Quantum redactiones paginae "David Humius" differant

Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Linea 124:
Quid de idea 'Dei'? Deus, si criteria ab Humio posita observamus, sensu percipi non potest. Arbitratur enim Humius impressionem ideae 'Dei' respondentem probare eius esse qui hoc propositum defendere vult.<ref>''Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'' 2.6.</ref> Constat 'Dei' ideam ad nullam singularem impressionem reduci, quae statim cerni possit. Humius ita scribit: "Ideae nostrae ex experientia nostra non excedunt, nam nullam habemus experientiam divinarum proprietatum vel actionum."<ref>''Dialogues'' 2.3.</ref> Humius enim nos simpliciter ideam 'Dei' formare existimat: cui certas proprietates adscribimus humanitati similes ac inter homines magni aestimatas, sicut vires, sapientiam, benevolentiam, quas imaginatione in infinitum efferimus, et Deum omnipotentem, omniscium, perfecteque bonum habemus.
 
Num hoc dictum "Deus universum creavit" in re scientifica posita est? Num concludere possumus percipi posse mundum naturalem, et ordinatum ac dispositum videri, quippe cuius prima causa Deus sit? Secundum empiristicam philosophiam causalem Humii haec conclusio non valet. Censet enim Humius sine repetita experientia intellegi non posse, quae sit causa perceptae naturae, quae ordinatim crescit: "sola experientia nobis cuiuslibet rei causam ostendere potest."<ref>''Dialogues'' 2.13.</ref> Omnes opiniones ad causam et effectum relatae arbitrariae sunt. In incerto est, an ulli effectui causa sit humanae rationi comprehensibilis. Ponentes excogitatorem intellegentem humanae menti comparabilem "in eo peccamus, quod scelestissimam et angustissimam iniquitatem ostendimus, et exemplar totius universi nos facimus."<ref>''Dialogues'' 3.12 "we are guilty of the grossest and most narrow self-centredness, making ourselves the model of the whole universe."</ref> Facete admonet nescire nos, an creator universi homini similis sit. Aut fortasse infinita aranea tela texens, sicut in religione Brachmanarum.<ref>Cf. ''Dialogues''7.17.</ref>
 
 
 
Line 133 ⟶ 134:
* Ayer, A. J. (1980) ''Hume''. Oxford University Press.
* Baier, Annette (1991) A Progress of Sentiments. Harvard University Press.
* Baillie, James (2000) ''Hume on Morality.'' Routledge.
* Beebee, Helen (2006) ''Hume on Causation''. Routledge.
* Broughton, Janet (1987) Hume’s Ideas about Necessary Connection. ''Hume Studies'' 8: 217–244.
* Buckle, Stephen (1999) Hume's biography and Hume's philosophy. ''Australasian Journal of Philosophy'' 77 (1): 1–25.
Line 144 ⟶ 146:
* Gaskin, J. C. A. (1988) ''Hume's Philosophy of Religion.'' 2nd ed. Humanities Press International.
* Hakkarainen, Jani (2012) Hume's Skepticism and Realism. ''British Journal for the History of Philosophy'' 20: 283–309.
* Hanson, Delbert J. (1993) ''Fideism and Hume's Philosophy: Knowledge, Religion and Metaphysics.'' Peter Lang Publishing
* Hare, R. M. (1952) ''The Language of Morals.'' Oxford University Press.
* Hunter, Geoffrey (1963) Hume on Is and Ought. ''Philosophy'' 37: 148–152.
Line 158 ⟶ 161:
* Nowell-Smith, P. H. (1954) ''Ethics.'' Penguin.
* Noxon, James (1964) Hume's agnosticism. ''Philosophical Review'' 73 (2): 248-261.
* Owen, David (1999) ''Hume's Reason''. Oxford University Press.
* Phillipson, N. (1989) ''Hume.'' Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
* Quinton, Anthony (1998) ''Hume.'' Routledge.
* Radcliffe, Elizabeth S. (ed. 2008) ''A Companion to Hume''. Blackwell.
* Read, Rupert & Richman, Kenneth A. (ed. 2000) ''The New Hume Debate.'' Routledge.
* Russell, Paul (2005) Hume on Religion. ''[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]''.
* Siebert, Donald T. (1990) ''The Moral Animus of David Hume.'' University of Delaware Press.