Scan barcode
friendofgosig's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
I was expecting this to be a hard read, and it was. The first book was the most difficult, as it breaks everything down to what becomes vague notions and ideas that I struggled to relate to anything tangible. The second and third book were more relatable, but I found their value more as a historical and cultural document than as a philosophical one, as customs are central to this philosophy. I felt that some of his conclusions from the same principles would be different in different times and cultures, which I think ultimately undermines his assertions, especially when it comes to the third book on morals.
I feel as though Hume’s reasoning is directly linked to his time and experience, and he would likely agree, and though I know a little about history and philosophy that came before, that he was reacting to, it was not enough to get a full grounding in the revolutionary nature of his arguments.
This is not an easy read, but if you are interested in the history, culture and philosophy of the eighteenth century then it may be worth a read.
I feel as though Hume’s reasoning is directly linked to his time and experience, and he would likely agree, and though I know a little about history and philosophy that came before, that he was reacting to, it was not enough to get a full grounding in the revolutionary nature of his arguments.
This is not an easy read, but if you are interested in the history, culture and philosophy of the eighteenth century then it may be worth a read.
queen_perfection's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.25
szinola's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
theos_bookcase's review against another edition
4.0
4.5/5 stars.
I studied David Hume’s “A Treatise of Human Nature” for VCE philosophy. Although I would not normally choose this book, I liked Hume’s ideas. However, I found his writing hard to follow. Overall, a worthwhile read. Philosophy is underrated in terms of writing.
I studied David Hume’s “A Treatise of Human Nature” for VCE philosophy. Although I would not normally choose this book, I liked Hume’s ideas. However, I found his writing hard to follow. Overall, a worthwhile read. Philosophy is underrated in terms of writing.
hjbolus's review against another edition
5.0
Edit: Reading Hume’s Treatise got me interested in Early Modern philosophy in general. I went back and read some Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Berkeley, Leibniz, and Kant, and I have to say Hume stands out even more in context. After reading his first Enquiry, I can see how his views here are much more radical in some ways, but also vastly more interesting and insightful.
Among many small questions and problems, one serious problem I have with Hume’s philosophy is his treatment of the principle of sufficient reason. He explicitly denies many applications of it, like “from nothing nothing comes” and that there are any necessary connections between matters of fact. Yet he sometimes seems to take it for granted, and doesn’t attempt to explain glaring challenges, like the seeming regularity of cause and effect. Unfortunately for me, that’s probably the most interesting question in philosophy imo.
Completely recommend to anyone interested in philosophy and critical thinking. Definitely one of the best books I’ve ever read.
——
It’s been five months since I finished this book and I still feel almost fixated on it. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It’s not a book to be read fluidly and for entertainment – treat Hume as someone to argue with as you read. Check his claims and arguments, disagree wherever possible, rehabilitate his positions when you can, and pay attention to methods.
I don’t think Hume was right about all that much in here, but he was an amazing thinker. His treatise seriously challenged and improved the way I think.
Among many small questions and problems, one serious problem I have with Hume’s philosophy is his treatment of the principle of sufficient reason. He explicitly denies many applications of it, like “from nothing nothing comes” and that there are any necessary connections between matters of fact. Yet he sometimes seems to take it for granted, and doesn’t attempt to explain glaring challenges, like the seeming regularity of cause and effect. Unfortunately for me, that’s probably the most interesting question in philosophy imo.
Completely recommend to anyone interested in philosophy and critical thinking. Definitely one of the best books I’ve ever read.
——
It’s been five months since I finished this book and I still feel almost fixated on it. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It’s not a book to be read fluidly and for entertainment – treat Hume as someone to argue with as you read. Check his claims and arguments, disagree wherever possible, rehabilitate his positions when you can, and pay attention to methods.
I don’t think Hume was right about all that much in here, but he was an amazing thinker. His treatise seriously challenged and improved the way I think.
omelas33's review against another edition
4.0
Man alive, this book is hard. Maybe only Kant can get him completely at once. I’ll be coming back to this multiple times. He did not leave any apparent stone unturned. Took me three months!!! Whaaa