Customer Reviews

Hume: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

While appreciating the previous reviewers' criticisms which are not without some merit-- I feel that I must rise to Ayer's defense in saying that this book, though small, pushes one to "think" about Hume's philosophy while trying to get a handle on it. Isn't that what introductions are to be about? Ayers introduces a particular aspect of Hume's thought, agrees or disagrees then moves on. Their criticism's, however, do have some merit. Ayer reads Hume through his own lenses, who doesn't, and is not above bringing Hume to task when he feels that it is warranted. However, Ayer also respects Hume the philosopher, and presents Hume in this small book in a courteous light. This was one of the first books I read on Hume's thought and I found it to be quite helpful. It was a good jumping off point into weightier works-- it's not simplistic, nor is it a Cliff-Notes version, but a presentation of Hume's work, which in itself requires some careful thought, simply because Hume himself is carrying on a conversation with other phiosophers (some long since dead) but it is also a thoughtful conversation with Hume, about the issues Hume raised, by an emiment philosopher in his own right. I'm not sure that it doesn't belong in the series, having read several of the others. Ayer makes his point and then moves on without spending too many pages waxing eloquent. For someone wanting to learn about Hume's philosophy, but not wanting to read a long list of books, this is a good introduction to the main themes that Hume is noted for bringing to light and discussing. My practice in reading this book was to read a few pages, put it down and then read a few more. I found this a helpful way to let what Ayer said digest. Perhaps it should have been an easier read, but then the themes Hume touches upon are not easy subjects to begin with. In sum, I found it a worthwhile book.

Despite Ayer's lapidary style, this is a heavyweight critique of Hume's philosophy, not the bite-sized summary one would expect from the way the original 1980 book has been repackaged.

Hume emerges as more pragmatic, more likable, than his reputation as the ineluctable arch-sceptic. Ayer doesn't hesitate to suggest improvements to Hume's arguments, or to flatly contradict him, especially on his theory of perception. On the other hand, Ayer tamely accepts the impossibility of induction, which would surely be unacceptable to most modern scientists (at least, those inclined to think about it at all).

Overall, the book is more analytical, and less heuristic, than is helpful for this series.

As an introduction for the general reader this is pretty useless. Its actually an older work not intended for the very short introduction series. Its a brief but fairly in depth study of Hume's work with an initial chapter on his life tagged on at the start. It requires at least a basic familiarity with Hume and the reader would almost certainly benefit from having read the Enquiries or even an alternative introduction before engaging with this. Presenting Ayers' book in this way is disingenuous and does both him and the reader a disservice.

I have read 13 Very Short Introduction titles up till now and have never written a review for this series. The reason I am writing a review now is to advice you not to buy this book. I have been reading philosophy for years, have read other books about Hume, and this is supposedly an introduction, and I understood only half of what is written (though the first and last chapters are fairly comprehensible). Of course I haven't spent much time trying to decipher what Ayer says here, because I'm used to reading a book like this in 2 or 3 days. I've also read the Very Short Introductions to Kant and Hegel, also from this series (Kant and Hegel are considered "difficult" philosophers, meaning that it's hard to understand what they're saying if you're not a professional philosopher yourself), and even then I have understood the Introductions perfectly.
They should assign to someone else the task of writing an introduction about Hume, and not try to cash in on the name of the writer (Ayer is a famous philosopher in his own right).
Though if one is fairly familiar with the works of Hume and with general philosophical jargon this book can be a profitable experience. I am not judging its content but the way it is written, always considering that it is meant to be read by the general public.

The title of the series is "Very Short Introductions," not "Very Short Pedantic Compendiums Written by Arses for Neophyte and Dilettante Consumption Writ Large." A J Ayer's prose is the modicum of brevity and clarity; who better to write a very short introduction than this 'arch-empiricist' of the logical positivist school? Mr. Rogers? Amy Winehouse? T-bag Blair? Donald Rumsfeld? From the sound of the other reviews, the second title offered above may be valid for much of the rest of the series; this one then, is a very fortunate exception.