[ 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: 91 KB, 825x1000, David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19287204 No.19287204 [Reply] [Original]

How does one read Hume? Can I start with a book of his a or do I have to read some books before?

>> No.19287223

>>19287204
Hume? More like coom.

>> No.19287234

>>19287204
have you read more important thinkers first?

>> No.19287243

>>19287204
Hume is a straightforward and clear writer.
Read the Enquiry first, but be sure to read the Treatise as well. The latter is harder, longer, but also more nuanced and elaborate. Either way, he is a personable, clear, and articulate writer and very easy to understand. While he doesn't necessarily namedrop everyone he is responding to, he is clear when he is responding to a particular position. The only requisite I can imagine being necessary might be Locke, but Hume is a much better writer and they are interested in the same things.

>> No.19287263

>>19287234
No not really, besides Plato and Jung
>>19287238
>The only requisite I can imagine being necessary might be Lock
Alright reckoned I might have to read Descartes as well

>> No.19287346

>>19287204
>>19287263
>Plato
Thats ok. I would say the best would to go in depths in terms of cronology, but thats not necissary.

The Enquiry concerning Human Understanding Is extremely readable, even to a relitive phil novice, As I believe it was created after a much more achedemic peice of his so that more Laypeople could understand the gist of his works.

And Yes, As a primer I would recommend enquirey.
Its like a 2 1/2 hour read.

>> No.19287385

>>19287346
>enquirey
Thanks man

>> No.19287432

>>19287204
no just start with enquiry concerning human understanding. you can actually start reading philosophy with hume and can skip the greeks entirely. as long as you understand rationalism, and hume's empiricism, then you are ready for Kant, which is all that matters

>> No.19287485

Read his History of England.

>> No.19287490

>>19287432
>kant is all that matters
No it isn’t

>> No.19287499

>>19287204
A Letter from a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh, and A Treatise of Human Nature
the second Enquiry is a better exposition of empiricism than the first one, although you can read that too if you want

>> No.19287554

>>19287490
nobody cares what you think, everything pre Kant is totally irrelevant and everything else is post Kantian save maybe William James

>> No.19287572

>>19287432
>you can actually start reading philosophy with hume and can skip the greeks entirely
thank fuck

>> No.19287621

>>19287554
Kant was utterly btfo by people like Nietzsche, Husserl. Without Plato and Aristotle there would also be no Kant. The goblin literally ripped them off and inserted his own limitations into their onto-epistemology. One should read Kant only insofar as he is very interested in the historical development of philosophy, however taking no more seriously than people like Thales, Democritus, Epicurus, etc.

>> No.19288819

>>19287490
>>19287490
kant was filtered by hume, who in turn wasnt skeptical enough

>> No.19288876

>>19288819
>>19287621
>Kant got btfod by kantians
Cringed thanks

>>19287572
No problem. The only sad part about this is that you will never truly believe me unless you read everything up to Hume yourself and see how worthless it all is. I should have added that while you don’t need to read past Plato’s Wikipedia (all you need to understand is what his rationalism entails), he is worth reading simply for the temperament he sketches of a character (Socrates) that enjoys challenging environments and getting to the root of issues and asking the right questions, and having an actual system of beliefs founded upon that basic Idea, rather than a series of unconnected feelings rationalised as serious opinion

>> No.19288921

>>19287621
>Taken no more seriously than people like […] Democritus, Epicurus
Based

>> No.19288924

>>19288876
When I was a teen I read Ecce Homo, a quarter of the Zaratrustra and The Antichrist and became intrigued, then I got interested in Spengler's Decline of the West, and from what I learned there I got more interested in philosophy. I have read very little after that, Just the Socratic and polemic dialogues, I tried to find some good PDF of Aristotle's metaphysics but I failed and it was unreadable so I searched and found a french page where they did commentary on him, although they made it seem as if the main thing from Aristotle was his logics.
After that I went for Kant, halfway through I got bored of his constant repetition and stopped reading, some time after that I tried it again and again opted to investigate some commentary that may summarize the most important parts, in order to read "The world as will and representation", and now after reading the first book I haven't got lost in inspirations or references.
Am I really not missing anything having read so little?