David Hume Books

This review mostly concerns the Enquiry. The Letter is primarily a defense of Hume's earlier Treatise of Human Nature, while his Abstract is an anonymous review of the Treatise. It strikes me as very funny, though not surprising, that Hume would review his own work. Funny because any author would give his right arm to get at least one favorable review when all the other critics are completely missing its point. Unsurprising because Hume was probably one of the only people alive at that time who could truly grasp all the facets of his radical philosophical claims.

The Enquiry was written after the Treatise. Hume, though he claimed the opposite, seems never to have really recovered from the blow he took from seeing his Treatise "fall dead born from the press." As a result, his Enquiry is far more cautious in the steps it takes. (For those of you who have read both, yes, I swear, Hume IS more cautious. Compare the claims.) A more robust philosophical stance is taken in his Treatise, while a more focused stance is taken in his Enquiry.

The Enquiry is mainly a work of epistemology and as such, scrutinizes our methods of acquiring knowledge. Making perhaps the most radical (and poignant) claim in all of modern philosophy, it posits, and supports, that there is NO causation, only conjunction. That, for example, when we see a glass drop and break, we cannot say we know gravity caused this (in the way we know two plus two equals four). All we see is constant conjunction. The connection is lacking, i.e., it is not inconceivable that the glass wouldn't bounce, turn to ash, or dissolve into sand (the way it is inconceivable that two plus two equals five). This, in effect, nullifies all the so called "laws" of nature that are formed by science. (Note that this does not state that there are no laws of nature, just that we really can never make the claim that we ever really know there are laws of nature.)

This could be thought of as the philosophical shot heard round the world. Agree or disagree, Hume must be answered. Hume has historically been charged with creating an intellectual and philosophical cul-de-sac with his skepticism. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, Hume makes a claim which none can refute, but at the same time one which none can accept. In effect, Hume's philosophy seems to bind the human mind, stopping its journey of discovery and ultimately accomplishing what his predecessor, John Locke, set out to do, i.e., map the extent of human knowledge.

However, where one may see Hume's philosophy as shackles and fetters in the search for truth, one could also equally see his philosophy as liberation. Implicit in his philosophy is the idea that ANYTHING is possible. There are no shackles, no fetters, no limits; only those that we create for ourselves. Our limits are self-imposed, constructs of our observance (and inference) of connection. In this way Hume appears in the same light as the Eastern masters seeing that reality is not what we have (through experiential knowledge) believed it to be. It is something much more wondrous. In Zen, our causal thinking is the only barrier between the person and enlightenment. Hume could be seen as implying that when the idea of causality is removed, with only conjunction remaining in its place, the state of true knowledge and wisdom (true zen) is achieved.

This, of course, is only idle speculation. But it is stated so as to demonstrate the richness and immense possibility Hume's philosophy possesses when seen in the correct light. Instead of saying, "Nothing is certain," after reading Hume, one can say, with equal validity, "Anything is possible." The first statement approaches philosophy with despair. The second approaches it with a sense of childlike wonder and hope at the immense possibilities of reality. It approaches life as a beginning, not an ending. It approaches life as the philosopher approaches it.

If one accepts the methodology of Descartes in applying scepticism to reason and the senses, in effect denying the existence of all things but a "thinking thing," two entailments are logically consequent: Either Berkeley's idealism or Hume's scepticism. I don't accept Descartes' starting point, so I find the entailments confused and incoherent. But if one does accept Descartes' starting point, then the two extremes must be heeded. If for no other reason than observing the absurdity of either man's conclusions, it is valuable to read both entailments. But in their confused process, both men bring certain salient features to light.

Hume accepts Descartes starting point, making it his own. But to Descartes method, he adds Pyrrhonist scepticism: That all reason leads to infinite regress, and that all sensations (or impressions) can not be trusted.

Hume begins with the conclusion that all sense perception is either an impression or idea. Even memory and imagination, two other faculties of the mind, are conflated into these two species of perceptions, as impressions. Their difference is one of degree (vivacity), not of kind. Hence, Hume is the author of what is known as the "Copy Principle." Instead of unmediated, direct perception through the ordinary senses, all perception is mediated by the imagination into impressions and ideas. From this follows certain resemblances, contiguity, and causal associations between impressions or ideas, and from this association we develop a sense of self. But even the notion of causality here is one of implied inference, not of actual inductive reason. Hume denies there is any real causality that can be known, although we operate "as if" we infer cause from effect. Even probability is reduced to a mere association of ideas and/or impressions; because neither reason (which always leads to infinite regress) or senses (which can always be deceived) can actually be true. The Enquiry also treats of miracles and the testimony of others derisively; but don't we rely on the testimony of others who claim the earth is round rather than flat, just as we rely on others who testify to miracles in a byegone era? After all, few of us have direct experience with a spherical earth (Popper makes this observation).

Hume's method incorporates five kinds of scepticism: (i) methodological, (ii) conceptual, (ii) nomological, (iv) explanatory, and (v) reductive empiricism. His commitment to scepticism is not without some capitulation. While he denies absolute causality and inductive inference and probability in an actual senses, he relies on them for practical purposes. One can't remain a pyrrhonist for long; some elements of reason and some degree of confidence in impressions is necessary for ordinary life. But if one starts with Descartes' starting point, extreme scepticism is a necessary entailment. Which, after seeing Hume deny so much intuition, is it really worth starting with Descartes' scepticism? Answering that question is what makes Hume interesting.

David Hume was perhaps the leading light in the Empiricist movement in philosophy. Empiricism is seen in distinction from Rationalism, in that it doubts the viability of universal principles (rational or otherwise), and uses sense data as the basis of all knowledge - experience is the source of knowledge. Hume was a skeptic as well as empiricist, and had radical (for the time) atheist ideas that often got in the way of his professional advancement, but given his reliance on experience (and the kinds of experiences he had), his problem with much that was considered conventional was understandable.

Hume's major work, 'A Treatise of Human Nature', was not well received intially - according to Hume, 'it fell dead-born from the press'. Hume reworked the first part of this work in a more popular way for this text, which has become a standard, and perhaps the best introduction to Empiricism.

In a nutshell, the idea of empiricism is that experience teaches, and rules and understanding are derived from this. However, for Hume this wasn't sufficient. Just because billiard balls when striking always behave in a certain manner, or just because the sun always rose in the morning, there was no direct causal connection that could be automatically affirmed - we assume a necessary connection, but how can this be proved?

Hume's ideas impact not only metaphysics, but also epistemology and psychology. Hume develops empiricism to a point that empiricism is practically unsupportable (and it is in this regard that Kant sees this text as a very important piece, and works toward his synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism). For Hume, empirical thought requires skepticism, but leaves it unresolved as far as what one then needs to accept with regard to reason and understanding. According to scholar Eric Steinberg, 'A view that pervades nearly all of Hume's philosophical writings is that both ancient and modern philosophers have been guilty of optimistic and exaggerated claims for the power of human reason.'

Some have seen Hume as presenting a fundamental mistrust of daily belief while recognising that we cannot escape from some sort of framework; others have seen Hume as working toward a more naturalist paradigm of human understanding. In fact, Hume is open to a number of different interpretations, and these different interpretations have been taken up by subsequent philosophers to develop areas of synthetic philosophical ideas, as well as further developments more directly out of Empiricism (such as Phenomenology).

This is in fact a rather short book, a mere 100 pages or so in many editions. As a primer for understanding Hume, the British Empiricists (who include Hobbes, Locke, and Berkeley), as well as the major philosphical concerns of the eighteenth century, this is a great text with which to start.

Hume, I and many others think, was the greatest philosopher to have written in English, and this is the book to pick up if you want to introduce yourself to Saint David's distinctive brand of classical empiricism. This is a must-read for anyone with even a passing interest in philosophy, and it's hard for me to see how anyone interested in the history of modern thought can avoid reading this book or the corresponding sections of Hume's Treatise.

