What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #033
Hume: A Very Short Introduction
Hume's "naturalist" approach to a wide variety of philosophical topics resulted in highly original theories about perception, self-identity, causation, morality, politics, and religion, all of which are discussed in this stimulating introduction by A.J. Ayer, himself one of the twentieth
century's most important philosophers. Ayer also gives an account of Hume's fascinating life and character, and includes generous quotations from Hume's lucid and often witty writings.
century's most important philosophers. Ayer also gives an account of Hume's fascinating life and character, and includes generous quotations from Hume's lucid and often witty writings.
125 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1980
44 people are currently reading
1,024 people want to read
About the author
Alfred Jules Ayer
83?books126?followersIn 1910, Sir Alfred Jules Ayer was born in London into a wealthy family. His father was a Swiss Calvinist and his mother was of Dutch-Jewish ancestry. Ayer attended Eton College and studied philosophy and Greek at Oxford University. From 1946 to 1959, he taught philosophy at University College London. He then became Wykeham Professor of Logic at the University of Oxford. Ayer was knighted in 1970. Included among his many works are The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge (1940), The Problem of Knowledge (1956), The Origins of Pragmatism (1968), Metaphysics and Common Sense (1969), (1972) and (1980), about philosopher . Later in life, Ayer frequently identified himself as an atheist and became active in humanist causes. He was the first vice president of the British Humanist Association and served as its president from 1965 to 1970. He was an Honorary Associate of the Rationalist Press Association from 1947 until his death. He was also an honorary member of the . In 1988, Ayer had a near-death experience in the United States after choking on salmon and subsequently losing consciousness. He wrote of his experience in ¡°That Undiscovered Country¡± (New Humanist, May 1989): ¡°My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. They have not weakened my conviction that there is no god. I trust that my remaining an atheist will allay the anxieties of my fellow supporters of the British Humanist Association, the Rationalist Press Association and the South Place Ethical Society.¡± He died shortly after at age 78 in London. D. 1989.
More:
More:
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 53 reviews
April 27, 2023
O limpede prezentare, ?n stilul filosofiei analitice, a problemelor abordate de Hume (1711 - 1776). O astfel de monografie, mai pu?in obi?nuit? la noi, nu este niciodat? expozitiv?: ?cutare filosof a spus asta ?i asta¡±. A. J. Ayer (1910 - 1989) se ?ndreapt? ?ndeosebi spre probleme ?i argumente ?i ?ncearc? mereu s? verifice dac? argumentele lui David Hume s?nt valide sau nu. Biografia g?nditorului conteaz? foarte pu?in, important este cum a g?ndit ?i, mai ales, cum a ?ncercat s?-?i ?ntemeieze opiniile.
Un filosof este important prin dificultatea chestiunilor abordate. Iar David Hume s-a confruntat cu cele mai grele probleme ale timpului s?u. C?teva exemple: ?n ce m?sur? senza?iile noastre dau seama de o lume exterioar?? Exist? o astfel de lume ?n afara min?ii noastre? Anume obiect, o mas?, s? spunem (exemplul e al lui Hume), continu? s? existe ?i ?n intervalul ?n care nu-l / n-o percepem (problema lui Berkeley)? Ce ?nseamn? c? eul persit? ?n timp (problema identit??ii personale)? Ce este ?sinele, eul, the self¡±? Numai o colec?ie de senza?ii? O colec?ie de senza?ii depozitat? ?n memorie? C?nd putem spune c? un eveniment decurge necesar din altul (problema cauzalit??ii)? Putem construi vreodat? propozi?ii universale pornind de la experien?a noastr? privat? (problema induc?iei)? Avem voie s? spunem c? enun?ul ?To?i oamenii s?nt muritori¡± este adev?rat o dat? pentru totdeauna? ?n ce chip am stabilit asta (prin deduc?ie sau induc?ie)? Cum putem ar?ta c? ?ntre minte ?i corp exist? o rela?ie? Argumentul ontologic al lui Anselm de Canterbury este valid? C??i oameni au ?nceput s? cread? ?n Dumnezeu dup? ce au citit acest argument ?n Proslogion? Ce putem spune despre miracole?
Prin problematica abordat? (?i prin solu?ii), David Hume este, probabil, cel mai important filosof britanic. A.J. Ayer a fost sigur de asta. ?n Critica ra?iunii pure (1781), Kant afirm? c? a fost trezit din ?somnul dogmatic¡± prin lectura lui Hume. ?nclin s?-l cred pe cuv?nt. Volumul s?u este o reluare punct cu punct a ?ntreb?rilor ridicate de scepticul David Hume.
