What do you think?
Rate this book
El infiel y el profesor: David Hume y Adam Smith: la amistad que forjó el pensamiento moderno
The story of the greatest of all philosophical friendships--and how it influenced modern thought
David Hume is widely regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English, but during his lifetime he was attacked as "the Great Infidel" for his skeptical religious views and deemed unfit to teach the young. In contrast, Adam Smith was a revered professor of moral philosophy, and is now often hailed as the founding father of capitalism. Remarkably, the two were best friends for most of their adult lives, sharing what Dennis Rasmussen calls the greatest of all philosophical friendships. The Infidel and the Professor is the first book to tell the fascinating story of the friendship of these towering Enlightenment thinkers--and how it influenced their world-changing ideas.
The book follows Hume and Smith's relationship from their first meeting in 1749 until Hume's death in 1776. It describes how they commented on each other's writings, supported each other's careers and literary ambitions, and advised each other on personal matters, most notably after Hume's quarrel with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Members of a vibrant intellectual scene in Enlightenment Scotland, Hume and Smith made many of the same friends (and enemies), joined the same clubs, and were interested in many of the same subjects well beyond philosophy and economics--from psychology and history to politics and Britain's conflict with the American colonies. The book reveals that Smith's private religious views were considerably closer to Hume's public ones than is usually believed. It also shows that Hume contributed more to economics--and Smith contributed more to philosophy--than is generally recognized.
Vividly written, The Infidel and the Professor is a compelling account of a great friendship that had great consequences for modern thought.
David Hume is widely regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English, but during his lifetime he was attacked as "the Great Infidel" for his skeptical religious views and deemed unfit to teach the young. In contrast, Adam Smith was a revered professor of moral philosophy, and is now often hailed as the founding father of capitalism. Remarkably, the two were best friends for most of their adult lives, sharing what Dennis Rasmussen calls the greatest of all philosophical friendships. The Infidel and the Professor is the first book to tell the fascinating story of the friendship of these towering Enlightenment thinkers--and how it influenced their world-changing ideas.
The book follows Hume and Smith's relationship from their first meeting in 1749 until Hume's death in 1776. It describes how they commented on each other's writings, supported each other's careers and literary ambitions, and advised each other on personal matters, most notably after Hume's quarrel with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Members of a vibrant intellectual scene in Enlightenment Scotland, Hume and Smith made many of the same friends (and enemies), joined the same clubs, and were interested in many of the same subjects well beyond philosophy and economics--from psychology and history to politics and Britain's conflict with the American colonies. The book reveals that Smith's private religious views were considerably closer to Hume's public ones than is usually believed. It also shows that Hume contributed more to economics--and Smith contributed more to philosophy--than is generally recognized.
Vividly written, The Infidel and the Professor is a compelling account of a great friendship that had great consequences for modern thought.
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2017
226 people are currently reading
3025 people want to read
About the author
Dennis C. Rasmussen
10 books29 followersDennis C. Rasmussen is a political theorist whose research focuses on the Enlightenment, the American founding, and the virtues and shortcomings of liberal democracy and market capitalism. He received his Ph.D. from Duke University in 2005 and his B.A. from Michigan State University’s James Madison College in 2000, and he has also held positions at Tufts University, the University of Houston, Brown University, and Bowdoin College
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews
February 6, 2023
I’m slightly embarrassed to admit that I have never read any of the works from either of Scotland’s two most famous philosophers, who were contemporaries and friends during the 18th century. Consequently I hadn’t planned to read this book but the audio version was offered as “included” with my Audible membership, and that was too good an offer to turn down. In the event I was really taken with the book, and am now persuaded I must make time to read some of the original work of both men. The book is effectively a double biography.
The title is derived from the fact that in his own lifetime Hume was known as “The Great Infidel” because he was openly sceptical of religion. At the time many people viewed this as morally repugnant and amongst other consequences it led to Hume being blocked from taking up posts in academia (I thought this was an interesting parallel with the modern practice of “cancelling” academics who express unorthodox opinions). Smith may actually have shared many of Hume’s doubts about religion, but he was generally averse to controversy and was far more circumspect about what he said on the subject. This may have been partly due to a desire not to upset his pious mother, to whom he was extremely close. Eventually though, he did attract considerable criticism over his eulogy to Hume, of which more later.
Hume is sometimes described as “the philosophers’ favourite philosopher”, highly rated in modern academic circles. During his lifetime he published far more than did Smith, who produced only two major works. Also when he spent the years 1763-65 in Paris, he was treated as a rock star by the French literati. It’s fair to say though, that Smith is today far better known outside of academia. It’s been suggested that The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, is the most influential book published between Newton’s Principia in 1687 and Darwin’s On The Origin of Species in 1859.
Smith undoubtedly derived many of his ideas from Hume, who was 12 years older. I get the impression though that the author is something of a fan of Smith. There’s a long chapter in the book about where Smith differed from Hume, and whilst Hume and Smith largely agreed on the benefits of “commercial society”, undoubtedly Smith set out the basis of modern economics in far more detail.
Hume died after a year or so of illness which he and everyone else knew was terminal. His impending death created huge interest amongst religious groups, who were convinced that Hume would regret his past rejection of religion. Many Christians reacted with fury when Smith and other friends of Hume confirmed that was not the case. The anger of the religious lobby was especially fierce when Smith composed a short eulogy in a letter sent to Hume’s publisher, which concluded with Smith saying of his late friend “Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit.” To describe an atheist as “wise and virtuous” was considered outrageous by many Christians of the period, and criticism was heaped upon Smith for the letter.
Although the author is clearly an admirer of both men, he does not shy away from addressing criticisms of them. For example, both might be accused of not sticking to their principles when there was an opportunity to make money.
A word on the narration. The author is an American academic and the narrator is the American actor Keith Sellon-Wright. Generally he does an excellent job with but he errs with the non-phonetic pronunciation of Smith’s home town of Kirkcaldy (which is mentioned quite often in the text) and he uses the American pronunciation of “lieutenant” when discussing Hume’s employer Lord Hertford, who was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (if I were discussing a lieutenant in the US Army, I would use the US pronunciation, but I don’t think it’s appropriate in the British context). On the other hand, he does get a number of other British pronunciations correct.
I thought this book was superbly well-written. It has left me with a far better understanding of Hume and Smith, as well as the feeling that I want to read their work for myself. That must be considered a success!