As is well-known, the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding was intended as an encapsulation and popularization of the views Hume defended in Book I of his magnum opus, A Treatise of Human Nature. Hume assumed that book's commercial failure could be accounted for by its length, difficulty, and lack of accessibility, and so, being a man who desired literary fame, he hoped to acquire commercial success by presenting the same ideas in a more appealing and accessible manner. Unfortunately, it seems Hume misunderstood what the literati of his day were looking for in a philosophical treatise. For the Enquiry, like the Treatise before it, didn't bring him the fame he sought. Still, Hume did understand what goes into writing excellent philosophical prose, and consequently this book is a much easier read than Book I of the Treatise. Indeed, this book constitutes an excellent introduction to Hume's thought, and, except for maybe Berkeley's Three Dialogues, I can't think of another primary source that would serve as a better introduction to classical British empiricism.

Now, let's get to the ideas here. Hume, like the other classical empiricists, was primarily concerned with the psychological question of the origin of our concepts. About the answer to this question, the empiricists were all agreed--our concepts are furnished by experience, which includes both sensory experience and introspection (i.e., the experience of our own mental states). And the empiricists also agreed about the way we can justify our beliefs. Some beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of the ideas they contained, and we can know their truth (or falsity) simply by thinking about them; other beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of how the external world is, and we can know their truth (or falsity) only by drawing on our experiences of the world. According to Hume, all substantial conclusions about the world fall into this second category. That is, the truth (or falsity) of all substantial claims about the existence and nature of things in the external world can be discovered only by checking those claims against the evidence of our senses.

The traditional way of placing Hume within the story of empiricism goes something like this. Hume takes up the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley and pushes it to its logical conclusion. Whereas Locke and Berkeley hadn't been wholly consistent empiricists, Hume, the true believer, demonstrates that classical empiricism leads to a pretty thoroughgoing skepticism. Since he's wholly convinced of the truth of his empiricist premises, Hume is willing to accept the skepticism that goes along with them. However, those who aren't convinced of that his empiricism is obviously correct think that Hume has actually demonstrated the implausibility of his empiricism. If this is where empiricism leads, they think, then it's clear that we need to reject empiricism. Indeed, some, like Thomas Reid, view Hume's arguments as constituting a reductio ad absurdum of his sort of empiricism. On this interpretation, Hume's philosophy essentially presents a dilemma for all future thinkers: abandon empiricism, or accept empiricism along with Humean skepticism.

But a different view of Hume, one of Hume as proposing a wholly naturalistic account of the human mind, has recently emerged as a competitor to the general conception of Hume's place within philosophy sketched in the previous paragraph. This interpretation downplays Hume's skepticism and emphasizes his professed intentions to provide a positive account of the operation of the human mind that appealed to nothing beyond the evidence of our senses. According to proponents of this interpretation, Hume is most interested in a description of the operation of the human mind. He's describing what human nature allows us to know and what it doesn't allow us to know. Furthermore, he argues that our nature is such that, where it fails to provide us with the resources to acquire the knowledge we might want, it provides us with a natural habit of forming the right conclusions anyway. Even though our nature limits our knowledge of the world, it ensures that we possess the habits of mind needed to make our way in the world. Hume dubs all these habits of mind "custom."

If this view is correct, then Hume has abjured many of the normative aims of traditional epistemological inquiry. He isn't attempting to show how we can answer a skeptic or why we have good reason to believe what we think we know. Instead, he wants us to stand back from our everyday beliefs and think about the natural processes that result in them. How, exactly, do our minds operate? How do we come to think what we do about the world? Hume thinks that this sort of inquiry will lead us see that, at some point, the explanation of why we think what we think reaches certain brute facts about the operation of the human mind. When we reach these points, there is nothing more to be said. We simply can't help thinking in these ways, and we lack the resources to demonstrate that these ways of thinking constitute an accurate way to represent the operation of the external world. And, Hume claims, it turns out that many of the fundamental elements of our conception of the world--the belief that things stand in causal relations to one another, the belief that we can know that there is a world outside our minds, the belief the future will resemble the past--end up not being open to ratification by experience. With respect to beliefs of these sorts, we ultimately have to appeal to custom in order to explain their existence and popularity. Hume, then, can be seen as demolishing the pretensions of reason in order to make room for a wholly naturalistic account of human thinking.

First I would like to commend the excellent review of this book by CT Dreyer in which he correctly shows how Hume extended the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley to the point where skepticism seemed our only honest way of thinking about our knowledge of the world. Hume's questioning of induction, of how we can be sure tomorrow will be like today , his questioning of how we can trust our senses to know the outside world, his questioning of how we can hold our world logically together when analysis reveals that there is no necessary connection between ' cause' and 'effect' in everyday life action means he wakened not only Kant from his dogmatic slumber but Philosophy itself from the sense that it will provide absolute understanding.
Hume is a very clear writer. I remember reading the famous billiard ball account of causality in which our common sense view of ' before' and ' after' is questioned and taken apart. I believe Hume says after this account, something to the effect and ' still when we leave the room we leave by the door and not by the window'. A friend of mine in this class when the class ended opened the window ( on the ground floor ) and went out that way.
This is difficult and great philosophy. I do not pretend to understand it or its implications fully. A test of the mind and a necessary read for anyone who would know Western Philosophy.

To be a philosophical Sceptic is, in a man of letters, the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian...

With this nearly-closing sentence, David Hume clearly lays out his principle of skepticism in a time when atheism was enough to get you ostracized if not physically expelled from society. These words come from the mouth of Seneca, one of the numerous fictional characters in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, a short work of philosophical fiction. The work follows the lengthy conversations of several philosophers and a student.

The work is simply required reading for any Christian -- or secularist -- who is willing to go beyond credal and even blind belief in any god, let alone the Triune God of the Bible. Hume positions three key personas -- Philo, Cleanthes, and Demea -- in a verbal sparring match, winds them up, and lets them go.

The principal discussion? Is there a God, is he active in the universe or Deistic, and can we know him. Philo most often represents Hume's position, reasoning first to deism, second to skepticism, and finally suggesting a brand of atheism that even in fiction, rings of Hume's later, bolder works.

So why read 100 pages of fictional philosophy if you know what you believe, Christian, theist, or deist? Because it's intellectually dishonest to not throw your beliefs into the fire of testing. Further, for most who believe against God, they can no more elucidate their arguments than they can define existentialism. But even more, for the Christian, why the cowardice to see your (our) God confronted? Why not a willingness to subject him to examination, much as Job did, and repent when we realize how much further and greater his depths are than when we first imagined.

In fact, from the tongues of the skeptical Hume come this brilliance:

To know God, says Seneca, is to worship him.

Simple, yes, but profound. There is a suggestion here, from Hume's lips, that Christians and theists have it wrong. In an attempt to relate ourselves to God and his character, we have stretched morality and squeezed it into religion and even Christianity. Rather, as even Hume suggests through Seneca, we must worship God, not behavioristic ideals.

This book will stretch and frustrate both Christian and atheist. In the process, though, is depth of understanding. A willingness to engage the opposite side only strengthens a belief, or reveals it to be a puny paper-thin thing. Why not engage, and see if, indeed, God is not willing to be worshiped, and in fact desirous of just that?

Apologetics Concerning the Nature of Religion

Apologetics or is it antiapologetics, I have read Hodges arguments about cause and effect, primary and secondary causes in his work on systematic theology which was written a hundred years after this work. RC Sproulamong others discuss similar issues today with a contrary conclusion. David Hume's dialogue about the existence of God and the attributes of God does form some of the frame work for further philosophic and theological discussion. Some seems quite aimless like his discussion whether God is wholly other. Some theologians may make this statement and argument, but this certainly is not fundamentalist or scriptural perspective of God. What I found most interesting in this work is his discussion of causality. Mr. Hume's focus was on Natural theology or the idea that God could be perceived or not perceived through nature. But also included was knowing God through rationalization. To this he compared three notions:

{1} That there is a self existent Being who always existed, never created, and is the ultimate Cause of the whole universe. Something that never was caused, but is the cause of all else.

{2}That there is no ultimate cause. History is an infinite amount of causes and effects that has no starts or ends. Matter in some form has always existed and matter has always been in motion. Universe or galaxy may have a point of beginning, but not what it is composed of.