Un filosof este important prin dificultatea chestiunilor abordate. Iar David Hume s-a confruntat cu cele mai grele probleme ale timpului s?u. C?teva exemple: ?n ce m?sur? senza?iile noastre dau seama de o lume exterioar?? Exist? o astfel de lume ?n afara min?ii noastre? Anume obiect, o mas?, s? spunem (exemplul e al lui Hume), continu? s? existe ?i ?n intervalul ?n care nu-l / n-o percepem (problema lui Berkeley)? Ce ?nseamn? c? eul persit? ?n timp (problema identit??ii personale)? Ce este ?sinele, eul, the self¡±? Numai o colec?ie de senza?ii? O colec?ie de senza?ii depozitat? ?n memorie? C?nd putem spune c? un eveniment decurge necesar din altul (problema cauzalit??ii)? Putem construi vreodat? propozi?ii universale pornind de la experien?a noastr? privat? (problema induc?iei)? Avem voie s? spunem c? enun?ul ?To?i oamenii s?nt muritori¡± este adev?rat o dat? pentru totdeauna? ?n ce chip am stabilit asta (prin deduc?ie sau induc?ie)? Cum putem ar?ta c? ?ntre minte ?i corp exist? o rela?ie? Argumentul ontologic al lui Anselm de Canterbury este valid? C??i oameni au ?nceput s? cread? ?n Dumnezeu dup? ce au citit acest argument ?n Proslogion? Ce putem spune despre miracole?
Prin problematica abordat? (?i prin solu?ii), David Hume este, probabil, cel mai important filosof britanic. A.J. Ayer a fost sigur de asta. ?n Critica ra?iunii pure (1781), Kant afirm? c? a fost trezit din ?somnul dogmatic¡± prin lectura lui Hume. ?nclin s?-l cred pe cuv?nt. Volumul s?u este o reluare punct cu punct a ?ntreb?rilor ridicate de scepticul David Hume.
March 15, 2019
I think this one is not a very short introduction but rather a long interjection of the author to the philosophy of Hume. As an individual who really don't know Hume, I was looking for a simpler book, a lighter one perhaps just for me to understand what lies beyond the mind of the greatest of all British philosophers - David Hume...
Next time I will try google... ?
Next time I will try google... ?
March 25, 2009
My low rating here has nothing to do with the content of David Hume's ideas, which are actually quite fascinating. It has entirely to do with the author's terrible exposition of them. Rather than give a truly "short introduction" to the basic tenets of Hume's writings, he tediously argues the minutia of them. He is more concerned with responding to Hume than to explaining him to the naive reader. This book is just terrible and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. You can probably get a better (and free) introduction on Wikipedia. For example, Hume is famous for asking of the Christian religion, "Which is more likely, that the whole natural order be suspended, or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?" This book does NOT contain this quote. How do you skip over that?
I think the following two sentences epitomize what I hate about the author's style. In the first, please take a moment to count all six (SIX!) commas in this nearly unintelligible behemoth. And in the second notice how the author immediately reacts to Hume instead of simply summarizing the idea:
"This goes with the fact, which has been strangely overlooked by the many philosophers, starting with Kant, who have tried to rebut Hume by arguing for the necessity, or at least the probability, of some general principle of uniformity, that its very generality would prevent such a principle from doing the work required of it. I am not sure whether Hume believed that the adoption of the principle which he formulated would legitimize inductive arguments by making them deductive, but if he did, he was mistaken."
I mean this guy cannot take himself out of the book. He is constantly saying Hume was wrong and saying why his own modern ideas are superior. Not exactly what I thought I was getting based on the title. Skip this one, trust me.
I think the following two sentences epitomize what I hate about the author's style. In the first, please take a moment to count all six (SIX!) commas in this nearly unintelligible behemoth. And in the second notice how the author immediately reacts to Hume instead of simply summarizing the idea:
"This goes with the fact, which has been strangely overlooked by the many philosophers, starting with Kant, who have tried to rebut Hume by arguing for the necessity, or at least the probability, of some general principle of uniformity, that its very generality would prevent such a principle from doing the work required of it. I am not sure whether Hume believed that the adoption of the principle which he formulated would legitimize inductive arguments by making them deductive, but if he did, he was mistaken."
I mean this guy cannot take himself out of the book. He is constantly saying Hume was wrong and saying why his own modern ideas are superior. Not exactly what I thought I was getting based on the title. Skip this one, trust me.
