Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.78 AVERAGE
3.78 AVERAGE
Philosophers are so good at praising and dissing. Schopenhauer said "there is more to be learned from each page of David Hume than from the collected philosophical works of Hegel, Herbart and schleiermacher taken together." Kant credited Hume for his awakening from his dogmatic slumber. Hearing such veneration, I was extremely excited to read my first David Hume book, The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
I loved The Dialogues and would recommend it to anyone, though admittedly I am quite biased as religion is one of my favorite topics in philosophy.
Stylistically, this book is absolutely fantastic. Obviously, the language used in philosophy is a huge detraction. The abstractions, jargon, and poor writing skills have frequently combined to make some books near unreadable. I am happy to report that this book was surprisingly easy to read. Hume writes with meticulous clarity, for sacrificing linguistic rigor for showmanship’s sake, aside from a few ironic comments. The ideas conveyed through the dialogue are extremely well-expressed, leaving little uncertainty at all due to the mode of his expression. Somehow, he manages to combine this clarity of ideas with an extremely entertaining format. This is no Socratic dialogue. There is no didactic tirade. This conversation captures the essence of a spirited debate perfectly. Sometimes they go too far, sometimes no responses can be thought of, sometimes it is acknowledged that the arguments are off the cuff.
Obviously, the arguments contained within are fantastic. The prevalent speaker here is Philo, debating Cleanthes, along with Demea. Philo and Demea generally agree that whatever ultimate force/god may be outlined by empirical findings, there can be nothing more inferred about it’s nature other than its existence. Cleanthes disagrees, holding an anthropomorphic view of god. I tended to agree more with Philo, but Cleanthes is not strawmanned at all. I thought many of his arguments were very strong. This changes at the end, as Philo certainly “wins” the debate, and Cleanthes has less and less to say, though the book ends with Philo somewhat agreeing with Cleanthes, and the narrator even crowns Cleanthes the victor.
That's essentially what this book is, just arguments. There is no overly abstract system of philosophy erected here, no life-altering worldview switches, just arguments and rebuttals. It’s great, it’s like a toolbox. Take what you need, provoke some thought, and go on with your day. Of course, there are many hints of Hume’s overall empiricist outlook, which were very interesting.
The essays included in this edition are entertaining, if only for historical value in the case of the immortality of the soul essay. One funny thing I realized is that the way Hume has been characterized to me previously has been entirely wrong. Hume’s true view on religion and the nature of his argument on miracles are mostly what I am referring to. Read this book, then read some reviews on here to see exactly what I mean. It’s like they don’t even read the book!
Obviously, I don’t agree with everything said here, and I doubt most people will. The included essays are especially more susceptible to rebuttal, but that may be due to the nature of those as essays rather than a dialogue.
Unfortunately, there are some QUITE clear instances of misogyny here, which betray Hume’s extreme stupidity in that regard.
Overall, though, I think this book is a fantastic read, I’d say essential. Especially of interest to those who have any sort of interest in religion.
I loved The Dialogues and would recommend it to anyone, though admittedly I am quite biased as religion is one of my favorite topics in philosophy.
Stylistically, this book is absolutely fantastic. Obviously, the language used in philosophy is a huge detraction. The abstractions, jargon, and poor writing skills have frequently combined to make some books near unreadable. I am happy to report that this book was surprisingly easy to read. Hume writes with meticulous clarity, for sacrificing linguistic rigor for showmanship’s sake, aside from a few ironic comments. The ideas conveyed through the dialogue are extremely well-expressed, leaving little uncertainty at all due to the mode of his expression. Somehow, he manages to combine this clarity of ideas with an extremely entertaining format. This is no Socratic dialogue. There is no didactic tirade. This conversation captures the essence of a spirited debate perfectly. Sometimes they go too far, sometimes no responses can be thought of, sometimes it is acknowledged that the arguments are off the cuff.
Obviously, the arguments contained within are fantastic. The prevalent speaker here is Philo, debating Cleanthes, along with Demea. Philo and Demea generally agree that whatever ultimate force/god may be outlined by empirical findings, there can be nothing more inferred about it’s nature other than its existence. Cleanthes disagrees, holding an anthropomorphic view of god. I tended to agree more with Philo, but Cleanthes is not strawmanned at all. I thought many of his arguments were very strong. This changes at the end, as Philo certainly “wins” the debate, and Cleanthes has less and less to say, though the book ends with Philo somewhat agreeing with Cleanthes, and the narrator even crowns Cleanthes the victor.
That's essentially what this book is, just arguments. There is no overly abstract system of philosophy erected here, no life-altering worldview switches, just arguments and rebuttals. It’s great, it’s like a toolbox. Take what you need, provoke some thought, and go on with your day. Of course, there are many hints of Hume’s overall empiricist outlook, which were very interesting.
The essays included in this edition are entertaining, if only for historical value in the case of the immortality of the soul essay. One funny thing I realized is that the way Hume has been characterized to me previously has been entirely wrong. Hume’s true view on religion and the nature of his argument on miracles are mostly what I am referring to. Read this book, then read some reviews on here to see exactly what I mean. It’s like they don’t even read the book!
Obviously, I don’t agree with everything said here, and I doubt most people will. The included essays are especially more susceptible to rebuttal, but that may be due to the nature of those as essays rather than a dialogue.
Unfortunately, there are some QUITE clear instances of misogyny here, which betray Hume’s extreme stupidity in that regard.
Overall, though, I think this book is a fantastic read, I’d say essential. Especially of interest to those who have any sort of interest in religion.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
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.
challenging
informative
lighthearted
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
As I’m not religious myself, I found this book very interesting and eye-opening. Because, when you are not a believer yourself it is sometimes hard to see things from a religious point of view, and I, who always want to see the other side of things, have found it frustrating not understanding and completely comprehending the way a religious person reasons and perceives the world. That’s why this was such an important read for me.
I later had discussions with both my boyfriend and grandma about their beliefs. The interesting part was that I didn’t recite the perspectives discussed in the book. I felt a somewhat fundamental understanding and was not as clouded by my own opinion on the matter.
When learning about religion and philosophy, this is without a doubt one of the most essential reads. It is flawed and presents arguments that nowadays might seem outdated and vague, but that’s the beauty of it. This is perceived as a stepping stone in religious philosophy and is where a lot of modern-day arguments have their roots. Some of my personal questions and reasonings, I didn't find an answer to while reading, but I know I wouldn’t have had those questions and reasonings if I hadn’t read this.
It’s a slow read, but it’s worth it.
I later had discussions with both my boyfriend and grandma about their beliefs. The interesting part was that I didn’t recite the perspectives discussed in the book. I felt a somewhat fundamental understanding and was not as clouded by my own opinion on the matter.
When learning about religion and philosophy, this is without a doubt one of the most essential reads. It is flawed and presents arguments that nowadays might seem outdated and vague, but that’s the beauty of it. This is perceived as a stepping stone in religious philosophy and is where a lot of modern-day arguments have their roots. Some of my personal questions and reasonings, I didn't find an answer to while reading, but I know I wouldn’t have had those questions and reasonings if I hadn’t read this.
It’s a slow read, but it’s worth it.
challenging
informative
medium-paced
