Hume's Political Philosophy

[@nomadbl]

Could you cite the sources for further reference?

[@KaneB]

Primarily "Of the Original Contract" and parts of book 3, part 2 of the Treatise. Hardin's "David Hume: Moral and Political Theorist" is excellent secondary literature.

[@pedroskywalker6793]

Was Hume a classical liberal or a conservative?

[@KaneB]

I'd say he fits into both traditions.

[@lukebowman7513]

His skepticism concerning moral truth would probably put him at odds with John Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. he argued for liberal politics by claiming that we have seen states like the UK use this philosophy to make good laws, he thinks that "an established government has an infinite advantage ... to tamper, therefore, in this affair, or try experiments merely upon the credit of supposed argument and philosophy, can never be part of a wise magistrate, who will bear a reverence to what carries the marks of age." His Philosophy went on to inspire Edmund Burkes argument that Americans should recognize the British king as their own but should have the ability to rule themeselves. This makes Hume a conservative, skeptical of liberalism's attempt at seeking moral truth, though he did appreciate some of the most basic arguments of liberalism (right to a fair trial, protection of property, etc,) on the basis that they have attained the "mark of age" in British politics.

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

Hi Kane B. I’m new to studying political philosophy and I have a question for you. The question is what do you think is the right method for answering the big questions in political philosophy?

[@RestIsPhilosophy]

Big question

[@michaeldalscais2538]

All things in moderation.

[@michaeldalscais2538]

@Kane B R.e. Your most recent video on Hume: it’s such a shame that these videos attract the utter dregs of society. I think that you made the best choice with regard to blocking the comment section. I think that in an “open society” (to use Poppers idiom) the so called ‘Overton window‘ shouldn’t restrict rational inquiry....that is of course, within reason, i.e. heinous positions like Nazism should not be given the light of day; we should not tolerate the intolerant. Anyway I am interested in your opinion on something, if you would be so kind. Do you think Quine was a modern day Hume?: they were both naturalists, politically conservative - albeit in a highly unusual way i.e. they both arrived at this position from a rational perspective and were both radical in their general philosophical thought. Furthermore one could argue that Quine’s ‘naturalized epistemology’ is a continuation of Hume’s naturalistic project. At any rate I would be glad to hear your thoughts on my ramble.

[@KaneB]

I'm aware that Quine was conservative, though I don't know anything more than that about his political views, so it's hard to comment on any comparison to Hume on that point. To be honest, I've haven't given much thought to the relation between Hume and Quine's epistemology specifically, though one thing that occurs to me, which leads me to be cautious about treating Quine as a "continuation" of Hume here: For Hume, at least as I interpret him, part of the motivation for reconceiving epistemology as a branch of psychology is that reason alone is destructive. That is, Hume is assuming that there are canons of reason that can be specified independently of our actual psychology, but that unconstrained application of reason would lead to total suspension of judgement about induction, causality, the external world, even logical and mathematical propositions, etc. So then to the question: how do we form reliable beliefs? -- Hume has to introduce nonrational factors, and elaborate a more general psychological theory. This is quite different to what Quine is doing -- again, as I interpret him. Quine is, in a way, attacking the idea that there is a sensible distinction between reason and our best psychological theories (or perhaps, our best scientific view of the world more generally) in the first place. Certainly, for Quine, there are no independently specifiable canons of reasoning, that are conceptually prior to all empirical investigation. Perhaps I would say: in practice, there might not be much difference between Hume's and Quine's approach, but in terms of the philosophical foundations, it feels to me like Quine is junking the basic assumptions of Hume's project.

[@KaneB]

Though, thinking again about that difference I outlined there, I guess you could just say: Well, that's what happens to Hume if you abandon "the given" and reject the analytic/synthetic distinction. So, maybe Quine is the modern Hume.

[@michaeldalscais2538]

@@KaneB Thank you very much for your detailed response. I mentioned Quine and Hume being 'conservative', because of, well it struck me, when I first learnt of Quine's and Hume's conservatism, as being an odd position given their other commitments: here were two philosophers who were naturalists and non-religious (I understand Hume as an atheist), and yet at the same time conservative. I think you're right to be sceptical, about Quine's philosophy being what I called "a continuation" of Hume's philosophy, or at least; when it comes to a detailed inspection of their respective approaches, one finds there are notable incompatibilities e.g. Hume's adherence to a proto analytic/synthetic distinction. When you talk about, under your interpretation, Hume's view of anti-psychologicistic cannons of reason being ["destructive"], and his subsequent move to ["introduce non-rational factors and elaborate a more general psychological theory"] - I see Hume's "move" as equivalent, in some sense, to Quine's move away from 'science-transcendent' approaches to philosophy. In other words, I see, based on your illustration, Hume as coming close to Quine's logical conclusions about reason, although relative to his era and its scientific and logical resources; which obviously constrained the conclusions Hume could reach. As an aside: I was drawn to this comparison, not just in virtue of their superficial similarities, but also due to Quine's Lectures on Hume (Lectures on David Hume's Philosophy, 1946). Wherein Quine says "Of the old timers, I feel most congenial to Hume" (this quote is actually from an interview with the semi-annual serial, Veery 3, 1993, p. 21). In addition, It is worth emphasising Quine's general distaste for pre-analytic philosophy. Indeed, he had considerable antipathy, during and towards, the preparation of the lectures on Hume (although, of course, there were other circumstantial reasons for this e.g. poverty, heavy-workload, stress etc). - Michael

[@attackdog6824]

Hume was a based conservative Tory

[@angelawho9083]

DavidHumes @#LawrenceKohlberg @#SelfActualization? @#FreedomFromUnwantedForce @#Unencumbered? @#Examinations @#Monastic? #SeminalRegents

[@diogoalbuquerquegoncalves2575]

To Ms. Angela Who : Does David Hume ever meet Peter kropotkin and why?

[@cunjoz]

ah yes good ol consequentialism and "you derive a benefit" argument. a victim of rape shouldn't complain if they reach an orgasm 😀👍