The title is derived from the fact that in his own lifetime Hume was known as “The Great Infidel” because he was openly sceptical of religion. At the time many people viewed this as morally repugnant and amongst other consequences it led to Hume being blocked from taking up posts in academia (I thought this was an interesting parallel with the modern practice of “cancelling” academics who express unorthodox opinions). Smith may actually have shared many of Hume’s doubts about religion, but he was generally averse to controversy and was far more circumspect about what he said on the subject. This may have been partly due to a desire not to upset his pious mother, to whom he was extremely close. Eventually though, he did attract considerable criticism over his eulogy to Hume, of which more later.
Hume is sometimes described as “the philosophers’ favourite philosopher”, highly rated in modern academic circles. During his lifetime he published far more than did Smith, who produced only two major works. Also when he spent the years 1763-65 in Paris, he was treated as a rock star by the French literati. It’s fair to say though, that Smith is today far better known outside of academia. It’s been suggested that The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, is the most influential book published between Newton’s Principia in 1687 and Darwin’s On The Origin of Species in 1859.
Smith undoubtedly derived many of his ideas from Hume, who was 12 years older. I get the impression though that the author is something of a fan of Smith. There’s a long chapter in the book about where Smith differed from Hume, and whilst Hume and Smith largely agreed on the benefits of “commercial society”, undoubtedly Smith set out the basis of modern economics in far more detail.
Hume died after a year or so of illness which he and everyone else knew was terminal. His impending death created huge interest amongst religious groups, who were convinced that Hume would regret his past rejection of religion. Many Christians reacted with fury when Smith and other friends of Hume confirmed that was not the case. The anger of the religious lobby was especially fierce when Smith composed a short eulogy in a letter sent to Hume’s publisher, which concluded with Smith saying of his late friend “Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit.” To describe an atheist as “wise and virtuous” was considered outrageous by many Christians of the period, and criticism was heaped upon Smith for the letter.
Although the author is clearly an admirer of both men, he does not shy away from addressing criticisms of them. For example, both might be accused of not sticking to their principles when there was an opportunity to make money.
A word on the narration. The author is an American academic and the narrator is the American actor Keith Sellon-Wright. Generally he does an excellent job with but he errs with the non-phonetic pronunciation of Smith’s home town of Kirkcaldy (which is mentioned quite often in the text) and he uses the American pronunciation of “lieutenant” when discussing Hume’s employer Lord Hertford, who was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (if I were discussing a lieutenant in the US Army, I would use the US pronunciation, but I don’t think it’s appropriate in the British context). On the other hand, he does get a number of other British pronunciations correct.
I thought this book was superbly well-written. It has left me with a far better understanding of Hume and Smith, as well as the feeling that I want to read their work for myself. That must be considered a success!
August 6, 2018
This is a wonderful, engaging, erudite, and intellectually investigative work of biography of two figures deserving of such examination and their equally deserving friendship, that of David Hume and Adam Smith. While feuds and strife between great thinkers is usually philoprogenitive, friendships are normally ignored due to the boredom of mutual respect and agreement. This is certainly not the case with Hume and Smith.
Frequently presented as an odd couple, an irreligious skeptic and mostly-reserved economic philosopher, the two actually had much more in common as their correspondence shows. Their friendship, formed by mutual respect and admiration and nurtured through sustained honest critique of each other's work, is one that is born out by the honest and sincere completion of Hume's life that Smith wrote (reproduced here in the appendices).
Perhaps the most interesting and of course most controversial topic covered is religion, more specifically the lack of it in Hume and his unflinching views on the subject right up to his death. Though this of course created periods of disagreement between the two, the differences were quite minor and the "charge" of skeptic was one that Smith himself would endure, merely due to their affiliation. At a time when large communities of people were gleefully looking forward to his expiration and hopeful for a deathbed recantation, perhaps the best testament to the honesty of the friendship the two shared is provided by the slightly more religious Smith who, with great clarity and honesty, detailed Hume's pleasant and affable yet godless final days while at the same time declaring Hume was, "approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature human frailty will permit."
Anyone with a passing interest in either of these thinkers will definitely enjoy this work.
Frequently presented as an odd couple, an irreligious skeptic and mostly-reserved economic philosopher, the two actually had much more in common as their correspondence shows. Their friendship, formed by mutual respect and admiration and nurtured through sustained honest critique of each other's work, is one that is born out by the honest and sincere completion of Hume's life that Smith wrote (reproduced here in the appendices).
Perhaps the most interesting and of course most controversial topic covered is religion, more specifically the lack of it in Hume and his unflinching views on the subject right up to his death. Though this of course created periods of disagreement between the two, the differences were quite minor and the "charge" of skeptic was one that Smith himself would endure, merely due to their affiliation. At a time when large communities of people were gleefully looking forward to his expiration and hopeful for a deathbed recantation, perhaps the best testament to the honesty of the friendship the two shared is provided by the slightly more religious Smith who, with great clarity and honesty, detailed Hume's pleasant and affable yet godless final days while at the same time declaring Hume was, "approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature human frailty will permit."
Anyone with a passing interest in either of these thinkers will definitely enjoy this work.
October 28, 2018
The friendship between Adam Smith and David Hume is one of the great Platonic love stories in the history of philosophy. The book unearths an intimate array of correspondences that offers a compelling narrative that works on two levels: 1) The human sympathy between two human beings who happened to share a soul connection. 2) The literary connection between two great iconoclastic Enlightenment thinkers.
There is very much to be learned from these inestimable writers, not least on matters of fact and speculation, but also on how to maintain a friendship across periods of despair and turbulence. On the level of facts, the time period of Scottish Enlightenment, with its own list of characters and places, is appropriately framed as the intellectual backdrop to the human drama. More impressively, the book animates the protagonists' intimate human struggles and passions with a vivacity that only an archival exposé of private letters can muster.
My only criticism is a minor one: the author lets his own anticlericalism and irreligiosity, which he accurately pinpoints in Hume, take the centre stage, which obfuscates some of the finer points of distinction, drama and controversy that would have made for equally compelling storytelling. (I wanted to hear more about the controversies over free trade and morality.)
But I cannot fault the book much for this focus, since as a narrative lodestar, or a leitmotif, the heresies and infidelities of the happy & plump philosopher are a juicy and logical choice. That said, the modern amplification of Hume's notoriety into a type of hero worship by latter day atheists is certainly a curious phenomenon that is not without its own shortcomings.
Overall, philosophical biographies are a niche market that is not exactly saturated with quality. This book is exceptional in that it combines good scholarship with easy exposition in a way that can be enjoyed by all readers. I rarely cry when reading (good) philosophy, except out of desperation, but here I cried from sympathy with the human struggles of Scotland's best sons.
