[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 218 KB, 461x567, David Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8706357 No.8706357 [Reply] [Original]

What do I need to know before I read David Hume?

>> No.8706359

Hume's actually pretty clear and accessible. Just start reading him.

>> No.8706363

>>8706359

Okay, cool. I was just wondering if I needed to read any works on empiricism before I read his refutation of it.

>> No.8706395

>>8706357
He sometimes looked like a royal fortunate teller maid hand and sometimes in ways he was

>> No.8706415

I think you mean David Whom.

>> No.8706421

Hume says you should live a certain way even though he didn't, and defends this by saying "lol I'm a philosopher"

>> No.8706422

>>8706363
>his refutation of it
He's an empiricist. Just a very sceptical one.

>> No.8706425

He's a sophist like Protagoras.

>> No.8706427

>>8706363
You really should read Locke and Berkeley first.

>> No.8706429

>>8706363
Read Sophist's Protagoras and Theaetetus

>> No.8706430

>>8706427

Is there anyone I should read before reading Locke and Berkeley?

>> No.8706434

>>8706430
Descartes

>> No.8706437

>>8706357
He was so fat that he had to be excused of bowing before nobility.

>> No.8706438

>>8706357
Read Thomas Hobbe after

>> No.8706457

>>8706434
and before descartes plato so basically start off with the greeks. I would also throw in Leibniz and spinoza since Hume's main rub is against the rationalists

>> No.8706471

>>8706457
Tbh Discourse on the method is such an extremely lucid and clear text that it can be read by anyone with a negligible knowledge of philosophy.

>> No.8706494
File: 71 KB, 396x385, Schopenfeels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8706494

>>8706357

Schopenhauer said you'd learn more from a page of Hume than Hegel's entire corpus.

>> No.8706502

what's up with the hat?

>> No.8706504

>>8706502
What's wrong with it? I think he looks faboulous

>> No.8706544

>>8706471
you're right it can be read, but can it be understood fully? what's the point of reading anything philosophical if you don't wish to understand its ideas. Hume's main argument is against the principle of sufficent reason, to understand his argument fully and its implications you have to understand the principle of sufficent reason and its implications fully which is why I said one should read the rationalists.

It's not just about reading it's about engaging with ideas no?

>> No.8706594

>>8706357

Depends,if you haven't read Aristotle,Plato,Sextus Empiricus,J.Locke,G.Berkeley and the rationalists,you won't fully understand it,but it's fairly readable.

>> No.8706614

>>8706421
>Hume says you should live a certain way

Why do so many people confuse description for prescription? Especially when it comes to Hume.