Hume’s birthday 8 May 2011 So you may have noticed, David Hume turns 300 today. I reckon he looks a lot younger than that, almost modern. There’s an interesting discussion on the History of Philosophy of Science list about whether Hume is the greatest English language philosopher, as the Stanford article claims. Influence and importance are highly local to the state of philosophy at a time. From his death in 1776 until about a century later, Hume was not widely regarded as a significant philosopher. Locke, Hobbes and Berkeley were much more generally discussed. Hume was revived by T. H. Green and his colleague T. H. Grose, who published a collected works, and by T. H. Huxley, who published a book. It seems the “T H” stood for “Towards Hume” in the 1870s. I have a first edition of Hume’s collected Essays edited by Green and Grose, and a third edition of Huxley’s Hume. What I like about Hume’s philosophy is that when you try to think of something he may have left out or incompletely discussed, you find that he hasn’t. He is one of the most complete philosophers in English. But he was far more than that – he was a historian, a psychologist, a politician and something of a cause celebre at the time, for being not orthodox enough. He was regarded simultaneously in Edinburgh as an atheist (he wasn’t) and as a secular saint. I think Locke is more important, but Hume is perhaps the most influential English language philosopher on modern philosophy, in large part because of the influence of Kant who famously wrote that Hume woke him from his dogmatic slumbers. Through Kant’s discussion, modern analytic philosophy was born. Whether his influence will continue into the future is a moot point. I think that it is time we revived induction, contrary to Hume’s argument, and a number of philosophers, such as Pat Churchland, are trying to overcome the is-ought distinction in ethics. Still, he is a critical turning point in philosophy, and will be regarded as that for as long as there is scholarship. Epistemology History Philosophy HistoryPhilosophy
Epistemology You and me, baby, ain’t nothing but mammals 7 Apr 2010 The song of the title of this post is a catchy and highly amusing piece that suggests that if we’re just mammals we should have sex. It’s sort of a low brow version of Andrew Marvell’s To his coy mistress. Instead of Time’s wingéd chariot, we should do what mammals… Read More
Evolution Wilkins on Wilkins on The Galilean Library 15 Apr 2008 In an amazing display of misjudgment, Paul Newall of the (otherwise) excellent site The Galilean Library has interviewed me about my views on the philosophy of biology. There are some serious folk interviewed there, so of course I feel like a fraud, but hey, you all know I love the… Read More
History The Blue Book is in PDF 10 Sep 2009 Systematists know the tome by Gareth Nelson and Norman Platnick, Systematics and Biogeography (1981), as the Blue Book (shades of Wittgenstein!). It was published once and is now so hard to get that I have been unable to find a copy in ten years of looking. Now, Malte Ebach tells… Read More
When starting to think of his competition, my first thoughts were of some medievals (Roger Bacon, Scotus, Ockham), but then I noticed “English language philosophers”. Is Wittgenstein excluded? ISTM that the most well-known names, such as Francis Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Mill, Spencer and Russell, do not present any competition. And I’d say that it is impossible to judge the long-term lasting power of any contemporary philosopher. The only one that I can think of as having a chance would be Peirce.
If anyone refers to anything I have written at my death I will be very surprised. Mostly because being dead I am able to be surprised.