There is very much to be learned from these inestimable writers, not least on matters of fact and speculation, but also on how to maintain a friendship across periods of despair and turbulence. On the level of facts, the time period of Scottish Enlightenment, with its own list of characters and places, is appropriately framed as the intellectual backdrop to the human drama. More impressively, the book animates the protagonists' intimate human struggles and passions with a vivacity that only an archival exposé of private letters can muster.
My only criticism is a minor one: the author lets his own anticlericalism and irreligiosity, which he accurately pinpoints in Hume, take the centre stage, which obfuscates some of the finer points of distinction, drama and controversy that would have made for equally compelling storytelling. (I wanted to hear more about the controversies over free trade and morality.)
But I cannot fault the book much for this focus, since as a narrative lodestar, or a leitmotif, the heresies and infidelities of the happy & plump philosopher are a juicy and logical choice. That said, the modern amplification of Hume's notoriety into a type of hero worship by latter day atheists is certainly a curious phenomenon that is not without its own shortcomings.
Overall, philosophical biographies are a niche market that is not exactly saturated with quality. This book is exceptional in that it combines good scholarship with easy exposition in a way that can be enjoyed by all readers. I rarely cry when reading (good) philosophy, except out of desperation, but here I cried from sympathy with the human struggles of Scotland's best sons.
May 25, 2019
The implication of the title is that the friendship between Hume and Smith was a dynamic one that shifted over time and that their philosophies were shaped their friendship. This seems not to have been the case. They agreed on one important matter: the frailty of religious dogma, and this was the glue that cemented their relationship. It was not easy to flout the obligation of belief in 18th century Scotland, and though Hume was more open about it than Smith, they found common cause in this, and many other lesser matters.
Rasmussen's writing flows well, and this often makes up for what can be drily academic material. I knew a little about Hume before I picked this up, but very little about Smith, and despite the fact that this book purportedly focuses on their friendship, it is their character as individuals that shines through. I came away loving the character of Adam Smith, and Hume just earned an invitation to my dream dinner party.
Rasmussen's writing flows well, and this often makes up for what can be drily academic material. I knew a little about Hume before I picked this up, but very little about Smith, and despite the fact that this book purportedly focuses on their friendship, it is their character as individuals that shines through. I came away loving the character of Adam Smith, and Hume just earned an invitation to my dream dinner party.
July 22, 2019
A delightful biography of one of the most impactful friendships in the history of Western thought. I loved all the interjections of Hume's humor and wit, and of getting to know Smith as such an earnest, devoted friend and admirer. Both exhibited deep loyalty, affection, and enjoyment of their matched intellectual brilliance, and Rasmussen does a great job of situating their relationship and their lives in the context of their works. So, so good.
I think my new favorite genre is "intellectual/literary friendships throughout history."
I think my new favorite genre is "intellectual/literary friendships throughout history."
Read
October 30, 2018There's more about how the two men shaped modern thought separately and less about how they interacted than I was expecting, but nevertheless an interesting and well written book that illuminates both its protagonists and its time and place.
There should be more books about intellectual friendships.
There should be more books about intellectual friendships.
January 29, 2021
Interesting dual biography of two Scottish intellectual giants of the 18th century, Hume and Smith, concentrating on their long friendship. I would’ve enjoyed a little more about the contents of their books and perhaps a little less about fairly mundane biographical details. Learned a lot from the book anyway.
Read
February 9, 2021Vinha com muita vontade de o ler, queria conhecer em maior profundidade o pensamento de ambos, já que não existe história da filosofia que não toque em Hume, e no caso de Smith este continua a ser a grande referência do pensamento capitalista, mas a desilusão foi completa. Rasmussen dedica mais tempo a falar de locais e lugares, de encontros fortuitos que não levam a nada, do que das ideias que ambos possuíam. Por outro lado, ora fala de um, ora fala do outro, sem existir uma linha que permita ver para onde pretende ir, nem por que vai passando de um autor ao outro. Ao lê-lo só conseguia imaginar alguém a tentar construir uma ideia coesa a partir de duas histórias singulares, mas que não consegue decidir-se sobre o que fazer com ambas.
Fiquei a saber que ambos nunca casaram, que existia uma amizade entre eles, que se especula que poderia ser mais do que isso, mas este livro não consegue dar-nos nada. Refugia-se na falta de cartas ou documentos para pouco especular. É verdade que Smith pediu para que se queimassem os seus registos depois de morrer, e tal foi comprido, mas não existiriam registos de outros sobre ele e Hume?
A tão propalada amizade parece não ter passado de meia-dúzia de encontros para discutir algumas ideias, e pouco mais. Nada pessoal, não que fosse necessário, mas a verdade é que fazer um livro sobre a amizade que nos deu o mundo moderno, para depois nada dizer de concreto sobre essa amizade, sabe a muito pouco.
Sim, as ideias de Hume ajudaram a promover o pensamento experimental por via do fortalecimento do ceticismo científico, e Smith contribuiu para a definição de todo o sistema económico que nos trouxe até onde estamos. Ou seja, a Tecnologia e o Capitalismo devem muito a eles, mas este livro parece pouco preocupado com isso.
Comparando o discurso, o arte de contar histórias, com "The Cave and the Light" de Arthur Herman, percebemos que estamos noutra liga, apesar de se discutir também dois grandes pensadores, e duas grandes histórias. Claro que não podemos atacar Rasmussen por excesso de especulação como Herman, mas o excesso de precisão acaba por deteriorar toda a experiência e o interesse desta leitura.
Fiquei a saber que ambos nunca casaram, que existia uma amizade entre eles, que se especula que poderia ser mais do que isso, mas este livro não consegue dar-nos nada. Refugia-se na falta de cartas ou documentos para pouco especular. É verdade que Smith pediu para que se queimassem os seus registos depois de morrer, e tal foi comprido, mas não existiriam registos de outros sobre ele e Hume?
A tão propalada amizade parece não ter passado de meia-dúzia de encontros para discutir algumas ideias, e pouco mais. Nada pessoal, não que fosse necessário, mas a verdade é que fazer um livro sobre a amizade que nos deu o mundo moderno, para depois nada dizer de concreto sobre essa amizade, sabe a muito pouco.
Sim, as ideias de Hume ajudaram a promover o pensamento experimental por via do fortalecimento do ceticismo científico, e Smith contribuiu para a definição de todo o sistema económico que nos trouxe até onde estamos. Ou seja, a Tecnologia e o Capitalismo devem muito a eles, mas este livro parece pouco preocupado com isso.
