The Role of Philosophy in Hume’s Critique of Empire

IF 0.7 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Pub Date : 2023-03-15 DOI:10.1080/09672559.2023.2235580
Elena Yi-Jia Zeng
{"title":"The Role of Philosophy in Hume’s Critique of Empire","authors":"Elena Yi-Jia Zeng","doi":"10.1080/09672559.2023.2235580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The British Empire found itself in uncharted territory during the global competition over military and commercial hegemony in the eighteenth century. Many thinkers questioned the wisdom of empire by comparing Britain’s overseas expansion with the fate of ancient Rome and the government’s controversial colonial policy. David Hume distinguished himself from these critical voices by adopting a detached philosophical approach. His detachment nonetheless ended in scepticism. This article reconstructs Hume’s doubts about empire in order to illuminate the way philosophy interacts with practical political questions. Working at the intersection between political philosophy and epistemology, Hume demonstrates how scepticism shapes his remark on the perennial republican dilemma concerning the trade-off between empire and liberty. His philosophical approach shifts the focus of the debates from attempting to reconcile the two to diagnosing the crux of political instability in modern empires. I argue that Hume defended philosophy's use by highlighting the epistemological aspect of the problem. For him, ideational factors, such as extreme and false beliefs, could provoke public frenzy. This meant that popular politics posed a substantial challenge to modern imperial rule. Governing the passions for empire should therefore be made a matter of a national priority. By pinpointing in this way the role of the citizenry, Hume clarified how epistemic questions remained central to modern politics.","PeriodicalId":51828,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2023.2235580","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The British Empire found itself in uncharted territory during the global competition over military and commercial hegemony in the eighteenth century. Many thinkers questioned the wisdom of empire by comparing Britain’s overseas expansion with the fate of ancient Rome and the government’s controversial colonial policy. David Hume distinguished himself from these critical voices by adopting a detached philosophical approach. His detachment nonetheless ended in scepticism. This article reconstructs Hume’s doubts about empire in order to illuminate the way philosophy interacts with practical political questions. Working at the intersection between political philosophy and epistemology, Hume demonstrates how scepticism shapes his remark on the perennial republican dilemma concerning the trade-off between empire and liberty. His philosophical approach shifts the focus of the debates from attempting to reconcile the two to diagnosing the crux of political instability in modern empires. I argue that Hume defended philosophy's use by highlighting the epistemological aspect of the problem. For him, ideational factors, such as extreme and false beliefs, could provoke public frenzy. This meant that popular politics posed a substantial challenge to modern imperial rule. Governing the passions for empire should therefore be made a matter of a national priority. By pinpointing in this way the role of the citizenry, Hume clarified how epistemic questions remained central to modern politics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哲学在休谟《帝国批判》中的作用
在18世纪的全球军事和商业霸权竞争中,大英帝国发现自己处于一个未知的领域。许多思想家将英国的海外扩张与古罗马的命运和政府备受争议的殖民政策进行比较,质疑帝国的智慧。大卫休谟通过采用超然的哲学方法使自己与这些批评声音区别开来。然而,他的超然最终导致了怀疑。本文重构了休谟对帝国的质疑,以阐明哲学与现实政治问题的互动方式。在政治哲学和认识论的交叉点上,休谟展示了怀疑主义是如何塑造了他关于帝国与自由之间权衡的共和主义长期困境的评论。他的哲学方法将辩论的焦点从试图调和两者转移到诊断现代帝国政治不稳定的症结。我认为休谟通过强调问题的认识论方面来捍卫哲学的使用。对他来说,观念因素,如极端和错误的信念,可能会引起公众的愤怒。这意味着大众政治对现代帝国统治构成了实质性的挑战。因此,控制对帝国的热情应该成为国家的优先事项。通过这种方式精确地指出公民的角色,休谟澄清了认识论问题如何仍然是现代政治的核心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Philosophical Studies (IJPS) publishes academic articles of the highest quality from both analytic and continental traditions and provides a forum for publishing on a broader range of issues than is currently available in philosophical journals. IJPS also publishes annual special issues devoted to key thematic areas or to critical engagements with contemporary philosophers of note. Through its Discussion section, it provides a lively forum for exchange of ideas and encourages dialogue and mutual comprehension across all philosophical traditions. The journal also contains an extensive book review section, including occasional book symposia. It also provides Critical Notices which review major books or themes in depth.
期刊最新文献
Nietzsche and the Size of Future History as a Normative Criterion Becoming Foucault: The Poitiers Years Transgenerational Frontiers: The Capabilities Approach And the New Challenge of Justice Intuitional Content or Avoiding the Myth of the Given – A Dilemma for McDowell Ethics in the Gray Area: A Gradualist Theory of Right and Wrong Ethics in the Gray Area: A Gradualist Theory of Right and Wrong , by Martin Peterson, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2023, 236 pp., £85.00 (hbk), ISBN 9781009336789
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1