September 30, 2019
As a greenhorn when it comes to philosophy, there is so many holes in this book that I couldn't grasp (even though it's literally an introduction). The main tennets of Hume's idea has been explained well but very much condensed. I understand this as matter of fact, not a priori. There is no clear line of thinking (or there is but I don't get) between one thought to the other. But overall, it stimulates me to learn more, give insight about skepticism and passion. We will never really know about anything and must accept the emotion that will always in charge of our mind.
Just want to put note here from Hume himself:
"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No.
Commit it then to the ?ames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
Just want to put note here from Hume himself:
"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No.
Commit it then to the ?ames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
November 1, 2017
I find the "Very Short Introduction" series to be very hit-and-miss. Some books in the series are great, others are terrible. Here we have one of the latter.
If you're looking for a quick and accessible introduction to Hume's ideas, you won't find it here. The writing style is almost impenetrable - it reads like something meant for academic philosophers, not for a newcomer to the topic. Ayer spends far less time discussing Hume's ideas than he does butting in with his own analysis and counterarguments, often as a sub-clause within a sub-clause within a sub-clause in an unholy wreck of a sentence that takes up half the page, and by the time you reach the end you've forgotten where you started.
This doesn't read like an "Introduction" at all - and upon reading some other reviews, I've discovered why: it wasn't meant to be an introduction. Like several other books in the VSI series, this is a repackaging of a book from Oxford's previous Past Masters series, which I can only presume wasn't written for a general audience. After hours spent banging my head against Ayer's incomprehensible verbosity, I don't feel like I know any more about Hume than when I started. A total waste of time.
In short, this is probably the worst VSI I've read, and I've read a lot of them. Steer clear.
EDIT: Since writing this review I've found two sources on Hume which are much better introductions. First, the entry for Hume at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (available for free online). Second, the Oxford University Press edition of Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, which has an excellent 50-page introduction written by Peter Millican which gives an overview of Hume's ideas (with a particular focus on the Enquiry, obviously), and puts them in the historical context of the thinkers who preceded him.) I highly recommend starting with one or both of those, and skipping the VSI book.
If you're looking for a quick and accessible introduction to Hume's ideas, you won't find it here. The writing style is almost impenetrable - it reads like something meant for academic philosophers, not for a newcomer to the topic. Ayer spends far less time discussing Hume's ideas than he does butting in with his own analysis and counterarguments, often as a sub-clause within a sub-clause within a sub-clause in an unholy wreck of a sentence that takes up half the page, and by the time you reach the end you've forgotten where you started.
This doesn't read like an "Introduction" at all - and upon reading some other reviews, I've discovered why: it wasn't meant to be an introduction. Like several other books in the VSI series, this is a repackaging of a book from Oxford's previous Past Masters series, which I can only presume wasn't written for a general audience. After hours spent banging my head against Ayer's incomprehensible verbosity, I don't feel like I know any more about Hume than when I started. A total waste of time.
In short, this is probably the worst VSI I've read, and I've read a lot of them. Steer clear.
EDIT: Since writing this review I've found two sources on Hume which are much better introductions. First, the entry for Hume at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (available for free online). Second, the Oxford University Press edition of Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, which has an excellent 50-page introduction written by Peter Millican which gives an overview of Hume's ideas (with a particular focus on the Enquiry, obviously), and puts them in the historical context of the thinkers who preceded him.) I highly recommend starting with one or both of those, and skipping the VSI book.
December 5, 2010
Another fairly demanding read from Oxford's Past Masters series repackaged and reissued as a Very Short Introduction. Here it's Ayer's 1980 treatment of David Hume. It's worth noting this because any complaint from beginners about the use of the word 'introduction' should be directed at the publisher rather than the author who I think has done a magnificent job with this beautifully precise study.
Following a short biographical first chapter, Ayer quickly delves into an exposition of Hume's philosophy, focusing on his aims and methods, his assessment of bodies and selves, his analysis of cause and effect, and his thoughts on morals, politics and of course religion. Rather than focusing on a single work at a time, he switches back and forth between the Treatise, the Enquiry, and so on, extracting and assimilating passages seamlessly into his own examination.
Some have complained that Ayer intrudes too heavily with his analysis, shoehorning in too many of his own thoughts and ideas. Personally I didn't have a problem with it. Ayer was an important philosopher in his own right, and it was inevitable that any scholarly treatment of Hume's ideas would include their vulnerabilities and demand interpretation and critique. On balance, I don't think he overstepped the mark.
This may be a short read, but it isn't a light one, and beginners (I count myself as one) should be prepared to concentrate and even make notes to get the most out of it. If you were expecting Hume for Dummies, you'll likely feel overwhelmed and disappointed. It's worth persevering though. I came away with not only a deeper understanding of Hume's own philosophy but also a capacity to actually reflect on the ideas themselves.
