Because Hume appeals to emotions and feelings, which can't be disputed unlike philosophical arguments presented through reason and logic. I'd just call it the 'normative' turn in philosophy in regards to the appeal Hume has to philosophers.

Does your question reflect honest philosophical consideration, or is it merely determined by your rightist/theist bias?

:-}

He's touchy when it comes to his political persuasion so tread carefully.

Hume was a pretty boring philosopher, imo. He used the same tired trick over and over again to produce various forms of skepticism..........

"There's no necessary connection between sense-experiences and material objects." -- > external world skepticism

"There's no necessary connection between memories and past events." -- > skepticism about the past

"There's no necessary connection between past events and future events." -- > problem of induction

"I never perceive myself." -- > skepticism about the self

... and what solution did Hume offer to these skeptical problems? "Let's hit the club, guys!"

Boring philosopher, indeed.

Why is Hume so hot right now?

Cause it's almost summer? Maybe he likes to vacation in tropical locales? Despite being long gone, Hume is fumin'! There's nothing he Kant do. Just surprised Bill Russell and Lou Rawls didn't score higher. :D

I don't know anyone here who identifies with Hume most for example — Agustino

I love Hume. I love him for:

• his clear, entertaining writing style
• his innovative thinking, finding things to question that nobody had ever thought to question before (eg that recurrence of a past pattern is evidence that the pattern will continue in the future)
• that while being essentially analytic in approach, he identifies limits of reason and thereby opens the door to mysticism
• that he does not glorify and worship reason, despite being able to use it as well as any contemporary
• that he liked people and enjoyed the good things in life - contrary to the gloomy, misanthropic character that is often associated (often unfairly) with philosophers
• that while sceptical about knowledge, he understood that that need have no impact on how we act ("I don't know that my dinner won't poison me, but I'm going to eat it anyway, and then I'm going to the pub to enjoy the company of people that I don't even know for sure whether they exist!")
• some of his writing has strong similarities to Buddhist thinking
• that he died as he lived, providing an example and inspiration to us all (read Boswell's account of Hume's death)

That's a very bizarre list. A lot of key figures are left out. Then again, I suppose if it's reflective of contemporary analytic philosophers, it's not that surprising.

Anglo survey, no? Perhaps Anglo/American at best.

that while being essentially analytic in approach, he identifies limits of reason and thereby opens the door to mysticism — andrewk

Limits are not necessarily borders to something else, but simply limits beyond which there is nothing more to expect.

Does the Academic appreciation of Hume reflect honest philosophical consideration, or is it merely determined by the Academia's leftist/atheist bias? — Agustino

Or maybe the coherency of Hume's arguments is a reason for Academia's leftist/atheist "bias"?

Regarding Hume I think it would have been more apposite if you had written "limits within which there is nothing more to expect".

Regarding Hume I think it would have been more apposite if you had written "limits within which there is nothing more to expect". — John

Well, to be clear, my post was actually not regarding Hume but andrewk's idea that Hume's identification of the limits of reason thereby opened the door to mysticism. Perhaps there is a different sense in which Hume opened a door to mysticism, but from identifying a limit it does not follow a border nor a door to something beyond reason, i.e. mysticism.

I don't think it's a case of expecting something beyond the limit, but rather observing that there are phenomena that cannot be adequately analysed using reason. We are aware of the phenomena - eg consciousness - so we don't need to infer or expect them. But IMO Hume helps us understand that we have no hope of understanding these things using reason.

I agree that nothing Hume says entails mysticism, but I think andrewk's point was probably: that since, according to Hume, we can know only representations of phenomena, and can never know what, if anything, ls at work 'behind' phenomena, then the door is therefore open to mysticism.

I wonder...

Anglo survey, no? Perhaps Anglo/American at best. — John

Yes.

1. Why the divergence? — Agustino

You're comparing a sample size of 22 to a sample size of 1,077.

You're comparing a sample size of 22 to a sample size of 1,077. — Michael

Well I'm comparing our community with the Academia. Of course our community is going to be much smaller than the Academia, I am aware of that :)

Plato, Kant, Descartes, Aristotle, in that order were the top Google searches worldwide over the last 5 years. Plato appeared to be significantly more sought after versus the others

Realism, Phenomenology, Idealism, Analytic Philosophy. The term 'Realism' was significantly more sought than any of the others....Phenomenology and Idealism basical the same results and Analytic Philosophy trailing.

I think speculative realism is popular in academia and most of these philosopher trace their roots back to Hume.

Hume is one of my favorites (see my profile), and I'm pretty sure I voted for him in that poll (our board poll that you referenced), as most of the names in that poll are folks in not so fond of, if I don't outright hate their work.