{3}At a point in time there was no matter, then at another point of time there was matter. The matter move in motion to develop things as we know it.

David Hume does not discuss the concept that simply nothing really exists. I would guess in an earlier work he had dismissed it in some form. It is my conclusion Mr. Hume found point one as absurd as point 2 or 3.

The other major focus of discussion in this work how an all knowing creator, who has all power, and has the capacity to perceive every thing that is going on can create a world that has the highest being of creation suffer pain and evil among each other. The argument is made in this work that the universe does not function in a rational manner, therefore such all knowing, all powerful and all powerful God does not seem to exist. Some reviewers consider it a complete debunk of intelligent design and it certainly a source of comfort for those who do desire.

"When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities"-David Hume

As an empiricist, who believes only in knowledge based on experience, Hume explores whether it is possible to arrive at any rational, definitive conclusions about God's nature. By using dialogues against beliefs in God that are based on arguments by design; Hume concludes that religious belief can in no way be based on reason.
In "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"; three main characters are used to explore God's nature; each character represents a philosophical position:

1. Cleanthes, representing empirical theism; argues that we can prove God's nature/existence from clues in nature. Through the use of argument from design that works by way of analogy; we examine the complex/ordered/intelligent universe we live in and conclude that it has a complex/intelligent creator
2. Demea, representing Fideism through religious orthodoxy; simply rejects the possibility of even comprehending God's nature through human reason.
Demea sees philosophical skepticism as the first crucial step toward Christianity, by undermining one's trust in reason and opening one up to pure faith.
3. Philo, representing philosophical skepticism; agrees with Demea that God is incomprehensible. Philo rejects the argument from design that appears to resemble argument by analogy; both arguments are at fault since there is nothing to be compared to the universe in such arguments, thus they are both at fault.
Just because the world is ordered, it is not necessarily a result of intelligence. Also nature itself doesn't give any evidence that God is infinite, perfect or even present. Therefore, even if the argument from design is accepted, it does not provide any definite information about God's nature.

When the theory of evil is presented by Philo, who questions God's moral attributes, given all the evil in the world and settles for the idea that God is morally neutral, the dialogues get very interesting. It even gets more intriguing when Philo, as do many philosophers, attacks organized religions as morally and psychologically harmful, and argues that the only true religion that should be accepted is a philosophical belief in some higher power.

Hume reaches the conclusion that there can be no rational basis for any religious belief. Neither reason nor experience can justify a belief in God's nature. Knowing that Hume is strictly an atheist, I felt he wanted to attack all three points of view. Still, it is very hard to decide Hume's true opinion through the dialogues.
Whether the reader will agree with some or none of the philosophical ideas in this work, I think that the true genius remains in the uncertainty that Hume leads the reader into by questioning each and every idea.

David Hume made a reputation by writing on reason and its limits. The main thrust of the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is to question whether theological arguments for God that assign Him positive attributes (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.) go beyond reason's limits in assigning these attributes. We watch Cleanthes (believer in theological arguments), Demea (believer more on faith) and Philo (disbeliever in theology's efficacy) hash out whether reason and experience alone give us reason to say anything whatever about God.

Hume explores all of the major arguments for God's existence. First, the a posteriori argument is explored; the argument that just as seeing a house gives us reason to assume an architect and builder, seeing the world should give us reason to infer a designer. Hume (through the skeptical voice of Philo) sees much wrong with this argument. Why? Because the reason we infer a builder for a house is because experience has shown us that houses have builders, thus when we see a house, we assume that, like other houses we've seen, this one too has a builder. But experience does not tell us that where there is a world, there is a designer. The leap is extra-experiential. Further, even if we DID infer a designer, why infer just one? Houses have construction crews of multiple people; if we analogize between the house and the world, then why not infer that the world, too, might have infinite creators? (And why infer that the world's creator is omnipotent, if all that is needed to create something is to be more powerful than the thing created - no more, no less?)

Next, we go through the a priori argument - the argument from first cause. Hume (Philo) is quick to point out the obvious flaw with this. If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If God is said to be eternally existing, then why couldn't the natural world - rather than God - be thought eternal instead? And further, why is a infinite chain of causes and effects so unimaginable, anyhow? (Isn't it just as sensical as an eternal God itself not caused?)

Lastly, Philo brings up the argument from evil. In a nutshell, Philo suggests that while theology sees all the perfections of the world, proclaiming them clear evidence of remarkable design, theologians dismiss or downplay the imperfections. If God is said to all-good Himself, then why did he create humans with such flaws? (one assumes that an all-powerful, all-good God could have avoided those errors).

Still, the main thrust of this book is that Philo, far from challenging whether God exists, challenges theologies capacity to assign ANY characteristics to God by reason and experience alone. Hume does a good job not only in outlaying arguments as to why reason is not capable of knowing a thing about God, but also in making believable dialogues (compared to Plato, whose characters are all made to be one-dimensional foils for "Socrates.") As in so many other areas, Hume was a pioneer in the realm of the philosophy of God. This book furnishes strong proof of that!

David Hume, a philosopher of the period often classified as British Empiricism, is the intellectual associate of philosophers John Locke and George Berkeley. Born in Edinburgh in 1711, he attended the University of Edinburgh but did not graduate. He went to France during his 20s, and spent time there working on what would become his most famous work, 'An Enquiry into Human Understanding', first published under the title 'Treatise of Human Nature'. However, Hume was a prolific writer, and dealt with many areas of philosophy, including politics and ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. He wrote in the area of history as well, and had a politic career as British ambassador to France and a post as a minister in the government for a few years. His final work, 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion', was published posthumously in 1779, although work had begun on it as early as the 1750s.

Hume was very concerned about rationality. Hume was never publicly and explicitly an atheist, but his rational mind, concerned about sensory and intelligible evidence, led him to question and doubt most major systems of religion, including the more general philosophical sense of religion and proofs of the existence of God. The primary arguments in his 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' deal with the Argument from Design, and the Cosmological Argument. There is an assumed distinction here between natural religion and revealed religion, an especially important distinction in the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophical structure.

- Natural Religion and Revealed Religion -
Natural religion is the idea that we come to know and understand God (and, consequently, what God wants or expects of us, if anything) simply from nature and our sensory perceptions, as well as our interpretations (emotion and rational) of this kind of understanding. From very early in his writing career, Hume attacked the idea of natural religion and most of its conclusions, drawing a sharp line between what we can actually know and what ends up being fanciful extrapolations based on other-than-rational ideas and evidence. Revealed religion is primary what most religions base themselves upon - the burning bush to Moses, the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances to the Apostles, the Buddha's enlightenment under the tree - these are examples of revelation. While Hume does take on the idea of revealed religion in his other works, this particular text does not concern itself with that topic, and stays in the domain of addressing natural religion.

- The Argument from Design -
Arguments from Design have always had a strong appeal to believers within religious frameworks; they have often been used as tools of evangelism, as attempts to show that beyond the revealed doctrines, the very nature of things points to a creator. In very short order, the Argument from Design in Hume's newly-industrial time might have read like this:

- Machines are designed by beings with intelligence.
- The world and the universe it is in resembles a machine.
- Therefore, the world must have been created by means of intelligent design.

This is an argument by analogy, and is convincing to some, but often more convincing to those already inclined to believe in the existence of God.

- The Cosmological Argument -
The Cosmological Argument is at once both more subtle and more simple. The most simple way of stating it would be that God is the 'first cause' of everything. If everything has to have a cause (even the whole universe), then that first cause must be God. In the twentieth century era of thinking of a universe that began with a Big Bang, it seemed to some that the Cosmological Argument was confirmed.

Hume would have been familiar with Leibniz's more subtle form of the Cosmological Argument, which argues for a world of infinite contingent causes. However, there has to be something outside of this system of infinite causes that produced the series - thus, even in a universe with no set beginning or ending, there would still need to be an overarching cause.

- Hume's Arguments -
Hume argues on many levels. His first criticism of the Argument from Design is that this analogy (as are most arguments from analogy) is faulty and not exact; we have no idea if the universe is like a machine. Even if it was, machines are often designed and built by several designers - why argue for one God rather than several? How do we know that matter and the universe don't have their own, internal self-organising principles?

