Epistemology of “Natural Religion” by D. Hume: Hidden Paradoxes

Q3 Arts and Humanities History of Philosophy Quarterly Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.21146/2074-5869-2021-26-1-5-12
V. J. Darenskiy
{"title":"Epistemology of “Natural Religion” by D. Hume: Hidden Paradoxes","authors":"V. J. Darenskiy","doi":"10.21146/2074-5869-2021-26-1-5-12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the paradoxes of the concept of “natural religion” by D. Hume, which arose as a result of his application of the method of radical skepticism to the subjects of religious faith. It is shown that the analysis of D. Hume is a movement from the original theses of a skeptical nature – to theses that coincide with traditional views. The main paradox of his concept is that the impossibility of rational proofs of knowledge of anything (including knowledge of the existence of God) leads to the fact that the basic epistemological category of D. Hume is the category of faith (belief). This, in turn, leads to the disappearance of fundamental differences between what is commonly called “positive” (scientific) knowledge and religious faith. Moreover, in this case, it is religious faith that turns out to be a kind of “model” of any knowledge as such. The merit of D. Hume in clarifying this question is that he clearly pointed out the illegality of separating the representation from the judgment and conclusion in acts of knowledge – and returning reflection to their primary unity in the real experience of consciousness.","PeriodicalId":53558,"journal":{"name":"History of Philosophy Quarterly","volume":"33 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Philosophy Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-5869-2021-26-1-5-12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article examines the paradoxes of the concept of “natural religion” by D. Hume, which arose as a result of his application of the method of radical skepticism to the subjects of religious faith. It is shown that the analysis of D. Hume is a movement from the original theses of a skeptical nature – to theses that coincide with traditional views. The main paradox of his concept is that the impossibility of rational proofs of knowledge of anything (including knowledge of the existence of God) leads to the fact that the basic epistemological category of D. Hume is the category of faith (belief). This, in turn, leads to the disappearance of fundamental differences between what is commonly called “positive” (scientific) knowledge and religious faith. Moreover, in this case, it is religious faith that turns out to be a kind of “model” of any knowledge as such. The merit of D. Hume in clarifying this question is that he clearly pointed out the illegality of separating the representation from the judgment and conclusion in acts of knowledge – and returning reflection to their primary unity in the real experience of consciousness.
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
休谟“自然宗教”的认识论:隐藏的悖论
本文考察了休谟“自然宗教”概念的悖论,这种悖论是由于休谟将激进怀疑主义的方法应用于宗教信仰的主体而产生的。研究表明,休谟的分析是一个从怀疑论性质的原始论点到与传统观点一致的论点的运动。休谟概念的主要悖论是,对任何事物(包括上帝存在的知识)的理性证明的不可能性导致休谟的基本认识论范畴是信仰(信仰)的范畴。这反过来又导致了通常被称为“实证”(科学)知识和宗教信仰之间的根本差异的消失。此外,在这种情况下,宗教信仰被证明是任何知识的一种“模式”。休谟在澄清这个问题上的优点在于,他清楚地指出了将知识行为中的表象与判断和结论分开,并将反思回归到意识真实经验中的原始统一的违法性。
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
History of Philosophy Quarterly
History of Philosophy Quarterly Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Good in Boethius’ De hebdomadibus Against Passionate Epistemology On Splitting the Atom Deriving Positive Duties from Kant's Formula of Universal Law Constitution, Causation, and the Final Opinion
×
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