Scan barcode
zmb's review against another edition
5.0
I would give this more stars if I could. Hume is calm, equable, cheerful, humanitarian, surprisingly fair, and above all skeptical. He's also necessarily slippery; even though the Dialogues were published after his death, he is careful to not be Philo and to have Philo himself disclaim his more skeptical attacks shortly after making them. Such was eighteenth century censorship. Nevertheless, the Dialogues are outstanding, and, though the History is fairly weak as history it's pretty great as philosophy.
Of particular note are part XI and XII of the Dialogues, parts XI - XIV of the History, and Note I of the History.
Of particular note are part XI and XII of the Dialogues, parts XI - XIV of the History, and Note I of the History.
rhiannatherad's review
1.0
I wasn't interested in it enough, and I've been far too busy to give myself enough time to read it closely enough to comprehend any of it.
fuhhlarzablur's review against another edition
3.0
The Dialogues often come across (perhaps as intended) as a thinly veiled attempt to disguise Hume's own radically sceptical opinions on Christianity, and the three-character structure can be difficult to follow even with close reading. Hume's own supposed presence as mute observer to the conversation is awkward at times, especially towards the end, when Demea departs, leaving Philo and Cleanthes to speak intimately as if they were alone (there's material for a slashfic here, honest...) The arguments themselves are elegantly constructed and often dizzyingly effective, notwithstanding Philo's "retraction" in the final sections.
The Natural History is limited in places by its author's prejudices, none too surprising coming from an eighteenth-century man of privilege who, as far as I can tell, never set foot outside Europe, and ostensibly spoke to very few women. The text's strengths lie in its (now-expected) willingness to (coyly) explore challenges to all aspects of the Christian faith, and in its dazzling evidence of the depths to which Hume plumbed the literature of Graeco-Roman antiquity. Once again, the OWC editorial material is extensive and highly relevant.
The Natural History is limited in places by its author's prejudices, none too surprising coming from an eighteenth-century man of privilege who, as far as I can tell, never set foot outside Europe, and ostensibly spoke to very few women. The text's strengths lie in its (now-expected) willingness to (coyly) explore challenges to all aspects of the Christian faith, and in its dazzling evidence of the depths to which Hume plumbed the literature of Graeco-Roman antiquity. Once again, the OWC editorial material is extensive and highly relevant.
hughesie's review against another edition
3.0
Thought provoking and easier to follow than I feared it might be, but a chunk in the middle dragged a little. My copy didn't seem to be particulaly well printed, there were several places where half a word was just not there. The editer added an explanatory note to back up Hume's archaic sexism at one point which was both needless, and also rankled.
la_xu's review
4.0
Definitely not a bad read. As a student taking Intro to Philosophy, Hume's work was more entertaining and easier to understand than a few others I've had to read.
I enjoyed the dialogue between the characters. Philo was the most interesting, as he played Cleanthes and Demeas into getting to his conclusion.
Disclaimer: our class did not read the whole thing, we read part 1, 2, 5, 10, 11.
I enjoyed the dialogue between the characters. Philo was the most interesting, as he played Cleanthes and Demeas into getting to his conclusion.
Disclaimer: our class did not read the whole thing, we read part 1, 2, 5, 10, 11.
More...