Following a short biographical first chapter, Ayer quickly delves into an exposition of Hume's philosophy, focusing on his aims and methods, his assessment of bodies and selves, his analysis of cause and effect, and his thoughts on morals, politics and of course religion. Rather than focusing on a single work at a time, he switches back and forth between the Treatise, the Enquiry, and so on, extracting and assimilating passages seamlessly into his own examination.
Some have complained that Ayer intrudes too heavily with his analysis, shoehorning in too many of his own thoughts and ideas. Personally I didn't have a problem with it. Ayer was an important philosopher in his own right, and it was inevitable that any scholarly treatment of Hume's ideas would include their vulnerabilities and demand interpretation and critique. On balance, I don't think he overstepped the mark.
This may be a short read, but it isn't a light one, and beginners (I count myself as one) should be prepared to concentrate and even make notes to get the most out of it. If you were expecting Hume for Dummies, you'll likely feel overwhelmed and disappointed. It's worth persevering though. I came away with not only a deeper understanding of Hume's own philosophy but also a capacity to actually reflect on the ideas themselves.
February 24, 2019
Here we find yet another Oxford University Press book by an author who has not read from the same publisher. (To be fair, Ayer died before that book came out, but plain language principles date back . And Ayer for his part critiques Hume from his own contemporary perspective, so what's good for the goose...) And it shows, painfully. The middle chapters especially are riddled with long, branching sentences choked with subordinate clauses, straining and often requiring re-reads. Along with gratuitous thesaurus flexing - if an obscure word can substitute for a plain and commonly-known word, reader comprehension is a sacrifice the author is willing to make. The bottom line is that the author makes you work much harder than necessary to grasp what he's trying to say. While that may be almost acceptable, or at least misguidedly traditional, in an academic treatise meant to , it's inexcusable in a work for a popular audience. I did not notice any typos, so at least the salad was edited for grammar and spelling if not for style and clarity. A plain English translation of the book might yield something worthwhile; I look forward to the day when our computers can do that automatically.
The final chapter salvages the book somewhat, as the author seemed to decide the time had come to write understandably. Or perhaps Hume himself crawls ashore onto firmer ground when he gets to critiquing the .
The final chapter salvages the book somewhat, as the author seemed to decide the time had come to write understandably. Or perhaps Hume himself crawls ashore onto firmer ground when he gets to critiquing the .
October 22, 2020
The Very Short Introduction for Hume, written by AJ Ayer, has received some low ratings and much criticism on this site. Critics have said that it is impenetrable, that it is not an introduction, and that it assumes too much prior knowledge of Hume for someone unfamiliar with his work to properly get to grips with. It's therefore important to contextualise that the book was not originally published as a Very Short Introduction.
AJ Ayer first published his book on Hume in 1980. AJ Ayer died in 1989. The Very Short Introduction book series was not launched until 1995. The Hume edition was not published until 2000, 11 years after AJ Ayer's death. Quite obviously, it was not possible for Ayer to give Oxford University Press his blessing to incorporate the book within the series. Query, then, whether AJ Ayer himself would have thought his work on Hume appropriate as an introduction to people with no prior exposure to his ideas. I doubt it. The book is a good analysis of his ideas.
AJ Ayer first published his book on Hume in 1980. AJ Ayer died in 1989. The Very Short Introduction book series was not launched until 1995. The Hume edition was not published until 2000, 11 years after AJ Ayer's death. Quite obviously, it was not possible for Ayer to give Oxford University Press his blessing to incorporate the book within the series. Query, then, whether AJ Ayer himself would have thought his work on Hume appropriate as an introduction to people with no prior exposure to his ideas. I doubt it. The book is a good analysis of his ideas.
July 9, 2022
La exposici¨®n de Ayer acerca de los aspectos m¨¢s importantes de la filosof¨ªa de Hume es muy clara y sintetizadora, pero algunas de las interpretaciones, incluyendo las cr¨ªticas que dirige a ciertos argumentos humeanos, son demasiado pretenciosas, hasta el punto de resultar en cierta medida anacr¨®nicas y de rozar lo obsesivo. Adem¨¢s, que la edici¨®n de Oxford no justifique el texto y lo alinee a la izquierda me da much¨ªsima rabia.
April 18, 2018
This is not your usual "A very short intriduction" and I would not suggest it as a first book on Hume to a general reader, but if you know some quite general things about Hume's philosophy, the this might be one of the best things to turn next. Ayer's prose is a pleasure to read.