Comparando o discurso, o arte de contar histórias, com "The Cave and the Light" de Arthur Herman, percebemos que estamos noutra liga, apesar de se discutir também dois grandes pensadores, e duas grandes histórias. Claro que não podemos atacar Rasmussen por excesso de especulação como Herman, mas o excesso de precisão acaba por deteriorar toda a experiência e o interesse desta leitura.
April 10, 2023
I love that Hume decided that with his occupation as a writer, he just wouldn’t make much of an income. He was true to his self and wasn’t afraid to be different! Adams took a different route but the two still kept their friendship and enjoyed conservations of vast ideas and opinions.
July 12, 2022
only read this so i can point to that one david hume statue in edinburgh and say, “did you know…”
December 7, 2020
Basically a joint biography of Smith and Hume, who were close friends and influenced each other to some degree. "Conflict makes for high drama," Rasmussen notes in his introduction, "while camaraderie does not...there have been many books written on philosophical clashes, but far fewer on philosophical friendships". This is not a dramatic book (barring the brief discussion of Hume's famous spat with Rousseau), but a good portrait of its two subjects.
Hume and Smith lived at the beginning of the Scottish Enlightenment, when the country produced some of its generation's most illustrious minds (James Watt, James Hutton, Joseph Black...) The 1707 Acts of Union produced political stability and prosperity (despite pockets of Jacobite resistance) but also re-established the somewhat fanatical Presbyterian Kirk, which
Stray observations:
- Both men were better known in their times for their less famous work today (Hume's History of England and Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments).
- Famous champion of free trade Adam Smith worked for the later part of his life as a customs official collecting tariffs!
- Samuel Johnson greatly disliked Hume. There was great fascination around Hume's death (if such a godless man could face his end with equanimity) and Johnson simply refused to believe Boswell's report that he had: "It was not so, Sir. He had a vanity in being thought easy." And (in a nod to Hume's argument against miracles): "It is more probable that he should assume an appearance of ease, than that so very improbable a thing should be, as a man not afraid of going...into an unknown state. And you are to consider, that upon his own principle of annihilation he had no motive to speak the truth.”
Hume and Smith lived at the beginning of the Scottish Enlightenment, when the country produced some of its generation's most illustrious minds (James Watt, James Hutton, Joseph Black...) The 1707 Acts of Union produced political stability and prosperity (despite pockets of Jacobite resistance) but also re-established the somewhat fanatical Presbyterian Kirk, which
promulgated a particularly grim and unforgiving form of Calvinism, including belief in predestination and the utter depravity of human nature, and forbade such activities as dancing, merriment at weddings, and walking idly on the streets on SundaysInto this milieu came Hume, the titular infidel. In fact Smith seems to have held largely similar beliefs, but to have gone out of his way to avoid publicising them or associating himself with Hume. He was right to be scared: his letter to Strahan posthumously praising Hume "brought upon me ten times more abuse than the very violent attack I had made upon the whole commercial system of Great Britain" (The Wealth of Nations). Smith's actual religious views are debated by scholars. Nor are Hume's so clear: his most famous arguments on the topic relate to the credibility of miracles or the natural development of religion, but stop short of the atheism of the philosophes. At dinner with d’Holbach in Paris, Hume commented that he did not believe in out-and-out atheists, having never actually met one. d’Holbach told him to count the number of people around him at the table (18) and quipped, “not bad to be able to show you fifteen at one stroke. The other three haven’t yet made up their minds.”
Stray observations:
- Both men were better known in their times for their less famous work today (Hume's History of England and Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments).
- Famous champion of free trade Adam Smith worked for the later part of his life as a customs official collecting tariffs!
- Samuel Johnson greatly disliked Hume. There was great fascination around Hume's death (if such a godless man could face his end with equanimity) and Johnson simply refused to believe Boswell's report that he had: "It was not so, Sir. He had a vanity in being thought easy." And (in a nod to Hume's argument against miracles): "It is more probable that he should assume an appearance of ease, than that so very improbable a thing should be, as a man not afraid of going...into an unknown state. And you are to consider, that upon his own principle of annihilation he had no motive to speak the truth.”
April 26, 2021
Mjög skemmtileg. Mæli með. Adam Smith er nettur gaur og óheppinn að fylgjendur hans eru toxic af.
March 16, 2019
This is a surprisingly brisk and breezy read about the friendship between Adam Smith and David Hume, two of the greatest thinkers of the 18th century. It touches in their work, each one’s impact on the thinking of the other, and on their religious skepticism. I listened to the audiobook version and it was read well by the narrator.
December 9, 2025
I just finished Theory of Moral Sentiment. I enjoyed this, but i would have liked more. Adam Smith was also an Infidel according to this author. I believe it.
August 8, 2022
Beautifully written biography about the fascinating friendship between Adam Smith and David Hume.
December 17, 2020
My reaction to this book is very mixed. It gives some nice insights into the era that shaped Smith nd Hume's thinking. It also piqued my curiosity about some more mundane aspects of life in the era; for example, Hume had several rather short jobs for which he was granted a "pension", and I wondered just what the nature of such a pension was. It made me pause occasionally for a philosophical musing of my own for both personal and political life (but not quite as much as I had expected). It had entertaining factoids, and I really enjoyed the description of Hume's discord with Rousseau, which I had not been aware of. The first part of the book seemed to be more a joint biography that took special note of their friendship than being centered on that friendship. But some parts are downright boring. As a matter of fact the very first part of the Introduction was so boring that if it had been the Kindle sample and the book had not been my book group's selection for this month I probably would have given it a pass. The rest of the book is better.
There was a LOT of emphasis on Hume's and Smith's religious views, which Rasmussen made clear through numerous examples of criticism were of MUCH more significance politically and socially than they would probably be today, but I do not remember religious topics being as prominent in their writing as I would think given the amount of coverage in this book. It makes me wonder if I was just not attuned to remembering religious references or whether they were simply noticed more in that era. I confess, though, that it has been a long time since I read either Smith or Hume.
I have been a fan of both Hume and Smith, and they really opened my eyes when I first encountered them in college, but this book seems semi-academic and perhaps more than I really cared to know about details like dates of publications and various editions. As soon as I say this, though, I have to remind myself that when Hume himself wrote My Life (which Rasmussen includes in this book) that is what he spent most of his time describing. There was not a lot about their personal lives in the book, although my impression was that it is because we just do not know that much about it rather than because Rasmussen was not interested.