With regard to the Cosmological Argument, the argument is a little more strained. Hume argues that, in any series of causality, once one knows about each cause, it makes no sense to inquire beyond the sequence of causes to some other effect. This is a very Empirical argument, to be sure, and while perhaps not entirely satisfying, it still has merit in philosophy to this day.

- Hume's Structure -
This is a dialogue, set up in the classical way of people talking with each other about the subjects. Hume draws primarily from Cicero, whose work 'On the Nature of the Gods' uses characters of the same names. However, whereas Cicero was concerned about the nature of the Gods (their attributes, powers, etc.) and not their existence, it is the very existence of God that occupies Hume's thoughts.

Hume, despite many years of work on this text, probably never quite thought it was finished. He left the work to Adam Smith (the noted economist, and friend of Hume in Edinburgh), who also thought the arguments against the existence of God were too strong, and likely too damaging to Hume's overall reputation. The tug-of-war over the publication makes for interesting reading in and of itself.

These are important arguments, worthy of discussion and dialogue in philosophy classes, theology classes, and among others who ponder the existence of God.

This is a great book. Required for my class. You can probably find this book a few bucks cheaper. I rather pay the extra dough and save on time and hassle wasted like waiting in line during the beginning days of school or waiting for the auction to end or hoping the seller ships your book to get it before the beginning weeks of class. Just save time and sanity and purchase from amazon.

This is a great resource for any theological library. Whether you agree or disagree with what Hume writes, this book is `a must' as you wrestle with faith and epistemic certainty. It is used in many theology and philosophy classes and will aid any reader to become more familiar with a different perspective on the origin of religion, the Enlightenment struggle with reason and faith and the broader conversation of contemporary epistemology.

David Hume, a philosopher of the period often classified as British Empiricism, is the intellectual associate of philosophers John Locke and George Berkeley. Born in Edinburgh in 1711, he attended the University of Edinburgh but did not graduate. He went to France during his 20s, and spent time there working on what would become his most famous work, 'An Enquiry into Human Understanding', first published under the title 'Treatise of Human Nature'. However, Hume was a prolific writer, and dealt with many areas of philosophy, including politics and ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. He wrote in the area of history as well, and had a politic career as British ambassador to France and a post as a minister in the government for a few years. His final work, 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion', was published posthumously in 1779, although work had begun on it as early as the 1750s.

Hume was very concerned about rationality. Hume was never publicly and explicitly an atheist, but his rational mind, concerned about sensory and intelligible evidence, led him to question and doubt most major systems of religion, including the more general philosophical sense of religion and proofs of the existence of God. The primary arguments in his 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' deal with the Argument from Design, and the Cosmological Argument. There is an assumed distinction here between natural religion and revealed religion, an especially important distinction in the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophical structure.


- Natural Religion and Revealed Religion -

Natural religion is the idea that we come to know and understand God (and, consequently, what God wants or expects of us, if anything) simply from nature and our sensory perceptions, as well as our interpretations (emotion and rational) of this kind of understanding. From very early in his writing career, Hume attacked the idea of natural religion and most of its conclusions, drawing a sharp line between what we can actually know and what ends up being fanciful extrapolations based on other-than-rational ideas and evidence. Revealed religion is primary what most religions base themselves upon - the burning bush to Moses, the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances to the Apostles, the Buddha's enlightenment under the tree - these are examples of revelation. While Hume does take on the idea of revealed religion in his other works, this particular text does not concern itself with that topic, and stays in the domain of addressing natural religion.


- The Argument from Design -

Arguments from Design have always had a strong appeal to believers within religious frameworks; they have often been used as tools of evangelism, as attempts to show that beyond the revealed doctrines, the very nature of things points to a creator. In very short order, the Argument from Design in Hume's newly-industrial time might have read like this:

- Machines are designed by beings with intelligence.
- The world and the universe it is in resembles a machine.
- Therefore, the world must have been created by means of intelligent design.

This is an argument by analogy, and is convincing to some, but often more convincing to those already inclined to believe in the existence of God.


- The Cosmological Argument -

The Cosmological Argument is at once both more subtle and more simple. The most simple way of stating it would be that God is the 'first cause' of everything. If everything has to have a cause (even the whole universe), then that first cause must be God. In the twentieth century era of thinking of a universe that began with a Big Bang, it seemed to some that the Cosmological Argument was confirmed.

Hume would have been familiar with Leibniz's more subtle form of the Cosmological Argument, which argues for a world of infinite contingent causes. However, there has to be something outside of this system of infinite causes that produced the series - thus, even in a universe with no set beginning or ending, there would still need to be an overarching cause.


- Hume's Arguments -

Hume argues on many levels. His first criticism of the Argument from Design is that this analogy (as are most arguments from analogy) is faulty and not exact; we have no idea if the universe is like a machine. Even if it was, machines are often designed and built by several designers - why argue for one God rather than several? How do we know that matter and the universe don't have their own, internal self-organising principles?

With regard to the Cosmological Argument, the argument is a little more strained. Hume argues that, in any series of causality, once one knows about each cause, it makes no sense to inquire beyond the sequence of causes to some other effect. This is a very Empirical argument, to be sure, and while perhaps not entirely satisfying, it still has merit in philosophy to this day.


- Hume's Structure -

This is a dialogue, set up in the classical way of people talking with each other about the subjects. Hume draws primarily from Cicero, whose work 'On the Nature of the Gods' uses characters of the same names. However, whereas Cicero was concerned about the nature of the Gods (their attributes, powers, etc.) and not their existence, it is the very existence of God that occupies Hume's thoughts.

Hume, despite many years of work on this text, probably never quite thought it was finished. He left the work to Adam Smith (the noted economist, and friend of Hume in Edinburgh), who also thought the arguments against the existence of God were too strong, and likely too damaging to Hume's overall reputation. The tug-of-war over the publication makes for interesting reading in and of itself.

These are important arguments, worthy of discussion and dialogue in philosophy classes, theology classes, and among others who ponder the existence of God.

How lucky am I to have this namesake.

This work is dynamite.

Hume walks right in and starts slaying every Sacred Cow in the place.

Not one God is left standing when he's finished. This is like watching Darwin taking the secateurs to church. Richard Dawkins doesn't even come close to Hume's intellectual power or economy of thought. They are in completely different leagues.

The introduction to this particular compilation paints a wonderful portrait of a man who deserves far more attention than he has received.

Erudite, clever, intellectually unassailable.

Apologists are left with nothing.

This work should be required reading for every school age child in the world.

It's fine to believe, but know what you're believing first.

Hume will take you there.

This is a wonderful collection of Hume's most famous and influential writings on religion. Few books I've encountered include this much first-rate philosophy for the price, and so I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Hume's thinking about religion. It includes the section on miracles from Hume's Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals and the full versions of both The Natural History of Religion and the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. (Hume's short autobiography, "My Own Life," is also included.) Furthermore, Gaskin has provided some helpful editorial material: there's a useful introductory essay discussing the selections, and he includes explanatory notes that clarify some of Hume's more obscure references.

The central theme of Hume's religious thought is the central theme of his philosophical thought as a whole--namely the extent of our ignorance and the impotence of human reason to discover the things we really want to discover. And, for this reason, his writing on religion provides a good illustration of his general philosophical method: he begins by pointing out the impotence of reason, and then he offers a naturalistic psychological explanation of why we continue to think as we do. Our tendency to believe various religious thesis, he argues, cannot be explained as a justifiable way of thinking about the world that we arrive at through the use of reason. It is, instead, explained by certain general principles governing the operation of human minds. And two major works in this volume illustrate the two components of Hume's philosophical method. In the Dialogues he argues that neither empirical research nor the a priori exercise of reason is likely to reveal that our religious beliefs are justified. In The Natural History he begins the project of explaining why we do in fact believe what we do about religion.

As I said above, the Dialogues pertain to the first part of the method. Most of the Dialogues is devoted to discussion of a posteriori arguments for the existence of God, though there is also a short section on various a priori arguments. The main argument considered here is the classical argument from design, which Hume seems to understand as an analogical argument of the following sort: the complexity and order of the universe show that it is similar to artifacts created by human intelligences; similar causes have similar effects; therefore, the universe must have been created by a being with something like a human intelligence; therefore, the universe must have been created by God.