Read
June 27, 2022a short introduction to Hume's philosophy. However after reading to Hume I think reading this book was a waste of time. You would need to read introductory books for "not-so-easy-to-read philosophers" like Nietzsche.
April 17, 2024
This volume is curious in that it seems to lack Ayer's refined British loquacity, which caused me to react with nervous anticipation, as I considered the fact that I have over a half-dozen volumes to read by this celebrated logician, who taught at my alma mater in the mid-20th century, prior to his being knighted by Queen Elizabeth II. I skimmed this text, feeling at bottom that I had well-negotiated this survey of the historical after-effects of the philosophers of the senses, including Locke, Berkeley, Voltaire and Hume, too. Two stars.
June 14, 2015
Ayer is dead, so this won't offend him.
I don't think he understood Hume's philosophy. He certainly did not understand how to present it in an intelligible manner. If these were the lectures I had covering Hume (and not the portion of a course taught by James King at NIU), I would be thoroughly lost.
This is another VSI the Oxford University Press should revisit.
I don't think he understood Hume's philosophy. He certainly did not understand how to present it in an intelligible manner. If these were the lectures I had covering Hume (and not the portion of a course taught by James King at NIU), I would be thoroughly lost.
This is another VSI the Oxford University Press should revisit.
January 3, 2025
An exposition, as well as a critical analysis of Hume's philosophy; Ayer delivers wonderfully in this short book. Best complemented with the SEP and IEP articles on Hume to get the gist of Hume's arguments and ideas without getting lost in the analytical detail.
Ayer makes some interesting points in his analysis. First, that in his distinction between ideas and impressions; Hume lacked a sophisticated theory of reference which dooms his distinction. Second, Hume's misunderstanding of Newton, in contrast to Locke, is discussed in brief (p. 34). Locke noticed that Newton relied indirectly on experience and observation whereas Hume did not. Locke noticed that Newton accounted for the behaviour of bodies in terms of their minute parts which were not themselves observable; and it was his attempt to reconcile this fact with our capacity for knowledge that led to his theories. Hume on the other hand speaks of Newton as though he did no more than practice straightforward induction.
Third, the question arises as to the difference Hume proposed between the vulgar view of perception and the philosophical view of perception. The vulgar view does not distinguish between perceptible impressions and objects themselves; whereas the philosophical view does. Our percepts do not have a continued existence and are fleeting, whereas the objects that give rise to them are. Hume accords the phenomenon of constancy and coherence the primary role in causing the imagination to transform impressions into enduring. Ayer proposes a synthesis of the two views -- he notes that visual and tactile impressions arise in sense-fields which are spatially extended and overlaps in time. Places are conceived in detachment from their occupants. Then, a set of visual and tactile continuants is picked out as forming a central body. Then, the visuo-tactile continuants are cut loose from their moorings. The possibility of their existing at times when they are not perceived is extended to the point where it is unnecessary to their existence that there need be observers to perceive them. Objects are in this way severed from the actual percepts from which they have been abstracted and are even regarded as being causally responsible for them (p.62). The problem remains of how to reconcile this with modern physics.
Fourth, Ayer subordinates the question of personal identity to bodily continuity. He also states the bundle of impressions that exist in us in certain relations taken together may be seen as sufficient to constitute a Self -- which was developed by William James in his Principles of Psychology. Fifth, he discusses John Stuart Mill's view that a general principle of the uniformity off nature combined with the evidence of previous observations can bestow a high degree of probability to our expectations of particular events. However, Ayer notes that this itself is circular as the principle of uniformity needs to be validated by the generalisations which it supports. Sixth, Ayer gives a good summary on p. 98-100 of the principle precepts of Hume's moral philosophy.
These are a couple of the insights I found interesting in this book.
Ayer makes some interesting points in his analysis. First, that in his distinction between ideas and impressions; Hume lacked a sophisticated theory of reference which dooms his distinction. Second, Hume's misunderstanding of Newton, in contrast to Locke, is discussed in brief (p. 34). Locke noticed that Newton relied indirectly on experience and observation whereas Hume did not. Locke noticed that Newton accounted for the behaviour of bodies in terms of their minute parts which were not themselves observable; and it was his attempt to reconcile this fact with our capacity for knowledge that led to his theories. Hume on the other hand speaks of Newton as though he did no more than practice straightforward induction.
