Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why are we told what Bryan Magee thinks in the second line of the Hume article? Doesn't anyone else find it rather embarrassing to begin a supposedly encyclopedic discussion of one of the most important philosophers of all time with a quotation from some obscure figure as if we need to prop the importance of Hume upon the back of Bryan Magee? Who even is Bryan Magee? Anyway, it is hardly an idiosyncratic judgment to regard Hume as the most important philosopher to write in English. Who else would even be a reasonable candidate? I think few philosophers would take Locke or Berkeley over Hume apart from each's influence on Hume. I could perhaps see reasonable arguments for Bacon or Hobbes, though I probably would take each as philosophers still working in Latin, rather than English. I could also see Dewey or James as somewhat plausible suggestion, though I do in fact think it would be very difficult to make the case that Dewey or James was more important than Hume. I do not see any other plausible candidates for "most important philosopher to write in English." So I take it that the actual situation is that Hume is overwhelmingly likely to be regarded by Philosophers as the most important to ever write in English; and there was a recent poll of English-speaking philosophers that verified that Hume was most likely to be chosen as the historical philosopher whom the pollee most strongly identified their work with. So I take it that we ought to revise the initial presentation of Hume's importance quite a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, the lede proposal just above is rather better than what is currently there; I agree with others that this article needs work and does very little to give an idea of Hume's importance or philosophical interest.Kingshowman (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
What university does he work for? I cannot find his academic affiliation. I strongly vote for the Isaiah Berlin quote to be returned to its place over the Magee quote. Surely we can all agree that Isaiah Berlin's opinion counts more than Bryan Magee's.^^^^Kingshowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; I've taken your advice and just added Berlin's take to the existing Magee quotations. Kingshowman (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
I'd like to fix up the next sentence too; I don't think the implied contrast between Hume failing to win a university career but going on a few diplomatic missions makes much sense at all. Kingshowman (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
I've made a bunch more changes to the lede, trying to make it give a better idea of Hume's thought quickly. Kingshowman (talk)Kingshowman — Preceding undated comment added 11:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think that Magee is all that notable, and thus I don't think the Magee quote itself is notable, but you could shake a tree and find a dozen other philosophers who have said the same thing. I think the general point that Hume is consensually regarded as the most important philosopher to write in English belongs in the lead, because it represents a scholarly consensus. I don't think there are many particularly plausible candidates for this honor above Hume (as I argued above.). Kingshowman (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
My personal preference was to replace the Magee quote and the BBC quote with the Isaiah Berlin quotation, who is obviously a great deal more notable (and that quote is a rather famous quotation that one finds on Hume's book jackets today) but I left the other two quotes in there in deference to other editors, who protested. Kingshowman (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
As I've noted, I agree on cutting the BBC quotation. I tried to get rid of this earlier. I only added the silly comment "the BBC said" because the sentence as written earlier made no absolutely no grammatical sense without it.
As for the blog, it is the most widely read philosophy blog on the internet, but I can understand the judgment. I think I can link to a more enduring and formal assesment by the profession--I perhaps could link to another poll of professional philosophers when I can find the link, (not from a blog, I think this is the philpapers Chalmers poll) where Hume was voted the historical philosopher that contemporary philosophers most judged themselves to identify with. (The poll is also mentioned in Garrett's Routledge reference work on Hume, that much of this is drawn from) Point is, I simply wanted to close the lead with an rough scholarly assesment of Hume's importance. If people think no such assesment belongs, however, I'm fine with leaving it out.
As I have suggested below without response, I'm much more keen to add to the body of the article some biographical info on the Hume/Rousseau episode (we currently have a single line of text on this highly notable episode, of which Hume wrote an interesting account that we at least ought to link to). Substantively I think we should add philosophical info on Hume's influence on Kant, more than the one quote about slumbering dogmatically, and some philosophical information on Hume and Newton to the article (both of these are notable enough to have their own SEP article. They deserve more than a cursory one-line mention in Wikipedia's Hume article to be encylopedic, in my estimation.) if anyone has any feedback on any of these three suggestions, I'd be happy to hear. To clarify, I'm considering brief additions (to the main of the article) not the lead. Kingshowman (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
Thanks for your feedback, I think that's fair.Kingshowman (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
Is it not mentioned elsewhere in the article that Hume declared that his "ruling passion" was his desire for literary fame (in his own brief biographical essay)? Is the short end-of-life biographical essay mentioned elsewhere in the article? I propose we include something on Hume's Self-Assesment in "My Own Life" , found here: https://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/humelife.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC) I've added a paragraph on Hume's autobiographical note, that is mainly a pull of the relevant quotations from the very brief autobiography. I think it's helpful for the article, as it's often one of the best sources of information we have on Hume's life. But let me know if there are any problems or suggestions. Kingshowman (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
How exactly, pray tell, Vsmith, is this a "synthesis" of a primary source? With what is it being synthesized? Quotation is now equivalent to "synthesis?"