Hume's objections to this argument are legion, and many of the individual objections are both ingenious and forceful. He provides reasons for thinking that the universe isn't all that similar to artifacts created by human beings. Hume also provides for thinking that, even if we think the universe is similar to a human artifact, we ought to think the universe was created by a being quite unlike God. In addition, he suggests certain speculative naturalistic explanations of the existence and nature of the universe; and he claims that it's unclear why an appeal to divine creation is to be preferred to these speculative naturalistic stories of the universe's creation. Hume's cumulative case against the argument from design is quite impressive. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that Hume has shown that the argument from design is more or less worthless as support for anything resembling traditional theism.

But where, in the end, does Hume come down on the issue of theism? It seems clear that he has no sympathy for organized religion, or for any religious views that purport to describe the nature of God, His intentions, or how and why He created the universe as He did. For any such religious view is going to overstep the bounds within which he thinks human reason can operate. And the only positive religious claim that is given respectful treatment here is the bare claim that we have reason to think that the cause of the universe as a whole is somewhat similar to a human intelligence. But does acceptance of this minimal thesis amount to his being a theist? It's very hard to tell. The problem is that it often seems Hume's explicit advocation of this position amounts to little more than a description of what he thinks is an inevitable human tendency to think this way.

And this is where the second part of his project, the part carried out in The Natural History of Religion, becomes relevant. For The Natural History is the work in which Hume sets out to trace the sources of religious belief to certain natural principles of the human mind. There he argues that the the operation of our minds, along with the conditions in which we find ourselves, leads us to arrive at the sorts of religious beliefs we find to be popular in past and present human societies. Our ignorance about the way the world operates and our apprehensiveness about the ways these unknowns can affect our lives naturally lead human beings to a form of polytheism. We tend to attribute the underlying principles by which the world operates to a large number human-like beings, and this is what polytheistic religion amounts to. But once polytheism is in place our tendency to attribute greater powers and more perfect natures to individual gods leads us to something closer to monotheistic views according to which there is a single wholly perfect being behind all the underlying principles governing the world and behind the existence of the world itself.

It should be clear, then, why it's difficult to pin down just what Hume though about religion. He does think that it's hard for beings like us to deny the general thesis that the universe as a whole was probably created by a human-like intelligence. For given how our minds actually work, he seems to think, we're bound to think something like this about the origin of the universe. Yet it's somewhat unclear that he thinks forming beliefs in this way is reliable. It may simply be that we have a brute instinct to think in a way that insures we'll see the world as resulting from some human-like intelligence, and it's at least not clear that that isn't a debunking account of the plausibility of theism.

I think that ctdreyer's excellent review of Hume's Dialogues nicely encapsulates the purpose and issues in the book, and I agree wholeheartedly with his estimation of it. I'd like to raise two additional points here.

The first is that it's extraordinary that the latest generation of freethinkers--so-called "New Atheists" such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens--virtually ignore Dialogues. Each of them pays lip service to Hume as one of their own, but none of them gives any suggestion that they've actually read him. Daniel Dennett, another New Atheism prophet, discusses Hume in his Darwin's Dangerous Idea, but barely mentions him in his later explicit atheist text, Breaking the Spell. This is curious.

My second point is that the failure to discuss Hume may be curious, but isn't inexplicable. While I agree with ctdreyer's appraisal that Hume did a job on the argument from design, it's not at all clear from the Dialogues that Hume thinks the argument totally meritless. Even if it can't be philosophically demonstrated with a high degree of precision, Hume through Philo seems to say that it makes good sense to assume that a universe displaying some degree of intelligent design has a like cause. Hume isn't persuaded that the cause is personal or morally concerned. But he does seem to think that it is rational. This would make Hume a deist of sorts rather than a freethinker.

All of which raises the fascinating question of the relationship between the justifiability and the justification of God-belief. If Hume is correct, the former may not be necessary for the latter. Not exactly the fideistic position of the Dialogues' Demea, but not completely unrelated, either.

By the way: Richard Popkin's introduction to this edition of the Dialogues is excellent. It, along with the inexpensive cost, makes the Hackett edition my favorite.

I bought this book for a class, and although we were only required to read sections of the book I ended up reading the entire thing, including the extra two essays (Immortality of the Soul & Suicide). The entire thing was extremely well-written and thought-provoking, even to a novice philosopher such as myself.

This isn't a book you can fly through. Hume requires the reader to slow down and really think about what is being said. The main section of the book (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion) involves four characters, three discussing theories, and one student (technically the narrator) listening and occasionally commenting. By using this dialogue technique, Hume is able to present several sides of each argument in a unique way, and not simply expound his own theories. The method is most effective.

I won't go into depth of what this book discusses, the theory of design, arguments about God's nature and being, the argument from the existence of evil, and whether a posteriori or a priori arguments are best suited for proving God's existence. Overall this book is interesting and exciting, even for a 200 year old publication. Even if you're interested in modern philosophy, this book still offers some interesting theories. And obviously if you're interested in philosophy at all, it's a good book to check out for some history on the subject.

The introduction offers a good deal of information about the essays included in the book as well as Hume himself.

While being a theist I do not accept Hume's conclusions, he is no doubt the finest philosophical skeptic in the West since the time of Sextus Empiricus.

Hume, the philosopher who woke Kant from his 'dogmatic slumbers', takes a very empirical approach to reality and philosophy. In Hume's mind, the pretensions of the human mind to certain truth and knowledge do not accord with the way things are. Many things are believed on insufficient evidence or sloppy thinking or for reasons of emotional need rather than on evidence and reason. The task he set himself was in many ways like that of Descartes, except unlike Descartes Hume did not believe that either the methods of science or God (Hume was an atheist) could give us grounds for certain knowledge.

The dialogues on Natural Religion are one of his supreme masterpieces. Published after his death, this dialogue features a conversation between two philosophers about the nature and existence of God and the proofs for his existence. One philosopher is a skeptic, Philo, and the other is a theist, Carneades. Demea the Deist provides a third interlocutor in the dialogue. Carneades states several popular arguments for God's existence in Hume's time, including the teleological argument, moral argument, and argument from design. Philo responds to this arguments, mostly using the argument from evil as well as appeals to the rule of regular law in nature, to refute ideas about miracles, providence, and evidential design from a supreme 'architect.' Hume states the counter-arguments in extremely powerful terms, essentially completely demolishing the position of Carnedes and concluding that at best, only a very weak inference can be made for God's existence from the structure of the world.

Hume's arguments have been recently re-stated by several atheist philosophers, including J.L. Mackie and Daniel Dennett. For Mackie, Hume was right in arguing theism is philosophical nonsense, and for Dennett, God is a redundant hypothesis when the order and beauty of the universe is readily and clearly explained by science, and at best a kind of Spinoza-style pantheism is where the sacred can enter into the cosmos. While I disagree, the adoption of Hume's arguments by many leading philosophers shows both the power, beauty and logical coherence of Hume's position, which should be read carefully by any philosopher who wants to offer a rational proof that God exists.

For me it is not the order but the beauty of the universe which suggests God exists, but perhaps for others this beauty is marred too much by suffering and evil to come to such a conclusion, and Hume would surely agree.

This nearly pamphlet sized book is pretty dense with things to ponder. Hume speaks mostly about how a deity would function as the head of the world. The reviewer is not intent on being cute here. Hume addresses many notions about "God" through a series of dialogues amongst three intellectuals. They are intent on convincing each other of their individual views. Essentially those three have to come to terms with the anthropomorphism associated with the God of Christian belief system. It really is more complicated than that but this is a short review.

In addition to the Dialogues are a short essays on the Immortality of the Soul and the rationality of Suicide. Finally there is a discussion of Miracles. The latter three are well placed with the Dialogues as they address the philosophy of religion in much the same manner but come from Hume rather than the fictional characters of the Dialogue.

This book as short as it is, requires a considerable amount of time to consume. Not only are the concepts that Hume presents detailed and valuable, but the language is particularly arcane and often requires re-reading in order to understand where Hume is going.