Third, the question arises as to the difference Hume proposed between the vulgar view of perception and the philosophical view of perception. The vulgar view does not distinguish between perceptible impressions and objects themselves; whereas the philosophical view does. Our percepts do not have a continued existence and are fleeting, whereas the objects that give rise to them are. Hume accords the phenomenon of constancy and coherence the primary role in causing the imagination to transform impressions into enduring. Ayer proposes a synthesis of the two views -- he notes that visual and tactile impressions arise in sense-fields which are spatially extended and overlaps in time. Places are conceived in detachment from their occupants. Then, a set of visual and tactile continuants is picked out as forming a central body. Then, the visuo-tactile continuants are cut loose from their moorings. The possibility of their existing at times when they are not perceived is extended to the point where it is unnecessary to their existence that there need be observers to perceive them. Objects are in this way severed from the actual percepts from which they have been abstracted and are even regarded as being causally responsible for them (p.62). The problem remains of how to reconcile this with modern physics.
Fourth, Ayer subordinates the question of personal identity to bodily continuity. He also states the bundle of impressions that exist in us in certain relations taken together may be seen as sufficient to constitute a Self -- which was developed by William James in his Principles of Psychology. Fifth, he discusses John Stuart Mill's view that a general principle of the uniformity off nature combined with the evidence of previous observations can bestow a high degree of probability to our expectations of particular events. However, Ayer notes that this itself is circular as the principle of uniformity needs to be validated by the generalisations which it supports. Sixth, Ayer gives a good summary on p. 98-100 of the principle precepts of Hume's moral philosophy.
These are a couple of the insights I found interesting in this book.
January 8, 2022
David Hume, ?n opinia mea cel mai mare filosof britanic, s-a n?scut la Edinburgh la 26 aprilie 1711, dup? calendarul vechi. ?n scrierea sa de adio, My Own Life (Via?a mea), o autobiografie nu mai lung? de cinci pagini - redactat? ?n aprilie 1776, cu patru luni ?nainte de a muri -, el se m?ndre?te cu provenien?a sa dintr-o familie bun?, pe linia ambilor p?rin?i. Tat?l s?u, Joseph Home, practica dreptul ?i era proprietarul unei mo?ii la Ninewells, ?n Berwickshire, aflat? ?n posesia familiei ?nc? din secolul al XVI-lea. Dup? spusele lui Hume, tat?l s?u "a fost un descendent al contelui Home sau Hume" (D 233) (P 19), printre urma?ii c?ruia avea s? se numere, ?n secolul XX, un prim-ministru conservator. Mama lui, Katherine, era "fiica lui Sir David Falconer, Pre?edinte al Colegiului Juri?tilor", iar unul dintre fra?ii ei mo?tenise un titlu nobiliar. So?ii au avut trei copii, dintre care David era mezinuL fratele s?u John fiind n?scut ?n 1709, iar sora sa Katherine, un an mai t?rziu. Joseph Home a murit ?n 1713, c?nd David era foarte mic. Averea a trecut ?n proprietatea fratelui mai mare, iar David a primit o mo?tenire de vreo 50 de lire pe an, sum? care nici pe vremea aceea nu era suficient? pentru a-i asigura independen?a financiar?. Fusese stabilit ca David s? urmeze exemplul tat?lui s?u ?i s? devin? avocat. Mama lor, care nu s-a rec?s?torit, a admmistrat averea p?n? c?nd John a atins v?rsta necesar? pentru a-?i intra ?n drepturi. Dup? toate relat?rile, David era un copil devotat mamei sale, precum ?i fratelui ?i surorii lUI. Mama era o calvinist? fervent? ?i ?i-a educat copiii ?n spiritul acestei credin?e, credin?? pe care Hume a respins-o ?n perioada adolescen?ei, laolalt? cu toate celelalte forme de cre?tinism. Faptul c? rela?ia cu mama sa nu s-a deteriorat sugereaz? c? fie a ascuns acest lucru de ea, fie cel pu?in nu l-a afi?at cu ostenta?ie.
December 31, 2019
I'm not sure if I hate Ayer, Hume, or both. Well, I guess I know that I hate Ayer. The first two chapters of the book are utterly useless - biographical data that ignores the best biographical quote from Hume, ¡°Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.¡± Strike one.
Chapter two, entitled 'methods and aims', very loosely, unclearly and briefly outlines what Ayer takes Hume's aims to be - to decide what the mind is and what we can know (paraphrasing from memory, take with grain of salt). The rest of the chapter is somehow jumping between random positions Hume may or may not have held with very little connection. Surprisingly unclear for a logical positivist. Strike two.
