tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post1442825534956041503..comments2024-03-28T06:07:03.667-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: THOUGHTS HIGH AND LOW ON AN EARLY FALL MORNING IN AUGUST.Robert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-1508753044105770372018-08-25T12:00:28.891-04:002018-08-25T12:00:28.891-04:00The recent discussion of Hume on this site set me ...The recent discussion of Hume on this site set me thinking about an infamous note that Hume made in connection with his essay, “Of National Characters.” In that note, Hume expresses the suspicion that Africans are “naturally inferior to” Europeans. He gives various reasons for this suspicion and then, at the end of the note, he expresses the doubt that any African could be, as he puts it in now-quaint 18th century terms, “a man of parts and learning.” No Enlightenment for them. No invitations to ‘the Party of Humanity.’ Hume doubts reports that there are (or can be?) cultured blacks, in one of the most striking lines I’ve read in his works: “In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.” This is no longer a sentiment that can be held or expressed by a decent, intelligent, and psychologically normal person. Only an unhinged bigot would today believe such a thing, let alone publicly admit and argue for it. But Hume evidently did believe it (I thought of all this when I read the discussions on this blog about Hume’s epistemology—a very large part of which is about the nature of belief). If Hume were around today, I’m certain that he wouldn’t believe this. But what Hume said has the permanence of print, and he’s stuck with that. Our moral sense seems really to change with history, and it seems to me there’s no getting outside of this. Jefferson today would not have the racial views of the actual Jefferson, and Burke wouldn’t write off most of humanity as “the swinish multitudes.” Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-86956654456795824732018-08-24T16:17:27.977-04:002018-08-24T16:17:27.977-04:00Since your writing about philosophy ...
I'm r...Since your writing about philosophy ...<br /><br />I'm reading "Beyond the Limits of Thought" by Graham Priest (2002). On page 81,in a section about Kant, he writes "A number of perceptive commentators have noted the similarity between noumena .. and prime matter.", citing Wolff (1963), p152 n<br /><br />And on the evidence of your blog, still a perceptive commentator.<br /><br />GraemeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-80082933195995807892018-08-24T10:49:55.022-04:002018-08-24T10:49:55.022-04:00For myself, Book III is the most philosophically i...For myself, Book III is the most philosophically interesting part of the Treatise. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03296677552107805508noreply@blogger.com