The two excellent reviews of this book , one by Kurt Messick and the other by CT Dreyer outline the background to, and the principal content of the work. Hume takes apart the argument from Design as proof of God's Existence, raising objections to the analogy between Machine- design and world- design. I do not believe however that Hume in the work really considers two other major arguments for belief in God. One argument might be called the existensial - personal decision argument , in which the individual out of his own need and will decides for belief in God. This decision can be a rational calculation as Pascal suggests that we should make in order to give our own immortality a chance, or it can be a profound deeply moving conviction something that grows out of our own deepest being and need. Another path to belief in God is through the kinds of mystical experience that thousands of human beings from all cultures have had. William James collects some of these testimonies in 'The Variety of Religious Experience'. Another path is through the path of accepting the Tradition given us by our ancestors.
Now it might be said that these alternative paths to belief in God do not deal with the kind of ' proofs ' Hume is talking about. Hume is really talking about the ' rational way' to God through mind and reason. But I believe that every reader should have these other ways to God in mind , if only not to be devastingly shattered by Hume 's demolition job of the Design Argument.
It is well to remember that there are other ways to God aside from the ones spoken of and questioned here.
I write this as a believer in God who also believes that a very great share of Mankind needs God, needs the belief in God to make their own lives ultimately meaningful. And this when I would also keep in mind the following idea. If the Proof of God were certain and absolute , then there would be no test/ trial / challenge for humanity in its belief in God.
And here I add the idea central in the Jewish tradition, and probably important in others, that God wants our decision for God, our free choice of God, and not a slavish obedience even to an airtight logical principle.

Kelley's Textbook of Internal Medicine, now in its 4th edition continues to uphold the highest standards of excellence and is an acclaimed classic world-wide. It is unique among other medical books in that as a stand-alone one-volume reference guide, no other provides such an encyclopaedic breadth of coverage and utility in clinical practice. The founding editor, William N. Kelley has succeeded admirably in compiling a superior and formidable state-of-the-art medical reference which contains several written contributions from leading medical specialists and is a powerful teaching tool for both medical undergraduates and qualified practitioners. The text is compartmentalised into 11 major sections, each corresponding to the main branches of medicine. These include an opening part on Principles of Medical Practice which is followed by sections on Cardiology, Gastroenterology, Nephrology, Oncology and Haematology, Rheumatological, Allergic, and Dermatological Diseases, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Endocrinology and Metabolism and Genetics, Neurology and finally Geriatrics. Each section is then further subdivided into chapters which discuss the procedural aspects of how to approach a patient with a common presenting complaint from tests to final diagnosis, a focus on the main disorders of each particular system, as well as an in-depth analysis of the diagnostic and therapeutic modalities pertaining to specific disease entities. In light of the growing importance of evidence-based medicine, a major new addition to the 4th edition is a series of "clinical decision guides". These are based on various gradations of scientific evidence which propel evidence-based medicine into the front-line of decision-making when considering the formulation of guidelines relating to differential diagnosis and management protocols for major problems. Also worthy of special mention is the inclusion of an extremely useful Rapid Access Guide which is alphabetically indexed by organ system and located at the beginning of the text. This allows fast and easy retrieval of the most important facts regarding common specific diseases or syndromes. In summary, at over 3000 pages long, Kelley's Textbook of Internal Medicine is a truly inspirational achievement and must surely rank amongst the most thoroughly comprehensive and authoritative medical textbooks currently available. Certainly, I can think of no book which encompasses such scope and captures the changing face of medicine today.

An excellent reference text for the practicing primary care physicians. Concise, gives necessary info without a lot of minuta.Great bargain for the price. I trained using Cecil's and I feel this is as good for less money.

I have been using this book for many years. No new edition will ever come out. Dr. Humes, the chief editor, of this textbook in the reply to my email by one of his coworkers, he stated that " Dr. David Humes asked that I respond for him to your email of 5/8. He regrets to report that Kelley Textbook publisher, Lippincott Williams & WIlkins, is no longer publishing General Medicine textbooks and that he is unaware of any plans to publish a new edition of the Textbook. Dr. Humes appreciates, however, your kind and favorable comments regarding the Textbook.."

So no more new edition of Kelley's textbook of internal medicine in the market. What a great disppointment!!!!

I whole-heartedly agree with other reviewers. This book is a treasure in the midst of competing texts that simply do not offer the quality of Kelley's textbook.

This book does what others simply fail to do. Provide comprehensive, *practical*, and evidence-based medical management guidelines. Whereas most standard texts may provide such information about disease entities, Kelley's also recognises that patients most often present with diagnostic problems (such as hematuria or tremors) and thus devotes much attention to these. Each of these presentations is examined in terms of differentials (not just a list - you are given perspective and told what to look for in different subpopulations that present with the same complaint), then workup, treatment options, and followup considerations are explored. Facts aren't simply printed for the purpose of memorization (as is often the case in other texts); they are contextualized and presented in a manner that is useful to your goal of providing thorough and effective management options to your patients. I would also recommend this texts to medical students, as it is far easier to absorb information that is clinically and practically relevant rather than memorize those lists and flow diagrams (which at first glance may look concise and easy to study, but in the long term are actually difficult to remember).

Dr A.M.

Although relatively new in the game, (when compared to veterans like the Cecil's and the Harrison's), Kelley's Textbook of Internal Medicine is in a class of its own. This 3,200 pages of sound medical gospel is an all-round platinum winner.
It is a pacesetter in outlook: covering all branches of medicine in a veridicous way that is worthy of emulation.
If the current pace established by the 4th edition is sustained in the future, Kelley's will completely douse competition from both the Cecil's and the Harrison's texts.
It is hard to find flaws in this book; and I believe that many people would like to see what its CD-ROM version will look like.

I enjoyed reading this book because it helped me understand how regular people like me can make a difference in the world. Even small acts of giving will accumulate and improve the way things are. There are so many suggestions in the book that if everyone took just one, we'd see the difference. Sometimes I think you have to be a saint or a celebrity to influence people, but here's proof that anyone can make a positive contribution.

Living in an age with 24/7 coverage of disasters, wars and generally depressing news could easily be a recipe for national learned helplessness. I'm reading "Be the Change" and am reminded page after page, one uplifting story after another, that I'm surrounded everyday by amazing people who are keeping hope within easy reach whenever it's needed. From the household wisdom of countless community volunteers to the heart felt perspectives of iconic national leaders, it's a book that offers new ideas and fresh inspiration for getting going on them. I also love Editor Nunn's lists of books and quotes that inspire. I look forward to giving this book to my organization's management group as well as to my family for the holidays. It's an innoculation against cynicism and despair and an inspiring call to action.

Paul Terry, Minnesota

Reviewer: A. Whipple, Oregon

The book's title tells it all. Well, most of it: Remember the 15 minutes of fame accorded to transcendental meditation, a solution to the world's problems which, according to a Scientific American article, was simple, took just 20 minutes a day and a one-time investment of around $250? "Be The Change!" would serve as a fine title for any of the dozens of TM-offshoot titles; the technique - as well as the design and packaging - have all been updated, and arguably for the better.
The new mantra? Community volunteerism. "Before my husband passed away...I missed the feeling that someone needed me," begins an eight-line testimonial in a chapter called "Sparks that ignite the spirit." You could finish the paragraph yourself: "One night I saw a news piece about...bagging groceries for AIDS patients...and a light went on. I've been volunteering there ever since."
Skeptical? Just close your eyes, sit comfortably, and let the title fill your head.

This book is an absolute must-read for anyone who has an interest in community service, or needs an inspirational push to get into the giving spirit during this holiday season. People from all walks of life share their stories and personal perspective on what it means to them to volunteer, and how their good deeds have made a positive difference - in their own lives as well as in the world around them. And, you don't have to read it from cover to cover in one sitting...pick it up each day for a daily dose of inspiration! A great gift to share with friends and loved ones.

I was given Be the Change! as a gift and put it next to my bed. I picked it up one night and couldn't put it down.