Chapters three through five, focusing on Hume's positions on the self, cause and effect, and morals, respectively, are no better. Much of the exposition of Hume appears, to me, to be tainted by Ayer's logical positivist and expressivist lens. I am no Hume expert so take this with a grain of salt, but there did appear to me to be some logical positivist-y footprints left behind, amidst the Hume summary. Not only this, but the summaries are often brief and Ayer focuses and referencing some of the Hume literature without explaining it very well or sticking around on the topic for long. Strike three.
If the purpose of the introduction is to simply introduce the reader to Hume's ideas in broad strokes, maybe touching briefly on some problems or concerns, Ayer did a poor job. As well, often the concerns focus on exactly what you'd expect a logical positivist to focus on - the meaning of Hume's words, his definitions, his need for a theory of reference, etc. Unless you want to be introduced to a logical positivist reading of Hume and some positivist critiques, steer clear.
Chapter two, entitled 'methods and aims', very loosely, unclearly and briefly outlines what Ayer takes Hume's aims to be - to decide what the mind is and what we can know (paraphrasing from memory, take with grain of salt). The rest of the chapter is somehow jumping between random positions Hume may or may not have held with very little connection. Surprisingly unclear for a logical positivist. Strike two.
Chapters three through five, focusing on Hume's positions on the self, cause and effect, and morals, respectively, are no better. Much of the exposition of Hume appears, to me, to be tainted by Ayer's logical positivist and expressivist lens. I am no Hume expert so take this with a grain of salt, but there did appear to me to be some logical positivist-y footprints left behind, amidst the Hume summary. Not only this, but the summaries are often brief and Ayer focuses and referencing some of the Hume literature without explaining it very well or sticking around on the topic for long. Strike three.
If the purpose of the introduction is to simply introduce the reader to Hume's ideas in broad strokes, maybe touching briefly on some problems or concerns, Ayer did a poor job. As well, often the concerns focus on exactly what you'd expect a logical positivist to focus on - the meaning of Hume's words, his definitions, his need for a theory of reference, etc. Unless you want to be introduced to a logical positivist reading of Hume and some positivist critiques, steer clear.
June 1, 2021
Either Hume's thoughts or the author of this book made the explanations so difficult to understand (it seems the author of this book made it complicated).....
As long as you can understand, this book is dense and concise enough to summarize Hume's thoughts.
One of them is regarding Hume's opinion about cause and effect which states that causality is just a regularity that is known from experience or it is only habitual.
"His theory is that the observation of the frequent or constant conjunction of matters of fact of recurring types gives rise to a mental habit or custom of expecting this regularity to be repeated. The difference made by the multiplication of instances is, as Hume puts it in the Enquiry , that ¡®the mind is carried by habit, upon the appearance of one event, to expect its usual attendant, and to believe that it will exist¡¯."
As long as you can understand, this book is dense and concise enough to summarize Hume's thoughts.
One of them is regarding Hume's opinion about cause and effect which states that causality is just a regularity that is known from experience or it is only habitual.
"His theory is that the observation of the frequent or constant conjunction of matters of fact of recurring types gives rise to a mental habit or custom of expecting this regularity to be repeated. The difference made by the multiplication of instances is, as Hume puts it in the Enquiry , that ¡®the mind is carried by habit, upon the appearance of one event, to expect its usual attendant, and to believe that it will exist¡¯."
August 13, 2020
This is a 40 year old text. That¡¯s the first thing to realize. It was first published in a different series in 1980.
I think writing has come a long way in 40 years and some other Hume scholar more versed in the ways of clarity could actually illuminate the great English philosopher. I have listened to 30 minute lectures on Hume that delivered more than this 117 page book did.
Honestly I have no idea what I read. Something about skepticism.
The prose in this volume is roughly as turgid as Hume¡¯s own. Try again, Oxford.
I was spoiled by the Introduction to Hegel I guess. I thought they would all be as clear and updated to present writing styles. That is not the case however.
I think writing has come a long way in 40 years and some other Hume scholar more versed in the ways of clarity could actually illuminate the great English philosopher. I have listened to 30 minute lectures on Hume that delivered more than this 117 page book did.
Honestly I have no idea what I read. Something about skepticism.
The prose in this volume is roughly as turgid as Hume¡¯s own. Try again, Oxford.
I was spoiled by the Introduction to Hegel I guess. I thought they would all be as clear and updated to present writing styles. That is not the case however.
January 28, 2021
As a frequent reader of the series this comes as an exception in the tone it is written. In the other books of the collection, the writers come in mainly two categories: Neutral well informed authors, and fervent defenders. This one would be the first I read of a third category in wich the author more or less despises the subject. It can't go a single paragraph without giving biased comments "refuting" almost every sentence in Hume. Rather than informing and contrasting, it ends up creating aversion as if somehow it can't save the reading the pain of reading Hume, labeling him as nonsense.
