Oh snap son!
I don’t see you worshiping Galileo or Jesus.
Both risked their lives for philosophy. Both of their philosophies changed the world.
Both are considered incorrect today in many regards whether they were or not, but both died due to their influence.
Jesus was murdered because of his argument against the Juus practicing maliciousness in the name of God.
Galileo died for argument against the Catholic Church.
Both saved the world from those oppressing their societies.
Who did Hume save?
John Locke accomplished more by far.
But only they who refuse or are incapable of thinking, worship the words of others.
Yes, it is reasonable to note that but we have been over and over it:
We inflect certain points with a sense of certainty to reflect our thinking in the here and the now. But some of us are more rather than less aware of how [regarding some relationships] that may all be turned upside down in the there and the later.
Sure, I could put, “in my own opinion”, before every point I make here. And, “unless, of course, I’m wrong”, after them. But if you have even the vaguest understanding of how I construe “I” [my “self”] out in the world as dasein is that really necessary?
Now, in your own view, is there a more basic and fundamental way in which to explain why distinctions are made out in the world between “is” and “ought”? Is there another way I ought to think about them instead?
EXCELLENT question and phrasing. =D>
But, I will refrain from answering in that it wasn’t ask of me.
I command you to think of them the right way.
Scroll up for context.
Pezer is an interesting character. 
Why do you take this to be directed at Hume? I don’t see any clues in the text at all. It seems much more squarely aimed at the utilitarians, who were by far the higher-profile “English psychologists” at the time. Hume was fairly low-profile; his rehabilitation as respectable philosopher (rather than destructive cynic merely to be presented to students to sharpen their knives on) came after Nietzsche’s time.
Hume was a utilitarian.
Good gracious me, but you’re wrong.
Unless by “Hume” you mean someone other than the philosopher David Hume, or by “utilitarianism” something other than utilitarianism.
“Hume’s Utilitarian Theory of Right Action” by Jordan H Sorbel.
Might want to take a read.
Or even Wiki…
Oh O_H, you and your easy categories…
Anyway, read them again, read the criticisms themselves, and then if you still don’t see “Hume” written all over them, then you should go read Hume again. Nietzsche is noted for referencing people that academics don’t initially catch. They have to send their investigators to realize that Nietzsche read anything other than what they themselves were told to read in University.
Anyway, regardless of your easy categories, even if Nietzsche had never, ever, heard of Hume, the aphorims completely fit and serve as examples of Hume being argued away.
If you’re going to worship these characters, you might want to at least read what they actually had to say.
I do apologise, I should really back up my accusations of incorrectness with some reasoning. Mea culpa 
I think that familiarity with his work rules out Hume as a utilitarian pretty quickly. He explicitly says (I think in the Treatise) that the value of an action is in the motive and not the results. And he also holds that artificial virtues (justice, liberty and so on) should be held to for their own good and not overruled for the greater good. How much clearer can he be on the matter?
I believe Bentham rated him highly, and as a result he almost certainly influenced the utilitarians (I haven’t read Bentham). Hegel influenced the Marxists, but he wasn’t a Marxist.
I agree entirely that we should look at what they had to say, not what others had to say about them.
So you’re not going to tell me? “Oh, just go and reread it, you’ll see what I mean”? Really?
Have you read Hume? Be honest, now.
What you are missing in that is that you are seeing what he said merely from your current perspective.
From HIS perspective, what he called “the end results” meant the “immediate results” (usually private). But utilitarianism refers to the end results for sake of society. He was a socialist, inherently utilitarian (people only exist to serve society’s interests).
False parallel.
I not only read Hume, but wrote a beautiful essay on his writtings about morality, which I think got deleted in the rush of moving the essays from the ex-essay section.
I take those aphorims to deal with Hume because it perfectly describes the movement that Hume was a big part of, as well as (I think, but this is beyond possible certainty) Hume himself. I think that because, having read Hume, all of Nietzsche’s criticisms fit beyond doubt. Indeed, some of the academics responsible for some of the prologues and introductions in my editions of various Nietzsche works suggest that Nietzsche was in this, also, a rebel, and had read a lot of Hume.
I get the feeling that you want me to write something original here, but I am simply quoting. If you don’t see that my quotes say what I say they say, it is your mistake. You should read them again.
From your will, from what you want, or from what you don’t want, or from an others will, from what they want, or from what they don’t want.
He said motive virtues trump results. Personal results, societal results, results. Virtues win. Hume said that.
Hume was a socialist 
I’m not even going to touch that. Enjoy your weekend.
[b]A rock cannot give you an order… neither can a tree… nor a fish… only sentients can give you an order… only sentients can say- you should do this… or you shouldn’t do that.
A woman being raped by a rapist, isn’t itself telling you to intervene/not intervene on her behalf, only the woman herself or the rapist himself is capable of telling you to intervene/not intervene on her behalf.
Woman: stop him (ought), rapist: can’t you see I’m busy (ought).
Act of a woman being raped: (blank).
Now, who do you listen to, the woman or the rapist?
That all depends on you, doesn’t it?
A fish wouldn’t care, a sociopathy wouldn’t care.
Whether we respond to an ought, or not, is… relative… relative.[/b]
It’s your point you’re trying to make. I only asked because I don’t see that “Nietzsche argued Hume away” at all with that quote (I don’t see he argued the utilitarians away in that passage either, it’s not exactly a rigorous demolition job so much as a sideways sneer). If you don’t care enough to defend your claims, why bother posting in the first place? Seems we could both have saved reading and writing time. And with that, I bid you a good and productive weekend