It is a great collection of inspiring stories, tales and practical tips about how focusing on the well being of others can change your life for the better. It immediately struck a powerful cord with me.

When I put the book down I felt like I had a game plan for my own service; and inspiration to know that I too could be the change. Bravo to the team that put this book together!

This book showcases some of David Hume Kennerly's best photography of President Ford and others around him at that time. Kennerly is not only a very gifted photographer, but according to "A Time To Heal" by President Ford, Kennerly was like a son to the President, and some senior-level staff members were unhappy that the opinion of this photographer could influence Ford's decision-making.

But that was true. It is clear that Ford and Kennerly did have a very close relationship, and Kennerly was there with his cameras every step of the way, making history through recording history. It is obvious when considering the wide range of photos here that nobody had more access to Ford than Kennerly.

The layout for this book is like a Life magazine - Kennerly lets the large photos speak for themselves, and only adds relevant background commentary where he feels it is needed.

I would recommend this book to a wide range of people - historians, Presidential buffs, photographers, or even as a gift for someone who was around during Watergate. I gave one to my dad for Christmas, and he was raving about the book to the whole family. He especially liked the candid photo of Nixon (before he resigned).

There is no other book like this on the market, and there never will be any others of this quality, because only Kennerly had the opportunity and has the talent to take pictures like these, and could produce such a high-quality work of art. Thank you for sharing these photos with us, Mr. Kennerly.

I was so excited to finally be able to locate this book. Bookstores did not carry it. Thank you, Amazon, for having it in stock for me to order. The Amazon price was a good savings over the retail costs. The book is much larger in size than I expected but being so, you can better enjoy the details of each photo. This is a special addition to my presidential book collection.

If you have ever wondered what really goes on at the White House, this is the book to buy. David Kennerly had more access to the inner workings of the White House than any other photographer, before or since. These photos certainly prove it. For any student of history, or photography, this is one book to have on your shelf. As a working photojournalist for 35 years, I have had the pleasure of working beside Kennerly and can say that besides being a great photographer, he is one of the gentlemen of the business, an old-school hero to many an up and coming photographer. Don't miss out on this book.

David Hume-Kennerly is one of the most gifted photojournalists of our generation. He was chosen by Gerald Ford to be the "eyes of the nation on the presidency" after the insanity of paranoia that was Nixon's Whitehouse. This resulted in David becoming a "member" of the Ford family and thus having total access to the reality of The Pardon, The End of The War, and everything else that happened in those short Ford years. (As a fellow Shooter, his was the only job that I was INSANELY jealous of because he was the permanent `fly on the wall'!)

This book shares with us those times and shows us how lucky this country was to have had this strong and honest man at the top when we needed those qualities the most.

I truly hope that DHK is awarded another Pulitzer for this work.

Marshall Darling on The Cape

Aside from the stunning photography which I'll get to, this important book gave me new insights into a mostly overlooked Presidency. Kennerly documented the Ford Presidency and shows us the actual moments that some of the most significant decisions in American history were made- the Nixon pardon and leaving Vietnam to name two- thus revealing Ford as a true leader and rare politician willing to act on his beliefs regardless of consequences. (I say this as a lifelong Democrat!) As you go through the book, the range of images and perfect moments add up to a master class of great photojournalism, timeless, classic and relevant. The access he gained to intimate family moments, such as Betty Ford recovering from breast surgery, is astounding and says much about Kennerly's sensitivity and the trust he gained. It feels very emotional, intimate and world's away from our current super-posed, photo-op political culture. What is truly amazing is how easy he makes the photography look. Almost every image here is archetypal, profoundly primal, and about the subjects, not the photographer. The beauty of his work is the Zen of it; the essence of the story and person is revealed in the most graceful way. "Extraordinary Circumstances" fills an important gap in American history from a rare talent given a ringside seat, an incredible achievement.

My 18 year old suddenly became the philosopher and wanted to explore new thoughts. This is a good, thought provoking collection that he thoroughly enjoyed.

This comparatively short book consists of extremely well-selected essays by the great Scottish philosopher and historian, on everything from public credit to delicacy of taste. Also included are the different classes of philosphers, including the class Hume falls under, The Sceptic (Hume's sp.). There is also an exceedingly interesting essay on the populousness of the world in ancient times. Apparently, the accepted notion at Hume's time was that there were hordes of people in ancient times and that our race has been dwindling ever since. Hume, on the other hand, proposes the radical notion that just the opposite is the case, and sets out to prove it quite handily.-Overall, the best introduction to one of my favorite writers that I've yet to read.

First, I am assuming the essays in the Oxford edition are sufficiently similar to the LibertyClassics edition (the latter a far more elegant paperback and includes "Essays Written and Withdrawn"). Second, these essays (including one on how to write one in the L/C edition) are more in the tradition of Montaigne, Marcus Arelius, and Emerson, to cite some exemplars of the tradition, meaning that these essays are not as logically rigorous as his "Treatise on Human Nature," "Essays Concerning Human Understanding," "Principles of Morals," and "Natural Religion," but are more an astute and empirical observation of what causes pleasure and satisfaction versus what causes discomfort and uneasiness. This emprical motif permeates all the essays.

The "moral" essays are a continuation of Vol. III of his "Treatise on Human Nature," and "Principles of Morals," and contribute to how our "tastes" and "utility," rather than apriori logic, delimit and describe moral ideas and ideals. His "political" essays are the most prominent among the group and are often prescient of subsequent developments, clearly anticipating a more democratic society, but they often come across as antediluvian, despite Hume's analytical dexterity and his compassionate motivation. The "literary" essays are the least in number and the most impotent of his contributions. Not that they lack value or interest, they simply lack novelty or new understanding. All his essays have an empirical bent, which should not surprise anyone familiar with Hume's other works.

Many of these 48 essays have perennial value, while others are clearly cotemporaneous with his time and place (mid-18th century England). In either case, they contribute to our understanding of the period, while making perspicacious observations about subjects that are both endearing and enduring. The LibertyClassics' edition uses current locution and spellings in Caslon 540 typeface on durable, acid-free paper, making Hume's lucid and elegant prose an even more attractive presentation. Highly recommended.

Written in the highly polished Augustan prose style of the period, this is a fine selection of essays from the pen of the great Scottish philosopher, historian and economist, David Hume. The essays range from aesthetics, commerce, history and ethics, which include such pieces as "The Epicurean", "The Stoic" and "The Sceptic" (Hume's own credo) all which are rather curiously positioned and excellently written guides to living. "Of the Immortality of the Soul" and "Of Suicide", two of Hume's most controversial essays touching on theological topics, are also included in this volume. Both succeeded, with their bold, original arguments, in outraging the British clergy, which helps us to understand why Hume decided to have them published posthumously.

Hume is known today primarily for his seminal philosophical works. He regarded himself, however, as a man of letters who contributed to many areas and he was known best to his contemporaries as a historian. This nice collection of essays displays the breadth of Hume's interests and his well developed writing style. Hume was particularly interested in essays which would bring important topics before a broad public and wrote in an accessible and often entertaining style. Some of Hume's best known essays on philosophical and religous topics are included in this collection. What may be of greatest interest are some of the lesser known essays which display both the versatility and the power of Hume's intellect. Included are essays on economics and international trade, and also some political theory. Hume was an opponent of mercantilist ideas, supporting the largely correct notion that trade would enrich all parties. His political theory is particularly interesting. In contradistinction to the widely accepted ideas of the time, Hume suggested that republican governments could be stable if the size of the republic was large enough to encompass enough competing groups to prevent one from assuming complete control. It is known that James Madison read Hume in the period leading up to the Constitutional Convention and many scholars suspect that Hume's ideas were the germ of the defense of republicanism/federalism developed by Madison in the Federalist Papers. A momentous idea with momentous consequences.

David Hume was perhaps the leading light in the Empiricist movement in philosophy. Empiricism is seen in distinction from Rationalism, in that it doubts the viability of universal principles (rational or otherwise), and uses sense data as the basis of all knowledge - experience is the source of knowledge. Hume was a skeptic as well as empiricist, and had radical (for the time) atheist ideas that often got in the way of his professional advancement, but given his reliance on experience (and the kinds of experiences he had), his problem with much that was considered conventional was understandable.