There was a LOT of emphasis on Hume's and Smith's religious views, which Rasmussen made clear through numerous examples of criticism were of MUCH more significance politically and socially than they would probably be today, but I do not remember religious topics being as prominent in their writing as I would think given the amount of coverage in this book. It makes me wonder if I was just not attuned to remembering religious references or whether they were simply noticed more in that era. I confess, though, that it has been a long time since I read either Smith or Hume.
I have been a fan of both Hume and Smith, and they really opened my eyes when I first encountered them in college, but this book seems semi-academic and perhaps more than I really cared to know about details like dates of publications and various editions. As soon as I say this, though, I have to remind myself that when Hume himself wrote My Life (which Rasmussen includes in this book) that is what he spent most of his time describing. There was not a lot about their personal lives in the book, although my impression was that it is because we just do not know that much about it rather than because Rasmussen was not interested.
June 23, 2022
A beautiful tale of the friendship of two great philosophers. Both David Hume and Adam Smith have had a huge impact on our thinking and so it was joy to read what good friends they were.
Interestingly enough, they didn’t see each other often, so they communicated mainly via letters. It reminds me of many good friends of mine who are abroad and with whom I nonetheless have a wonderful friendship.
Interestingly enough, they didn’t see each other often, so they communicated mainly via letters. It reminds me of many good friends of mine who are abroad and with whom I nonetheless have a wonderful friendship.
June 23, 2019
Smith ends the discussion by declaring that only friendships among the wise and virtuous “deserve the sacred and venerable name of friendship.”
The author makes the case that the relationship between Smith and Hume could rightly be called a friendship by Smith's declaration, despite being a mostly a long distance one. The author also goes into great detail about the subtle differences in both their views, especially of religion. There were larger differences in their approach to religion, Smith being the more circumspect and the different outcomes this had on their reputations. Smith was more reknowned and rewarded for his works during their lifetimes while Hume, but for his secular History of England gained philosophical fame somewhat later. It was both impressive and heartwarming how their friendship remained strong though it all.
October 3, 2019
3.5 stars.
It’s informative, but is more a loose analysis on the different work Hume and Smith produced as opposed to an insightful look at “the friendship that shaped modern thought”.
So often the author had to revert to reminding us that no one knows about certain exchanges (mainly due to the lack of letters from Smith as most of his correspondence was burnt after his death) or moments between the two because there is no evidence or history to inform us about this great friendship.
All we know really is they respected each other quite sincerely and disagreed on some things. Although, even after reading this book I couldn’t tell you exactly what those things were.
It’s informative, but is more a loose analysis on the different work Hume and Smith produced as opposed to an insightful look at “the friendship that shaped modern thought”.
So often the author had to revert to reminding us that no one knows about certain exchanges (mainly due to the lack of letters from Smith as most of his correspondence was burnt after his death) or moments between the two because there is no evidence or history to inform us about this great friendship.
All we know really is they respected each other quite sincerely and disagreed on some things. Although, even after reading this book I couldn’t tell you exactly what those things were.
July 28, 2021
Even better than I thought it would be; an in-depth examination of the two philosophers, their ideas, and their friendship.
September 7, 2020
The book tells the story about the David Hume - Adam Smith friendship and their kindred philosophical perspectives. The book is well researched and written. I read it mainly because I was interested in how Hume and Smith made the psychological jump from self-interest motivation to other-regarding behavior. Rasmussen does not dig into this topic. It is only covered indirectly.
Hume, who was a few years older than Smith and whose works Rasmussen says influenced Smith, made this transition from ego to the other through his notion of sympathy. Hume’s sympathy is more like modern-day empathy rather than compassion.* We have this “fellow-feeling” component to our natures that makes us able to see how the other regards us. This is the self-braking (regulating) mechanism that neutralizes negative effects and enhances positive effects. When we don't do other-regarding behavior, we incur disapprobation (blame). When we are respectful of others’ interests, we incur approbation (approval). As we want less of the former and more of the latter, we end up naturally respecting others and all is good. Virtue then becomes practical - what is agreeable and useful to others. Ethics formalizes this relationship by asking us to step back and see our behavior - much as Kant argued - from an impartial-disinterested perspective ("general point of view," in the words of Hume). We look at our behavior not from our own interest only, but from the interest of the whole.
Smith’s view was similar to Hume’s. We are motivated both by self-interest and benevolent feelings toward others. Practically, the latter keeps the former in check. Formally, we take the perspective of the impartial spectator and look at the impact of our actions on others and check our self interested behavior when it has negative impacts on others.
The views of Hume and Smith, theoretically, puts human affairs in order. Economically, it reconciles self-interest with “altruistic” behavior, which makes budding commercialism and capitalism compatible with “fellow-feeling.” But this philosophy of Hume-Smith rests on a sandy foundation. An initial issue is that both deny the existence of a human nature while at the same time make claims for what constitutes our human nature. Hume, famous for his empiricism, denies that there is a self. We are bundles of externally generated sensations that make us who we are. How that matches up with a view of human nature that is both self-interested and other-regarding is, therefore, a question: isn’t the self both self-interested and other-regarding? Isn’t it these twin “passions” that make us react to incoming stimuli in the way we do?**
Though I otherwise find Hume’s treatment of these psychological issues - how the mind and passions work - almost impossible to follow and understand, Hume (and Smith) tap into some truths about the foundations of human nature. We see both self-interested behavior and we see benevolent behavior, but that doesn’t tell us all that much. Self-interested behavior - that it exists and that it is a problem - is obvious enough. The key problem is how to explain the presence of other-regarding behavior. As opposed to the kin selection theorists, Darwin’s insights into our tribal nature goes a long way to explain why we are other-regarding. With the group, the individual survives. Without it, the individual dies. It’s not a “self versus other” dichotomy at all. It’s in the self’s interest to merge with its group and social instincts - the instincts of attunement - make that happen. Though the motivations lie deep in our psychic history, any tendency for purely self-interested behavior is countered by a more powerful motivation to constrain ourselves in the interest of the whole. We do it because of our dependency on the group for our well-being and this explains how many become one.
But our tribal nature also makes us highly group-centric and therefore we are suspicious if not hostile toward those who are not part of our group. We are social (other-regarding) only to a point, which makes us less than the sweeping humanitarians that Hume and Smith would have us be. Inside the group we are one. Those outside the group are “not the same kind,” so there are limits to just how far our natural benevolence takes us.
