/lit/ - Literature

I read a few passages of Hume and I feel like he's the one who can get the closest to "truth". But like the Greeks does he have a lifestlye philosophy he advocates for? Should I read his works in search for that? Which ones?

>...a witch-haunted bog, memorable for having nearly swallowed up David Hume the historian, who was a native of Ninewells, in the neighbourhood. Hume missed his footing in the mire, and sticking fast, called for assistance, and was at last heard by some people, who ran to give help. Seeing, however, that it was Hume "the unbeliever," they turned back from the amiable philosopher, remarking, "Na, na, the deil has him, let the deil keep him."
Though, what actually happened was that his fat ass flailed around in the bog until some fisherman's wife showed up and promised to help him out if he recited the lord's prayer, which he did. He claimed that she was the best theologian he had ever met.

Can you please give me a flowchart for philosophers who wrote books in English? Beginner to expert. I know creating an order based on written language rather than on their philosophy is ridiculous, but aren't most philosophers influenced by philosophers of their native language? So there must be a connection somwhere right? Maybe like British Philosophy?

>interrupts your dogmatic slumber

*absolutely destroys any moral argument*

>>18350340
feeling don't care about your "facts"

>>16506710
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and ESTABLISHES THE OF A GOD, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.[

>>13800645
>he doesn't know

>Enlightenment-"tradition" intellectual author derives oughts from ises

straight to the guillotine

I don't understand Hume's Is-ought problem.
SOMEONE
HELP