It is becoming increasingly clear that you: 1) do not, in fact, know what the word "synthesis" actually means, and should yourself read the article you directed me to earlier, as it will help you to understand why including quotes from Hume's autobiography does not thereby make a synthesis. 2) are hunting me around on articles to revert me out of your pure pettiness-- I'd love to hear why Hume's autobiography is unworthy of encylopedic inclusion, and why quoting it is synthetic, if you aren't pursuing a petty, petulant grudge against me.
Tell me, does your interest in David Hume and in editing the Hume article extend further beyond your wish to revert my edits or is that the only delight you get out of this?Kingshowman (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
I included absolutely no "analysis" of the autobiography (unless stating the fact that it is "less than 3000 words" counts as an analysis.) Every sentence about the autobiography is a quotation of Hume's own remarks. Which of the sentences did you find to be "synthetic?" I merely reported what Hume himself said, which seems to be notable enough to include in an encyclopedic article on David Hume. I really don't understand what your problem is. Kingshowman (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Where did I analyze? I will check again, but as I recall, I only added quotations, aside from saying it was notable. I was also correcting what seems a major omission to not even have Hume's own autobiography mentioned within his article.Kingshowman (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
Also, a request could simply have been made for a citation, if it was felt that my addition was not properly cited, rather than pre-emptively deleting the work, which took time to grab those quotations for your article. I included only the blandest of judgments on it. I will add a couple citations right now. Kingshowman (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Dan, VSmith, you'll see that I provided 3 peer-reviewed citations regarding Hume's autobiography, verifying its brevity, and continuing interest to scholars. Kingshowman (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please let me know if you still see any problems. And I'd also ask that before accusing me of "synthesis" and "original research" you consider whether or not I have just not yet added a citation for something which is a well known fact, and that I'd failed to consider even needs a citation, or for which a link to the primary source had appeared sufficient. (And trust me, original research is too difficult and enormously costly for anyone to waste it by freely uploading it to an encylopedia, for no scholarly credit-- this is my break from original research!)Kingshowman (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't really want to write anything just yet, but I'm suggesting we add a paragraph to the biographical information under later life about the famous brief friendship and "quarrel" between Hume and Rousseau, which Hume describes here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004851885.0001.000/1:3?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
The feud is very, very briefly mentioned but I think it's interesting enough to expand slightly to give a bit more information.Kingshowman (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
Right now, the entire coverage of the incident consists of this: "While there he met and later fell out with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. " I think one could stand to say a little more if no one objects.Kingshowman (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
As a general comment, the biography section seems a bit thin to me, particularly the career section. Kingshowman (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
I also think one might say more, in the more philosophical part of the article, about the relation of Hume to Newtonianism in Physics. There's an entire article up on SEP on this, and I think it would be worthwhile to add something here. Particularly I think it might be worth adding the idea, mentioned here, that Hume sees himself as a kind of Newton of Moral Philosophy in certain respects. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-newton/ Kingshowman (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)kingshowman
this now needs to be cleaned up. also, there were some earlier deletions that could be put in here.
We might put back the Magee quote that a few of you liked here (though I still can't find who he is), and the Leiter poll that got tossed, which is indeed informal, but does reflect the opinion of 900 professional philosophers. We might add the Chalmers philpapers.org poll data too, which is also revealing of most contemporary philosophers most strongly identifying with Hume of any historical philosophical figure.
There are some (kind of silly) polls on Hume being "the most imprtant Scot of the last thousand years" if someone wishes to add these as well.