February 28, 2020
I had tried to read Hume directly and hadn't gotten much out of it, so I thought I would try something written about Hume instead. Even though this seemed like it would be an introduction, it spent a large portion of its length on the author's objections to Hume, and secondary scholarship about him.
The main thing I was interested in was his thoughts on causality and induction, and the chapter on that was probably the best written. It laid out the ideas quite well. The rest of the book, however, I spent wondering if i was reading about Hume or about Ayer's problems with Hume.
The main thing I was interested in was his thoughts on causality and induction, and the chapter on that was probably the best written. It laid out the ideas quite well. The rest of the book, however, I spent wondering if i was reading about Hume or about Ayer's problems with Hume.
February 28, 2022
The writing style is really convoluted and dry despite it being a short introduction to Hume. It felt like chapters 2, 3, and 4 really dragged on. Only the first chapter is probably worth reading if you want to learn about Hume's personal life. This book does cover most of the important things about Hume's philosophy (like the problem of induction, the bundle theory of identity, etc), they cover it in sometimes the most complicated and verbose manner. Although I did learn some new things about Hume, I would not recommend this book to beginners looking to learn about his philosophy.
September 14, 2024
I like the "very short introduction" series, but they are hit and miss, this one was a miss.
[If I checked Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ I would have known!]
Long sentences, with too much assumed knowledge, what does "desert" mean in philosophy?
Basically, Hume says cause and effect are illogical, only moments after the other. (But we can still talk about causes anyway)
"Reason is ... The slave of the passions" which links to Romans 1 I guess!
And good to remember "they regarded every form of scientific enquiry as philosophical"
[If I checked Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ I would have known!]
Long sentences, with too much assumed knowledge, what does "desert" mean in philosophy?
Basically, Hume says cause and effect are illogical, only moments after the other. (But we can still talk about causes anyway)
"Reason is ... The slave of the passions" which links to Romans 1 I guess!
And good to remember "they regarded every form of scientific enquiry as philosophical"
September 28, 2020
This book was not written for the Very Short Introductions series and it shows. Based on a series of lectures, this is not a short introduction to Hume and his thought for the general reader but a fairly detailed comment with much refutation of other interpretations, all written in the lingo of academic philosophy. A slog of a read even at 117 pages, but it is not Ayer¡¯s fault that this book fails to live up to its billing, he didn¡¯t write it for that purpose.
April 17, 2019
Not an Introduction
I'm a fan of this series of 'Short Introductions.' I own, read, and have enjoyed several of them. This is not an easy or even an average read. To plow through it you probably need at least a Masters Degree in philosophy. I 'finished' no left it frustrated in my wish to be introduced to the great Hume.
I'm a fan of this series of 'Short Introductions.' I own, read, and have enjoyed several of them. This is not an easy or even an average read. To plow through it you probably need at least a Masters Degree in philosophy. I 'finished' no left it frustrated in my wish to be introduced to the great Hume.
April 8, 2025
Clearly, Ayer did not write this for the "A Very Short Introduction" but for Oxford's "Past Masters" series.
As for a "review"? Well, I cannot say much more than what has already been said about this book as I would *highly* suggest looking elsewhere for a more thorough book providing a more "short introduction" of David Hume's philosophy.
As for a "review"? Well, I cannot say much more than what has already been said about this book as I would *highly* suggest looking elsewhere for a more thorough book providing a more "short introduction" of David Hume's philosophy.
June 30, 2017
It is not a good VSI.
I think you have to have a previous knowledge of his works and ideas before starting the very short introduction and thus the book did not serve its purpose of giving you that introduction.
Maybe I will come back to it at a later time.
I think you have to have a previous knowledge of his works and ideas before starting the very short introduction and thus the book did not serve its purpose of giving you that introduction.
Maybe I will come back to it at a later time.
January 30, 2020
As an introduction, the prose is very, very dense with a lot of run-on sentences, which sometimes makes it difficult to figure out what is actually being argued. You get used to it as you progress, but it could be a real turn-off for most readers.
August 29, 2023
Rather than clearly describing Hume's philosophy, Ayer chooses to briefly define the most surface level qualities of his work before immediately going on to nitpick his mistakes and contradictions. Not a good introduction.
November 17, 2024
There is as much Ayer as there is Hume in this book as he has a continuing dialogue with his historical predecessor. It is not the clearest introduction to Hume but is nonetheless very enlightening. Plus it opens up new vistas in one's mind leading from Hume.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 53 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.