Talk:David Hume

Humeanism

The article does not currently contain mention of Humeanism, minimal Humeanism, Anti-Humeanism, and other related topics of interest to philosophers, particularly those interested in quantum mechanics. Since several such philosophers are notable enough to be included in WP (which can be verified by searching WP), and since Humeanism is a relevant aspect of QM research today (example citation: Australasian Journal of Philosophy), I hope that someone knowledgeable would add a short overview to this article soon, and at least the stub of an article on the subject. David Spector (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Conservatism/Liberalism

I noticed that the template in the Political Theory section was changed from Liberalism to Conservatism overnight and there did not seem to be much of a discussion in the Talk page. Since Hume seems to have traits of both liberalism and conservatism, perhaps it is best to remove the template altogether and add both Liberalism and Conservatism to his main interests. Here is the revision in question.

Supilusikas (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like something someone from the US would do. They use the words "conservative" and "liberal" in strange ways there. Corrupt Cactus (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Effect of Hume's views on slavery sentence

The article states that Hume's 'views served to reinforce the institution of racialised slavery in the later 18th century'. I know that this is a quote from an academic, however it seems empty without explaining how Hume's ideas "reinforced" slavery. I find it quite unlikely that Hume's philosophy had any impact on the "reinforcing" of atlantic slavery, which had been an established institution for over 200 years. Knoterification (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I read the article, which is by an expert on Hume. He is not referring to Hume's philosophy pe se, but his comment that 'negroes are naturally inferior to whites'. However the author does not say how this view of Hume's (hardly uncommon at the time) actually had any effect on slavery. A plausible mechanism would be if, for example, the opponents of abolition cited the great David Hume in their defence, and this was effective. But the author does not say that, so we are left in the dark. The writer also seems to confuse the slave trade with slavery, saying Hume was involved in the former by way of encouraging his patron to buy a slave plantation, which is just lazy. The two are - and were seen as - distinct, hence the different abolition dates. It would not surprise me if the claim about Hume's views affecting slavery was just as dubious. But what do we do? he is an expert. Note: I edited your comment because the title you gave it was way too long. LastDodo (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I would just like to add the infamous quote Hume made about black people. The original footnote appears in a citation in this article here, but the revised version, which surely reflects his more considered thoughts on the matter, does not. Here it is in full:

I am apt to suspect the negroes to be naturally inferior to the whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMANS, the present TARTARS, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are NEGROE slaves dispersed all over EUROPE, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho' low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In JAMAICA, indeed, they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but 'tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.

I think there is an argument for including this in the article. No doubt many people will come to this article precisely for this reason, and the article refers to the renaming of David Hume Tower to 40 George Square without stating exactly what Hume said. LastDodo (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

added a subsection on Alleged connections to slavery - as per my edit summary: "reworking & addition: the alleged connections to slavery need to be addressed in a dedicated section (as do those of racism) some start on the former has been made but they need consensus and balance and I'm not sure that I can best provide a suitably strong argument for the support for slavery claim as I think they are IMHO pretty baseless (I think claims re racism and the footnote is a far trickier topic and not so very easily refuted" Jy Houston (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Some of the recent changes starting with this one , are problematic, as they conflict with MOS:ALLEGED, WP:POV and MOS:WEASEL etc...Since this is a WP:BLP, it requires attention sooner than later, so I have already made a change to the title of the subsection, to a more appropriate form . Please observe WP:BRD, if anyone wishes to improve it, please just make sure to keep policies and guidelines like MOS in mind. Cheers. DN (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree that POV/MOS issues need attention here but it's very much not a WP:BLP, he died in 1776 ;) JaggedHamster (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Ha, yeah I misspoke there. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I flagged the need for consensus and NPOV from the start and was quite open about my initial scepticism re (the severity of) Hume's sins (though I'd say I've hardened my views against him re this in the meantime). Its a work in progress but if there are any specific issues anybody wants me to try to address or any substantive constructive specific suggestions anybody wants to make re the discussions of Hume and his connections with slavery, I'd very be happy to hear them, Id also be delighted if somebody else wants to try reading the literature and editing this section themselves. I think reasonable mention of the topic is long overdue and Hume certainly doesn't comes out of it well. Regarding the charge of racism, there are decades of discussion in the academic literature. I've got it at least mentioned and the full text of the offending footnote onto the page (even if only in footnote), That seems a long overdue start. And its certainly not been done with any view to exoneration. (Though amongst scholars, for some, its all much very much more complex than it might seem.) I can't write the section that merits by myself but I'll try to balance the slaverty section a bit better. Jy Houston (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

By all means keep working on it, I wasn't trying to discourage you. There will always be editors that come along and point things like that out. Hopefully I didn't come off like a jerk. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

No, you're grand. Sorry if my response was, or seemed, overly touchy. Jy Houston (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

have made a fairly substantive effort to make the treatment of Hume's involvement with slavery more balanced and accurate Jy Houston (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I applaud the renewed effort and attention to detail and policy. Let's wait to see if anyone else spots issues with it. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Slavery

I have modified the slavery section so that it includes transcriptions of the sources under discussion by Waldmann, Hutton, Ashton, Bailey, Fieser, and Charette. The previous iteration was weighted too heavily to favour Ashton and Hutton's paper, which is not a peer reviewed publication, nor is it by Hume specialists like Waldmann, Bailey, Fieser, and Charette. The current iteration relies more heavily on the academic publication Further letters of David Hume, instead of Waldmann's The Scotsman article, which is derivative of Further letters. It is intellectually dishonest to present Waldmann's statements as those exclusively in The Scotsman; nonetheless, the latter editorial is still a component of the edited page. Readers can now form their own judgement of Hume's conduct by consulting the transcription of the relevant portions of the Hertford and d'Ennery letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jng1665 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It isn't that I disagree with the content, which all seems fair and well-supported to me, but I think some thought needs to be given to the extent and prominence of the material covering his views on slavery. His comments and actions were extremely unremarkable for the time and were not a significant part of his life. Nor does it meaningfully contextualise his work. Altogether I would think it warrants maybe a paragraph. The reason it is longer appears to be that contributors are effectively using this page to conduct the debate on the topic, which is not optimal. 5.252.223.149 (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Iconic salmon hat

A very famous portrait of Hume by Allan Ramsay portrays him wearing a salmon hat. It is so iconic that replicas of it have been made in his celebration: https://web.archive.org/web/20150526000343/http://www.philsoc.eu/turban.html

It should be used as the article's image depicting him, as is already the case in other languages. This is its Wikimedia page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Painting_of_David_Hume.jpg VVVBoldrini (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)