้ต่ำช้าและนอกรีต ผู้ปลิดชีพตนเอง ด้วยแรงจูงใจที่เหมือนหรือคล้ายคลึงกัน "- David Hume
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews