I just got hume’s “Enquiry on the nature of human understanding” (something like that–can’t remember for sure).
Is it any good? thanks! 
it is excellent…
but after you read it, you will not know anything…
-Imp
well, that’s a short review, but at least it’s positive.
BTW:
IMP: if you have not done so already, please read my latest response to your comment in the “analogy of reality thread”. I want to clear things up. 
Inital thoughts.
I have attempted to read some of Hume’s writings on this subject. I was quite taken with the engrossing manner used to approach a subject, both thorough and self- explanatory, his reasoning engages a depth of understanding as yet uncommon to my own abilities, both in writing and reading.
This is incisive philosophy. In my own narrow field of definition, a single term will become Hume’s lava of determined deliberation, at once exacerbating and calming a personal sense of inefficacy. The reader can accept being the outsider and pretender, for he has left a trail of inaccessable statute, inaccessable as if by nature of its own creation. What doubts cannot be shed in the light of a closer inspection? None are left to divulge.
i really enjoyed reading that particular book of his …i read it when i was about 19 and it got me started down the long and lonely road of empiricism. after that i was turned on to the likes of A.J. Ayer, Russell, eventually Wittgenstein. Hume is, i think, the foundation for all of the later empiricist (and even later, analytic) thinkers.
in conclusion:
HUME IS GREAT; I HOPE YOU THINK SO TOO.
“When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
DAMN!
Hume is definitely my favorite Philosopher. If you get a chance, read Dialougues Concerning Natural Religion. Great stuff.
Sincerely,
Floyd
None of you have read Hume.
To truly understand what he means you need to read the original Greek and German versions!
Wait a minute…
lol !! Yes, I agree. Though he wrote in English, this cannot replace the Greek and German versions.
LMAO!!
-Imp
…reminds me of an elvis impersonation…
I’ve actually already attached myself to Wittgenstein, but I think hume might be a great place to pick-up some empiracle arguments…something substance, if you catch my drift.
I canb read millions of titles online as ebooks here: NetLibrary.com
(I got an account there due to the fact that I’m working on my associates degree at my local community college…classes I take there earn me both college and highscholl credits.). 
hume is a legend. quite hard going in places but great none the less.
Just make sure you read the antidote, namely Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, after you read that degenerate alcoholic charlatan. Hume was a very sick individual who was so addicted to gambling and so mentally ill that he lost every backgammon bet he ever made. Not someone who I would want to place my bets with in philosophy…
And the philosophers of Ancient Greece most likely diddled little boys.
Are you saying that the strength of one’s ideas is to be judged by the strength of one’s character?
BMW-Guy-
Go to gutenberg.org/ - My favorite site.
Derrida is Dead-
Just make sure you read the antidote, namely Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, after you read that degenerate alcoholic charlatan.
Just make sure you read the Antidote, namely Russell’s Why I am not a Christian, after you finish reading Kant’s mother’s morals, uh, I mean Kant’s moral theory.
Sincerely,
Floyd
thanks for the link.
Derrida is dead:
While I especially esteem those philosophers whose live’s are moral, I can’t say that I agree that it has a ton of impact on their writings. I would not read the writings of a serial killer, but as Gateconjtroltheory pointed out, the highly-respected greek philosopher most likely were not all that moral, themselves.
Besides, gambling could only, at the very worst, give Hume’s text’s a perhaps negative-overtone (I’m supposing…), but I could easily handle that.
Derrida is dead, are you WarriorMonk in disguise? Just wondering.
Actually neither Socrates nor Aristotle fiddled little boys, and if they had I would say they were insane and mentally ill as well, and yes it would take away from their credibility. Socrates, although bisexual, was celibate. Aristotle was heterosexual and married twice.
I’m saying that Kant refutes Hume. Period. Without causality there can be no science and no philosophy. Without God there is no such thing as Truth.
I mention Hume’s mental illness as an afterthought.
and you are dead wrong. period. kant never refuted hume. period.
all “science” based on inductive reasoning is NOT REASONABLE. guesswork, nothing more… science is based on an error in reasoning there is no “truth”, god remains dead.
no, you mention it as an ad hominem attack which, like the rest of your “philosophical” rant, is false.
-Imp
What are you talking aobut?