Hume's major work, 'A Treatise of Human Nature', was not well received intially - according to Hume, 'it fell dead-born from the press'. Hume reworked the first part of this work in a more popular way for this text, which has become a standard, and perhaps the best introduction to Empiricism.

In a nutshell, the idea of empiricism is that experience teaches, and rules and understanding are derived from this. However, for Hume this wasn't sufficient. Just because billiard balls when striking always behave in a certain manner, or just because the sun always rose in the morning, there was no direct causal connection that could be automatically affirmed - we assume a necessary connection, but how can this be proved?

Hume's ideas impact not only metaphysics, but also epistemology and psychology. Hume develops empiricism to a point that empiricism is practically unsupportable (and it is in this regard that Kant sees this text as a very important piece, and works toward his synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism). For Hume, empirical thought requires skepticism, but leaves it unresolved as far as what one then needs to accept with regard to reason and understanding. According to scholar Eric Steinberg, 'A view that pervades nearly all of Hume's philosophical writings is that both ancient and modern philosophers have been guilty of optimistic and exaggerated claims for the power of human reason.'

Some have seen Hume as presenting a fundamental mistrust of daily belief while recognising that we cannot escape from some sort of framework; others have seen Hume as working toward a more naturalist paradigm of human understanding. In fact, Hume is open to a number of different interpretations, and these different interpretations have been taken up by subsequent philosphers to develop areas of synthetic philosophical ideas, as well as further developments more directly out of Empiricism (such as Phenomenology).

This is in fact a rather short book, a mere 100 pages or so in many editions. As a primer for understanding Hume, the British Empiricists (who include Hobbes, Locke, and Berkeley), as well as the major philosphical concerns of the eighteenth century, this is a great text with which to start.

If sceptical thought has evolved since Socrates this book is the evidence. Hume perhaps sets the standard for all philosophical inquiry that is scholarly and brilliant. The subject matter I found most illuminating and delightful to read was on moral distinctions (right and wrong). This is serious stuff. If you take the time to understand Hume, you certainly will not be wasting your time.

Mr. Hume presents a psuedo-transient macro-realistically templable prescript for the acogitive development of pertinent systems within the spheres aforetoherein ascribed to the previously-defined source wherein the constructs devised to meet the needs of the specified systems or entities oriented within such a paradigm would be construed as a non-extant positable body of asubstantive text as pre-emptively pertinent to the essence of the text-body at hand thereupon wherein tofore.

Hume's Enquiries are more or less a repackaging of the material from Books I and III of his earlier A Treatise of Human Nature. Ever desirous of literary fame and dismayed by the lack of interest others had shown for his prior tome, Hume went back to the drawing board and attempted to present his philosophical system in a way that would be palatable to the reading public. We should feel fortunate that he did so. For, though the significant changes are in style and emphasis rather than substance, these books are a perfect introduction to Hume's thinking. And while the shorter form did require some not insignificant cutting, most of what you find in the earlier book is presented here in a simpler, more accessible manner. That's not to say that there is nothing new here; there is. In particular, he considers some religious subjects (i.e. miracles and immortality) that he was unwilling to broach in the earlier work.

The connecting thread here is an emphasis on grounding philosophical inquiry in an empirical account of human nature, and particularly of the human mind. The first Enquiry is an account of Hume's take on the implications of the classical empiricism he inherited from Locke and Berkeley. For Hume, as for the other classical empiricists, empiricism was primarily a psychological theory about the origin and content of our concepts. (So empiricism, Hume thought, is a crucial element of any plausible account of the human mind.) The central tenet of this theory is that our concepts are furnished by experience, which includes both sensory experience and introspection (i.e., the experience of our own mental states). And the empiricists also agreed about the way we can justify our beliefs. Some beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of the ideas they contained, and we can know their truth (or falsity) simply by thinking about them; other beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of how the external world is, and we can know their truth (or falsity) only by drawing on our experiences of the world. According to Hume, all substantial conclusions about the world fall into this second category. That is, the truth (or falsity) of all substantial claims about the existence and nature of things in the external world can be discovered only by checking those claims against the evidence of our senses.

Here we seem Hume wielding this philosophy of mind in order to adjudicate disputes in metaphysics and epistemology. Do you want to know whether something can be known? Then think about the concepts in which it is expressed. Could we come to know this by thinking about the meaning of our concepts? Could we come to know it by going and looking or doing certain empirical tests? If the answer to both these questions is no, then knowledge of this subject is an impossibility for us. Do you want to know whether some claim of the metaphysicians is true or whether it even makes sense? Consider the concepts they use to express their views. Is there any way you could reduce the content of this concept to some experience? If not, their claims are literally meaningless.

This interpretation of Hume's project downplays his skepticism and emphasizes his professed intentions to provide a positive account of the operation of the human mind that appealed to nothing beyond the evidence of our senses. According to proponents of this interpretation, Hume is most interested in a description of the operation of the human mind. He's describing what human nature allows us to know and what it doesn't allow us to know. Furthermore, he argues that our nature is such that, where it fails to provide us with the resources to acquire the knowledge we might want, it provides us with a natural habit of forming the right conclusions anyway. Even though our nature limits our knowledge of the world, it ensures that we possess the habits of mind needed to make our way in the world. Hume dubs all these habits of mind "custom."

And I think this naturalistic interpretation of Hume's project provides an entry into the views he defends in the Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals. Again, it's possible to interpret Hume's project in moral philosophy as a skeptical one. The fact that he thinks morality is based in human sentiments show that he is, in some sense, a subjectivist about morality. He doesn't think there is any plausible account of our moral thinking as based on reason or empirical inquiry alone. Morality, then, is more a matter of feeling than a matter of thinking, observing, and reasoning. But, importantly, Hume doesn't think this is indicative of some problem with morality, and so he doesn't understand himself to be undermining ordinary morality. His aim is to expose the groundless pretensions of reason in order to make room for a wholly naturalistic account morality; it's not to show that morality doesn't have a firm basis. For he does not think that morality would ideally be based on reason and empirical evidence rather than sentiment. Rather, he thinks there is a sort of philosophical overreaching involved in trying to base morality on reason or empirical evidence as opposed to sentiment.

But what is the relevant sentiment? According to Hume, it is a general sort of benevolence, of concern for others. Our possessing such a feeling does not mean that we'll always set aside our own interest in the interest of others; nor does it mean that we are not largely self-interested. It does, however, mean that we're not wholly self-interested, as we are motivated to do (and not do) certain things even when they do not affect our own interests and desires. But what inspires these sentiments, and how exactly do they translate into moral judgments? Morality, Hume argues, is based on sentiments of approbation and disapprobation that are prompted by a recognition of the connection between human actions, dispositions, etc. and what is in the best interest of oneself and of mankind in general. What we take to be virtues, Hume argues, are those dispositions that lead a person to perform actions tending to promote his own happiness and the happiness of others, whereas vices are dispositions that do the opposite.

--our times. This book shows what he has seen all over the world in his "short" life.

He is most famous for being Gerald Ford's photographer during the aftermath of the Nixon insanity. When his Whitehouse pass was revoked after the lost election, he wasn't even 30 -- YET had a body of work that was the envy of many of his fellow Shooters, me included. I am honored that he is aware that I exist.

Follow this man for the rest of your life and you will be exposed to all the wonders of this world. He is not just a photographer; he is a driven "oracle" of the 20th century who must make images or die - much like a shark who must keep swimming or drown.

Having known David Kennerly since he was 24 on on his way to Viet Nam. I threw a party for him while passing through Chicago on his birthday.

I bought many copies for gifts as I thought that highly of the book and especially for anyone interested in photography.

I strongly recommend reading this for a statement in courage and tremedous enthusiasm and talent for his work. His Jonestown story, as one of the first on the scene, is breathtaking.

Stan Golomb

Photo-Op will take you on an unforgettable journey through the last 30 years. Through the commentary and photographs you will experience such events as the Ali-Fraiser fight, the Ford White House years and the Veitnam War. Every one needs a copy of this book to teach the next generation of Kids, the true History of the USA