FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2020445050> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2020445050 endingPage "164" @default.
• W2020445050 startingPage "145" @default.
• W2020445050 abstract "Hume Studies Volume 31, Number 1, April 2005, pp. 145-164 The Paradoxical Principle and Salutary Practice: Hume on Toleration RICHARD H. DEES David Hume is an ardent supporter of the practice of religions toleration. For Hume, toleration forms part of the background that makes progress in philosophy possible, and it accounts for the superiority of philosophical thought in England in the eighteenth century. As he puts it in the introduction to the Treatise: the improvements in reason and philosophy can only be owing to a land of toleration and of liberty (T Intro. 7; SBN xvii)} Similarly, the narrator of part 11 of the First Enquiry comments: Our conversation began with my admiring the singular good fortune of philosophy, which, as it requires entire liberty above all other privileges, and chiefly flourishes from the free opposition of sentiments and argumentation , received its first birth in an age and country of freedom and toleration. (EHU 11.2; SBN 132) The toleration to which Hume refers is broader than religious toleration, but in the context of the eighteenth century, religious toleration is clearly the paradigm case. Indeed, religious toleration represents one of the key accomplishments of the culminating event of Hume's History of England: the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Yet even though religious toleration forms the background of philosophy in general—or perhaps just because it does so—Hume offers precious few arguments for it, and they are, for the most part, given implicitly rather than as formal arguments . Nevertheless, we can distinguish three different, though interrelated, lines Richard H. Dees is Associate Professor of Philosophy with appointments in Neurology and Medical Humanities at the University of Rochester, P.O. Box 270078, Rochester, NY 146270078 , USA. e-mail: dees@mail.rochester.edu 146 Richard H. Dees of support for toleration in Hume's thought: (i) an argument based on a general skepticism; (ii) an argument based on a contempt for organized religion; and (iii) a pragmatic argument based on the need for peace and orderly government. From our point of view, what is striking about all of these argument is how un-Lockean they are: Hume does not rely on the idea of a fundamental conceptual separation of church and state, nor on a natural right to freedom of conscience that characterizes writers working in the Lockean tradition. However, of the arguments he gives, only the last, I will argue, has any hope to provide a useful case for toleration. I. Skepticism Given Hume's reputation, the most obvious line of argument for toleration is based on a general skepticism about knowledge or a skepticism about religious knowledge in particular. One of the general results of his mitigated skepticism, Hume argues, is that it combats the general tendency people have to be affirmative and dogmatical in their opinions (EHU 12.24; SBN 161): But could such dogmatical reasoners become sensible of the strange infirmities of human understanding, even in its most perfect state, and when most accurate and cautious in its determinations; such a reflection would naturally inspire them with more modest and reserve, and diminish their fond opinion of themselves, and their prejudice against antagonists. (EHU 12.24; SBN 161) Indeed, even in the most learned, a small tincture of Pyrrhonism is useful to keep them from taking too much pride in their own meager abilities. In general , Hume concludes, there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty, which, in all kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a just reasoner (EHU 12.24; SBN161-2). A due modesty about our intellectual abilities is always warranted. On these grounds, the general idea of an argument for toleration is that once we accept Hume's brand of skepticism, we will regard our own reasoning and our own conclusion with diffidence and without any presumption that we are really correct. With such an attitude, we will then be less likely to make the kind of harsh pronouncements that are needed to sustain a campaign of persecution against a religious group. We should then regard both politics and religion with a cautious air that promotes toleration for those who draw different conclusions from our own. We should..." @default.
• W2020445050 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2020445050 creator A5051301524 @default.
• W2020445050 date "2005-01-01" @default.
• W2020445050 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2020445050 title "The Paradoxical Principle and Salutary Practice: Hume on Toleration" @default.
• W2020445050 cites W1513104673 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W1543090930 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W1591422284 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W1815189098 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W1995393839 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W2025862296 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W2034465215 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W204591369 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W2084812103 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W2099448367 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W2158173926 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W2753221422 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W2798356456 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W588908907 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W602240280 @default.
• W2020445050 cites W1493200104 @default.
• W2020445050 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2011.0252" @default.
• W2020445050 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2020445050 type Work @default.
• W2020445050 sameAs 2020445050 @default.
• W2020445050 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2020445050 countsByYear W20204450502012 @default.
• W2020445050 countsByYear W20204450502017 @default.
• W2020445050 countsByYear W20204450502019 @default.
• W2020445050 countsByYear W20204450502020 @default.
• W2020445050 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2020445050 hasAuthorship W2020445050A5051301524 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConcept C2778197078 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConcept C2780668109 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConceptScore W2020445050C111472728 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConceptScore W2020445050C138885662 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConceptScore W2020445050C17744445 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConceptScore W2020445050C199539241 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConceptScore W2020445050C2778197078 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConceptScore W2020445050C2780668109 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConceptScore W2020445050C74916050 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConceptScore W2020445050C94625758 @default.
• W2020445050 hasConceptScore W2020445050C95457728 @default.
• W2020445050 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2020445050 hasLocation W20204450501 @default.
• W2020445050 hasOpenAccess W2020445050 @default.
• W2020445050 hasPrimaryLocation W20204450501 @default.
• W2020445050 hasRelatedWork W1570577768 @default.
• W2020445050 hasRelatedWork W2337058426 @default.
• W2020445050 hasRelatedWork W2486759927 @default.
• W2020445050 hasRelatedWork W2592608180 @default.
• W2020445050 hasRelatedWork W2789301642 @default.
• W2020445050 hasRelatedWork W3080724725 @default.
• W2020445050 hasRelatedWork W3123037992 @default.
• W2020445050 hasRelatedWork W3127061789 @default.
• W2020445050 hasRelatedWork W3209118128 @default.
• W2020445050 hasRelatedWork W4253388028 @default.
• W2020445050 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W2020445050 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2020445050 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2020445050 magId "2020445050" @default.
• W2020445050 workType "article" @default.