Less acknowledged is a far more troubling feature of Darwinian theory. Though it is not something that Darwin himself highlighted, it is implicit in this theory. Hume and Smith speak of human nature as if we are all one and the same and that it is the empirical world that makes us different. That is only true in a very generic way, in the sense that we are humans and not elephants or ducks. Just as fingerprints, blood type, and physical stature differ, we differ in psychological types (temperament, disposition, character) as well. Human nature is, in effect, highly individualized and pluralistic. Some are more need-driven than others. Many are more other-regarding than others - naturally, either in a pragmatic sense (we scratch each other’s backs) or in a benevolent-sympathetic sense. These - self only, and other-regarding - are the twin poles of human nature. Both provide survival benefits and this is why they have survived through time.*** The problem is that if the highly need- driven (i.e., self-interested) person combines with high intelligence and skill and power, you then get a self that is inclined to run over others if need be via deceit, manipulation or the application of raw power. Then it becomes a win-lose as opposed to an everybody wins dynamic and social order goes downhill from there. It unravels by forcing well-meaning individuals to play the same game in order to hold their ground, or it forces them into a position of subservience. It is this dynamic that Hume and Smith set in motion three centuries ago, and is the dynamic that frames the essence of capitalism today.
*Rasmussen states that this notion of sympathy as empathy applies more to Smith than to Hume.
**Rasmussen tells the reader that Hume's "stated goal was nothing less than to propound a new science of human nature that would in turn serve as the basis for every other branch of knowledge." Given Hume's empiricism, I suppose this can mean that there's no innate self and the self that is created is formed out of nothing. For Hume (and Smith), Rasmussen writes that "our moral sentiments are acquired and developed over time, not directly written into human nature." On the following page, however, Rasmussen also writes that the sympathy "faculty" is a "fundamental feature of the human makeup." Whether "makeup" is the same as "human nature" is not clear. And it's also not clear how such fundamental features of that make up such as other regarding "sympathy" and "self interested" seeking, as well as concern about the positive and negative reactions of others are not part of innateness and don't constitute in some sense a "self." Perhaps the confusion arises because Hume is referencing the self to be something that is not a species-wide characteristic as sympathy, self-interest are, but is, rather, something that is individualized depending on our interactions with others. My counter argument is that these Hume (and Smith) features of the human make up not only constitute a "self" but they are expressed variably by our individualized, innate self. This is discussed further in this review and in the following footnote.
***Both poles of human nature - and the vast continuum that extends between them - are innate selves that direct how the self, as genotype, expresses itself as phenotype.
Hume, who was a few years older than Smith and whose works Rasmussen says influenced Smith, made this transition from ego to the other through his notion of sympathy. Hume’s sympathy is more like modern-day empathy rather than compassion.* We have this “fellow-feeling” component to our natures that makes us able to see how the other regards us. This is the self-braking (regulating) mechanism that neutralizes negative effects and enhances positive effects. When we don't do other-regarding behavior, we incur disapprobation (blame). When we are respectful of others’ interests, we incur approbation (approval). As we want less of the former and more of the latter, we end up naturally respecting others and all is good. Virtue then becomes practical - what is agreeable and useful to others. Ethics formalizes this relationship by asking us to step back and see our behavior - much as Kant argued - from an impartial-disinterested perspective ("general point of view," in the words of Hume). We look at our behavior not from our own interest only, but from the interest of the whole.
Smith’s view was similar to Hume’s. We are motivated both by self-interest and benevolent feelings toward others. Practically, the latter keeps the former in check. Formally, we take the perspective of the impartial spectator and look at the impact of our actions on others and check our self interested behavior when it has negative impacts on others.
The views of Hume and Smith, theoretically, puts human affairs in order. Economically, it reconciles self-interest with “altruistic” behavior, which makes budding commercialism and capitalism compatible with “fellow-feeling.” But this philosophy of Hume-Smith rests on a sandy foundation. An initial issue is that both deny the existence of a human nature while at the same time make claims for what constitutes our human nature. Hume, famous for his empiricism, denies that there is a self. We are bundles of externally generated sensations that make us who we are. How that matches up with a view of human nature that is both self-interested and other-regarding is, therefore, a question: isn’t the self both self-interested and other-regarding? Isn’t it these twin “passions” that make us react to incoming stimuli in the way we do?**
Though I otherwise find Hume’s treatment of these psychological issues - how the mind and passions work - almost impossible to follow and understand, Hume (and Smith) tap into some truths about the foundations of human nature. We see both self-interested behavior and we see benevolent behavior, but that doesn’t tell us all that much. Self-interested behavior - that it exists and that it is a problem - is obvious enough. The key problem is how to explain the presence of other-regarding behavior. As opposed to the kin selection theorists, Darwin’s insights into our tribal nature goes a long way to explain why we are other-regarding. With the group, the individual survives. Without it, the individual dies. It’s not a “self versus other” dichotomy at all. It’s in the self’s interest to merge with its group and social instincts - the instincts of attunement - make that happen. Though the motivations lie deep in our psychic history, any tendency for purely self-interested behavior is countered by a more powerful motivation to constrain ourselves in the interest of the whole. We do it because of our dependency on the group for our well-being and this explains how many become one.
But our tribal nature also makes us highly group-centric and therefore we are suspicious if not hostile toward those who are not part of our group. We are social (other-regarding) only to a point, which makes us less than the sweeping humanitarians that Hume and Smith would have us be. Inside the group we are one. Those outside the group are “not the same kind,” so there are limits to just how far our natural benevolence takes us.
Less acknowledged is a far more troubling feature of Darwinian theory. Though it is not something that Darwin himself highlighted, it is implicit in this theory. Hume and Smith speak of human nature as if we are all one and the same and that it is the empirical world that makes us different. That is only true in a very generic way, in the sense that we are humans and not elephants or ducks. Just as fingerprints, blood type, and physical stature differ, we differ in psychological types (temperament, disposition, character) as well. Human nature is, in effect, highly individualized and pluralistic. Some are more need-driven than others. Many are more other-regarding than others - naturally, either in a pragmatic sense (we scratch each other’s backs) or in a benevolent-sympathetic sense. These - self only, and other-regarding - are the twin poles of human nature. Both provide survival benefits and this is why they have survived through time.*** The problem is that if the highly need- driven (i.e., self-interested) person combines with high intelligence and skill and power, you then get a self that is inclined to run over others if need be via deceit, manipulation or the application of raw power. Then it becomes a win-lose as opposed to an everybody wins dynamic and social order goes downhill from there. It unravels by forcing well-meaning individuals to play the same game in order to hold their ground, or it forces them into a position of subservience. It is this dynamic that Hume and Smith set in motion three centuries ago, and is the dynamic that frames the essence of capitalism today.
*Rasmussen states that this notion of sympathy as empathy applies more to Smith than to Hume.