I think Foucault's commentary on Hume in his classic The Order of Things could be useful to add, if I recall, something to the effect of "the individual known as 'Hume' has now become possible." Maybe one can make a mention Deleuze's book on Hume, which is notable, and I think it would be interesting to add a couple non-"analytic" assessments of Hume, from a couple important philosophers. Kingshowman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:David_Hume/Archive_1#Race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.242.111 (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. This has been discussed. Interesting. Much thanks for this. My own opinion is that it probably shouldn't be mentioned directly, and I'm not going to add anything on it, because it's not really in Hume's work. (If one really wants to dig, one finds that Hume said a couple extremely unfortunate and stupid things that are nevertheless typical of his time.) I'd suggest perhaps putting it on the "scientific racism" page with a link, if someone really wants to write something on this. (The brief instance's of Hume's racism aren't quite as awful as Kant's comments, however.)Kingshowman (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As a note, maanus, I agree it shouldn't be included. It has received some attention from scholars, though. I could add a couple citations, but I've chosen not to.Kingshowman (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
academics' blogs aren't suitable as sources? that sounds like a stupid, asinine, and unreasonable policy. What can possibly be the justification? Scholarly blogs can't be cited for an opinion of people in the field? I thought policy here was to "ignore rules" and not fetishize your rules in ways that damage the articles and remove helpful information to impoverished sections. I'm going to restore it unless you can provide a more cogent reason than the mere fact that I've cited a blog.Kingshowman (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As for GA status, I suggest that the article could stand to add sections on Hume and Kant, and Hume and Newtonianism, each of which gets its own article in SEP. Anyone have thoughts on these proposed additional sections, drawing from other encylopedias?Kingshowman (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll delete this and the PhilPapers survey (which I just added) if people have a problem with surveys of philosophers' opinions, which I think is a more reasonable objection than its coming from a "blog." I moved them to the end of the influence section. Again, if others would rather delete either or both of the surveys, I don't have a problem with it, though I find it interesting to know what the profession thinks. Kingshowman (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, I wasn't that attached to this. I've tried to throw in a lot of cites to the new Routledge Hume by Garrett, which I regard as a fairly consensual, strong introductory source. Much of the material here that's been added is sourced to there, and I should probably cite it more often here. https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415283342
I'm hoping to add sections as well based on the SEP articles on "Hume and Kant" (there are actually more than 1) and the SEP article on "Hume and Newtonianism".
The Kemp Smith book should also probably be mentioned more often, since it's historically important work on Hume. Kingshowman (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd also wanted to mention Foucault on Hume in Order of Things, and Deleuze's book on Hume, to strike some balance between Analytic and Continental sources.Kingshowman (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, these would all be useful additions. Maybe a slightly longer quotation from Isaiah Berlin, who also wrote quite a bit of interest on Hume, and is a rather notable historian of philosophy. Kingshowman (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's precisely where much of the new material that's been added to this article has been drawn from. I do recommend it. It is more intended for general readers and as an introduction than the 1996 book as well, so probably more suitable for the encylopedia. And the Routledge series on great philosophers, is , I think very well regarded. I strongly recommend it.!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
That blog is basically just a bit of fun for the philosophers concerned. I expect they would probably be mortified to see it being used as a source in an encyclopedia. It's quite unnecessary to use it anyway, as there are plenty of more respectable sources - published books, articles in peer-reviewed journals, etc, that can be used to show what contemporary philosophers think of Hume. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The article does make clear if he could out-consume or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.180.136 (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Part of this section sounds opinionated, the phrase “many are convinced Hume killed the argument for good” uses a weasel word and makes it POV, I think it’s enough to leave it as a classical criticism, I’m going to cut out the “and though the…argument for good.” Part.
In most other articles of other philosophers or philosophies there is usually a section that criticizes their views. Why is there none for Hume? I can't believe it is beyond criticism or that no one who came after him criticized his views. Why this lacuna?106.51.106.127 (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey and regards. Yes, where is the section detailing his hatred of jews? I can't find the passages at the moment but many prominent scholars have demonstrated his antipathy and there are important passages which foreshadow, for example, mein kampf. This is another dwem who is given a free pass on what amounts to forward collusion. there should be a prominent subsection, information in the lede, as well as several category inclusions. I was hoping that a scholar could provide those sections, Thanks and regards, Leopold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.124.196 (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
TonyClarke (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Just wondering why the AmE version of skepticism/skeptic is used in this article. Should it not be changed to BrE? Silas Stoat (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe the section at the end of the article is a [[WP:LINKFARM]. Rjensen disagrees, considering the links WP:USEFUL, but there is a lack of discrimination in selection I think.
The first four I list are uncontroversial, they provide direct links to free online source material.
Now:
{{cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (help) - published by the same right wing think tank as the online library of libertyI do not think these links are of obviously high quality and authority, in fact I think several of them are essentially spam. Cruftbane 20:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.