I wouldn't say that I most identify with Hume. I most identify with Russell, even though I disagree with him plenty. And then I probably also identify more with Quine, Davidson, Nozick, Searle, McGinn, Ayer, maybe Feyerabend, Varzi, Reichenbach, Mach and some others, not necessarily in that order.

But Hume is definitely a favorite, and if the task is to pick a favorite philosopher pre the late 19th century, Hume is easily my #1. In my opinion there was a huge percentage of crap philosophy prior to the late 19th century. (And there still is, but there's a lot of good stuff, too.) Ironically Hume isn't my favorite pre-late 19th century author--Plato is--but the problem is that as entertainingly as Plato wrote, his philosophical conclusions were ridiculously wrong the vast majority of the time.

At least Heidegger and some others if that ilk didn't even make the poll.


Anyway, yeah, re popular philosophers and views here, and typically on boards like this, my tastes, dispositions, views are not at all the norm. I don't know why that is, but it can be frustrating to me. On the other hand, it's also better fodder for commenting, and it can be more challenging to me, which are good things.

Plato, Kant, Descartes, Aristotle, in that order were the top Google searches worldwide over the last 5 years. Plato appeared to be significantly more sought after versus the others — Cavacava

Yeah, because most people who hear about philosophy will hear about these four generally. They're the first names one comes across.

Realism, Phenomenology, Idealism, Analytic Philosophy. The term 'Realism' was significantly more sought than any of the others....Phenomenology and Idealism basical the same results and Analytic Philosophy trailing. — Cavacava

Are they exact match searches? Or would a search for "anti realism" be counted towards "realism"?

I just looked under those names. Here is graph:


This info is also shown geographically:

Hume was a pretty boring philosopher, imo. He used the same tired trick over and over again to produce various forms of skepticism..........

"There's no necessary connection between sense-experiences and material objects." -- > external world skepticism

"There's no necessary connection between memories and past events." -- > skepticism about the past

"There's no necessary connection between past events and future events." -- > problem of induction

"I never perceive myself." -- > skepticism about the self

... and what solution did Hume offer to these skeptical problems? "Let's hit the club, guys!"

Boring philosopher, indeed. — lambda

Yes, but those are just Hume's metaphysical positions. There's more to Hume than that. Two other factors I can think of:

• Ethics
• Philosophy of Religion

Those both relate to his metaphysics. Hume breaks with (religious) metaphysical tradition to basically deny necessity. He splits the existing world (finite, empirical) from the necessary (infinite, logical, meaning), such that representations of the world no longer show events which are necessary. The world is no longer governed by eternal (and transcendent) rules or traditions. It might do anything, even if its unethical or breaks completely with what humans might expect. We simply can't look at the world in front of us, or one an idea we've thought, and conclude it is what must be going forward.

In terms of transcendent (and religious) metaphysical traditions, Hume is one of the few ultimate atheists in the history of philosophy. Looking at his metaphysics, we might actually call him a 17th century Nietzsche, blowing apart the basis of every transcendent (and religious) tradition before modernists thought it was edgy and cool, though Hume perhaps wasn't completely aware of it.

Maybe Hume's hot today (among the Anglo/American Anal-ytics) because he's the ultimate poster boy for their brand of Atheism. I mean, he even (reputedly) had a good death :-O , for Chrissakes!

He may not be so popular among the Incontinent-als because, in accordance with Hume's so-called "fork':
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.
most of their works would have been seen by him as being worthy of being burnt.

That's not entirely accurate. Hamann's religious position is made possible and built precisely on Hume.

, Hume is dominating as a favourite philosopher - the one most academics identify with — Agustino

That's because if you adopt his attitude to philosophy, there's nothing at stake. It is a purely critical enterprise, wholly concerned with puncturing what philosophy is normally taken to be. Therefore you have nothing to defend, and you can simply attack.

Hume wrote his famous book as a young man. I believe that in later life, he devoted considerable time to baccalaureate.

That's because if you adopt his attitude to philosophy, there's nothing at stake. It is a purely critical enterprise, wholly concerned with puncturing what philosophy is normally taken to be. Therefore you have nothing to defend, and you can simply attack. — Wayfarer

Well not necessarily, but you do away with metaphysics, and get busy with the practicalities of life. It's not necessarily bad. A lot of metaphysics is stuff that is ultimately irrelevant to life anyways.

I believe that in later life, he devoted considerable time to baccalaureate. — Wayfarer

Baccalaureate? You mean he went around looking under girl's skirts like a bachelor? :-O