**Rasmussen tells the reader that Hume's "stated goal was nothing less than to propound a new science of human nature that would in turn serve as the basis for every other branch of knowledge." Given Hume's empiricism, I suppose this can mean that there's no innate self and the self that is created is formed out of nothing. For Hume (and Smith), Rasmussen writes that "our moral sentiments are acquired and developed over time, not directly written into human nature." On the following page, however, Rasmussen also writes that the sympathy "faculty" is a "fundamental feature of the human makeup." Whether "makeup" is the same as "human nature" is not clear. And it's also not clear how such fundamental features of that make up such as other regarding "sympathy" and "self interested" seeking, as well as concern about the positive and negative reactions of others are not part of innateness and don't constitute in some sense a "self." Perhaps the confusion arises because Hume is referencing the self to be something that is not a species-wide characteristic as sympathy, self-interest are, but is, rather, something that is individualized depending on our interactions with others. My counter argument is that these Hume (and Smith) features of the human make up not only constitute a "self" but they are expressed variably by our individualized, innate self. This is discussed further in this review and in the following footnote.
***Both poles of human nature - and the vast continuum that extends between them - are innate selves that direct how the self, as genotype, expresses itself as phenotype.
November 12, 2017
A great book about two giants of the Scottish Enlightenment. As the introduction notes, more books are written about conflicts than friendships, but sometimes it's good just to read about a great and lifelong friendship (especially between the Bon David, and the absent minded Smith, who had a habit of smiling to himself). In a particularly touching moment, Hume and Smith have a thought experiment, that a person with the power to make tides and suns rise would not be happy until he had a friend to share it with. The book is essentially a dual biography of Hume and Smith, particularly about their views, friendship and a general sketch of their lives. In particular the book (with good arguments and proof) disarms many of the broad arguments made about Smith and Hume's friendship, in particular about their animosity towards each other. The author argues that Smith and Hume actually had similar views on religion (a skeptical view to say the least) but Hume was simply more open about his beliefs [Smith argues that religion could be useful for helping people make good moral choices but does not express a belief that religion is true or untrue]. The book discusses how this impacted Hume's career (twice opposition for his religious views kept him from taking a professorship) and the attempts to expel him from the church. Smith in a posthumorously published work argued that science and religion were simply ways that man comforted themselves by bringing order and consistency to natural phenomena, but that these explanations were not necessarily true.
Hume was older than Smith, and while the two were friends, Hume's major literary accomplishments were published before Smith's (there was one charming letter where Hume teases Smith with various digressions before revealing that Smith's work was becoming very commercially successful). The book interestingly shows the particular influence that Hume had on Smith. In Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith cites Hume (though not necessarily by name) but expanded and disagreed with some of Hume's ideas. For example, while Hume thought that good was defined by utility, Smith argues that people did not consciously consider utility when making moral decisions. Smith was also more critical of commercial society than Hume and foresaw how excessive specialization could lead to the dulling of lives and how inequality could led to the contempt of the poor (though both thought commercial society was generally positive). While Hume generally had a negative view towards organized religion, being skeptical of miracles, concerned about religions factions and the overly excessive monkish qualities he associated with religion (Smith agreed on this latter point), he thought it wise for the state to support/bribe one organized religion to avoid fanaticism. Smith argued that creating a state orthodoxy also bred extremism, as the unfavored religions become radical as they are oppressed, instead Smith argued that all religions so be recognized and be allowed to compete for followers, checking one another. While Hume argued for a "contagion" theory of sympathy, Smith made a better argument that sympathy was the imagination of one self in another's shoes (which explained why we are ashamed for a man making a scene, the man does not feel shame as it does not make sense that we get the feeling from that, it only makes sense that we imagine ourselves in his shoes and feel ashamed of his behavior).
In particular, I found the sections about Hume's History of England fascinating. At the time, Hume's history was a practice of his deep belief in empiricalism (trying to learn lessons from experience), and made him unpopular amongst Whigs for not sufficiently vilifying the Tudors and arguing that the Elizabethian age was filled with the use of the divine right of kings and set the stage for later conflicts. Interestingly, despite Hume's avowed near atheism and dislike for organized religion, Hume argued that the during the age of divine right, the church and the religious protected liberties by resisting the crown. Hume also argued that as luxury goods became available, feudal lords wasted their money on such goods instead of fending for their serfs, essentially freeing their serfs and allowing the centralized administration of the crown to take hold and enact law, a story that Smith expanded on in Wealth of Nations to other contexts and to the more current issue of national debt.
Interesting as well was Hume's quarrel with the paranoid Rousseau, culminating with Hume publishing a pamphlet to defend himself while Smith thought better for Hume to just let the controversy die in silence. One of the most touching aspects of their friendship was Smith's posthumous defense of Hume. Since Hume was a well known agnostic but very famous, people were curious to see how he would face death without the comfort of religion. Hume seemed to have lived his last days in contentment, not acting differently, enjoying his life and companionship. Smith published a letter publically detailing Hume's good natured last days for the public and claimed that Hume was the most virtuous man he knew (with a direct allusion to the death of Socrates). This was interesting for the usually cautious Smith, and he was attacked by many for letter but he never repudiated this letter.
History is full of good conflict and fights, but its sorely lacking in good stories of friendship and good cheer. This book starts to correct that issue.
Hume was older than Smith, and while the two were friends, Hume's major literary accomplishments were published before Smith's (there was one charming letter where Hume teases Smith with various digressions before revealing that Smith's work was becoming very commercially successful). The book interestingly shows the particular influence that Hume had on Smith. In Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith cites Hume (though not necessarily by name) but expanded and disagreed with some of Hume's ideas. For example, while Hume thought that good was defined by utility, Smith argues that people did not consciously consider utility when making moral decisions. Smith was also more critical of commercial society than Hume and foresaw how excessive specialization could lead to the dulling of lives and how inequality could led to the contempt of the poor (though both thought commercial society was generally positive). While Hume generally had a negative view towards organized religion, being skeptical of miracles, concerned about religions factions and the overly excessive monkish qualities he associated with religion (Smith agreed on this latter point), he thought it wise for the state to support/bribe one organized religion to avoid fanaticism. Smith argued that creating a state orthodoxy also bred extremism, as the unfavored religions become radical as they are oppressed, instead Smith argued that all religions so be recognized and be allowed to compete for followers, checking one another. While Hume argued for a "contagion" theory of sympathy, Smith made a better argument that sympathy was the imagination of one self in another's shoes (which explained why we are ashamed for a man making a scene, the man does not feel shame as it does not make sense that we get the feeling from that, it only makes sense that we imagine ourselves in his shoes and feel ashamed of his behavior).
In particular, I found the sections about Hume's History of England fascinating. At the time, Hume's history was a practice of his deep belief in empiricalism (trying to learn lessons from experience), and made him unpopular amongst Whigs for not sufficiently vilifying the Tudors and arguing that the Elizabethian age was filled with the use of the divine right of kings and set the stage for later conflicts. Interestingly, despite Hume's avowed near atheism and dislike for organized religion, Hume argued that the during the age of divine right, the church and the religious protected liberties by resisting the crown. Hume also argued that as luxury goods became available, feudal lords wasted their money on such goods instead of fending for their serfs, essentially freeing their serfs and allowing the centralized administration of the crown to take hold and enact law, a story that Smith expanded on in Wealth of Nations to other contexts and to the more current issue of national debt.
Interesting as well was Hume's quarrel with the paranoid Rousseau, culminating with Hume publishing a pamphlet to defend himself while Smith thought better for Hume to just let the controversy die in silence. One of the most touching aspects of their friendship was Smith's posthumous defense of Hume. Since Hume was a well known agnostic but very famous, people were curious to see how he would face death without the comfort of religion. Hume seemed to have lived his last days in contentment, not acting differently, enjoying his life and companionship. Smith published a letter publically detailing Hume's good natured last days for the public and claimed that Hume was the most virtuous man he knew (with a direct allusion to the death of Socrates). This was interesting for the usually cautious Smith, and he was attacked by many for letter but he never repudiated this letter.
History is full of good conflict and fights, but its sorely lacking in good stories of friendship and good cheer. This book starts to correct that issue.
June 17, 2020
I enjoyed learning about the lives of Smith and Hume and about their friendship. It's a shame Smith had his letters (along with an unpublished book) burned upon his death. I'm sure they would provide a wealth of interesting insights. This podcast with the author provides an overview of the book: https://thecurioustask.podbean.com/e/...
April 17, 2022
First five star read of the year and very deserving, exceptionally well written and really fun to engage with. Lots of KDY representation.
March 12, 2021
The last half of the 18th century is often called the period of the Scottish Enlightenment because the literary, philosophical and scientific/technological achievements were so prolific at that place and time. This is often attributed to the strong development of what is today called “human capital” during that period in Scotland. The country supported 4 good quality universities and probably the best “parish” or primary school system in the world at that time.
The investment in human capital definitely paid off and the modern world has benefited from this period of genius.
This book is the story of the friendship of two of the greatest thinkers of that age, Adam Smith and David Hume.
The author does a good job of recreating the atmosphere of the times and he carefully describes the growing friendship of both men. Anyone interested in the work of either man will find Rasmussen’s book very interesting. One of the many merits of the book is it’s readability and, I would argue, it’s balanced view of the times and the two writers works.
Highly recommended!
The investment in human capital definitely paid off and the modern world has benefited from this period of genius.
This book is the story of the friendship of two of the greatest thinkers of that age, Adam Smith and David Hume.
The author does a good job of recreating the atmosphere of the times and he carefully describes the growing friendship of both men. Anyone interested in the work of either man will find Rasmussen’s book very interesting. One of the many merits of the book is it’s readability and, I would argue, it’s balanced view of the times and the two writers works.
Highly recommended!
September 26, 2021
As a history of economic thought fan, this book immediately caught my attention. I learnt a lot about Hume, and a little more about Smith, but was hoping this book would provide more detail than it did on their friendship. I probably had unrealistic expectations given all this happened 250 years ago and, sadly, while much of Hume’s correspondence to Smith seems to have survived, we hear very little about what Smith had to say to Hume. Nevertheless, a very enjoyable read if you happen to be count yourself among the dismal scientist community.
December 9, 2023
I might be biased in that the broad strokes of their thought have mirrors in my own, but Rasmussen's exploration of Hume and Smith feels a masterpiece to me. Both Hume and Smith as individuals, the driving forces of their own thought but also the continued and coevolving friendship that, as Rasmussen subtitles, "shaped modern thought" are all given in excellently readable writing.
Probably the best part of this is how both thinkers' less symbolic work is handled and how multiple perspectives of each individual is provided.
Probably the best part of this is how both thinkers' less symbolic work is handled and how multiple perspectives of each individual is provided.
July 28, 2020
What a lovely book; very readable, provocative, informative. A wonderful introduction to the greatest British philosopher and the greatest British Economist, both Scots and leading figures of the Scottish enlightenment, as well as a brief consideration of their ideas and the reciprocal effects of those ideas on each other’s. As all good books should do, it makes one anxious to read more of Hume and Smith.
May 19, 2018
This delightful and well written book not only describes an intimate and charming friendship but develops the philosophies of two important thinkers who had a significant impact on economic theory. While Smith became the more renowned of the two in the concepts of free trade and taxation, Hume's multi-disciplined development of philosophical thought is more consequential for the history of philosophy. Rasmussen does an excellent job setting the characters in their time and describing how their writings were received by others.
He evoked in this reader several emotions. I was envious of a simple time when person to person relationships could be so fulfilling. Rasmussen describes the gathering of friends for regular weekly dinners in which the participants shared good food, wine and discussion. I admired the effort it took to maintain a relationship - the time to write letters, the necessity to travel in order talk face-to-face. After reading of the care, respect and attention Hume and Smith gave to one another I was a bit ashamed that I haven't put the same time and energy to my most important friendships.
This is a relatively easy read (a few dense pages in the early part of the book excepted) that will leave the reader better informed, pleasantly impressed and not unimportantly - introspective.
He evoked in this reader several emotions. I was envious of a simple time when person to person relationships could be so fulfilling. Rasmussen describes the gathering of friends for regular weekly dinners in which the participants shared good food, wine and discussion. I admired the effort it took to maintain a relationship - the time to write letters, the necessity to travel in order talk face-to-face. After reading of the care, respect and attention Hume and Smith gave to one another I was a bit ashamed that I haven't put the same time and energy to my most important friendships.
This is a relatively easy read (a few dense pages in the early part of the book excepted) that will leave the reader better informed, pleasantly impressed and not unimportantly - introspective.
June 7, 2025
4,5 stars; an excellent dual-biography highlighting two main figures of the Scottish Enlightenment (and members of The Select Society); a vivid and clear discussion of their lives, their ideas, their reciprocal influence and their times; highly recommended reading. On the subject of the enlightenment and science in the 18th century be sure to check out the absolute magisterial must-read: The Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews