{"title":"理智的见证:从休谟到哈兹利特的经验主义与论文》,蒂姆-米尔恩斯著(评论)","authors":"Margaret Watkins","doi":"10.1353/hms.2024.a924235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt</em> by Tim Milnes <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Margaret Watkins </li> </ul> Tim Milnes. <em>The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt</em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Pp. viii + 278. Hardback. ISBN: 9780198812739. $91.00. <p>In his brief autobiography, “My Own Life,” Hume reports that “almost all [his] life has been spent in literary pursuits and occupations” (E-MOL: xxxi). This is one of at least ten places in this brief work in which he associates himself with “letters” or “literature”—as compared to at most four associations with philosophy. The moral to be inferred is not that Hume considered himself not to be a philosopher. Rather, he conceived of philosophy as a kind of literature. The <em>Treatise</em> was itself a “literary attempt.” Indeed, opposition between the “literary” and “philosophical” aspects of a text would have been foreign to Hume and his contemporaries—a notion for a later age, despite his occasional loose distinction between the relevant genres, as in his list of writings “historical, philosophical, or literary” in “My Own Life” (E-MOL: xxxvi).</p> <p>Yet despite Hume’s own understanding of the continuity between philosophy and literature, broadly conceived, it is still common for contemporary philosophers to ignore literary questions in their examination of Hume’s work, or to presume that one can easily distinguish the “philosophical” parts from the “literary” ones. Tim Milnes’s <em>The Testimony of Sense</em> is therefore a welcome addition to the Hume literature (pun intended). With a particular focus on the essay—a genre of great importance to Hume—Milnes contributes to the small set of engagements with Hume from the disciplinary perspective of English literature. With training in both philosophy and literature, as well as established expertise on Romanticism and its own essays, Milnes is well-qualified for the task. <em>The Testimony of Sense</em> includes sustained engagement with Hume’s contemporaries and successors, but for the purposes of this review, I engage the book primarily as a Hume scholar for Hume scholars.</p> <p>Milnes’s story plays out in three acts. The first establishes the need for public trust created by a skeptical crisis, itself a product of Hume’s criticism of the epistemic program of thinkers in the Cartesian and Lockean traditions. The second explains how the essays of the long eighteenth century constitute a response to that need in various ways. The third reveals in detail how the Romantic essayists, particularly William Hazlitt and Charles Lamb, both respond to and deviate from the “neoclassical” essayists, typified by Hume and Samuel Johnson.</p> <p>The first chapter, “Self and Intersubjectivity,” lays the groundwork by articulating how Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, and Dugald Stewart identify the need for what we now call intersubjectivity. Milnes describes the common thread as a kind of “natural transcendentalism.” In what sense are these thinkers properly understood as <strong>[End Page 175]</strong> transcendentalists? The central idea seems to be that all posit things other than reason as “conditions of meaningful thought” (72). For Hume, it is the social, linguistic experience of a community of virtuous judges. The intricate relations between self and other essential to such a community get “internalized within the specular drama of the impartial spectator” (72) in Smith’s writing, which itself takes part in the drama through his “halting, qualified syntax” that mimics “everyday speech” (44). Reid posits a “prescience” of trust, which grounds our reliance on both human testimony and the uniformity of nature, itself undergirded by the design of a benevolent God. Stewart, who posits axiomatic truths that help constitute the “stamina of intellect,” goes furthest, actually calling these truths transcendental (55). This chapter also puts these eighteenth-century thinkers in conversation with twentieth-century theorists, including Habermas, Davidson, and Rorty.</p> <p>Chapter 2, “The Subject of Trust,” deepens the analysis by situating these “natural transcendentalisms” in the broader enlightenment context. In contrast to Descartes, Bacon, and Locke, who were suspicious of our reliance on the opinions of others, the eighteenth-century thinkers understand trust as prior to reason in various ways—though not prior to solidarity. The particulars in each case depend on their responses to skepticism and their accounts of the relation between...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt by Tim Milnes (review)\",\"authors\":\"Margaret Watkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/hms.2024.a924235\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt</em> by Tim Milnes <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Margaret Watkins </li> </ul> Tim Milnes. <em>The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt</em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Pp. viii + 278. Hardback. ISBN: 9780198812739. $91.00. <p>In his brief autobiography, “My Own Life,” Hume reports that “almost all [his] life has been spent in literary pursuits and occupations” (E-MOL: xxxi). This is one of at least ten places in this brief work in which he associates himself with “letters” or “literature”—as compared to at most four associations with philosophy. The moral to be inferred is not that Hume considered himself not to be a philosopher. Rather, he conceived of philosophy as a kind of literature. The <em>Treatise</em> was itself a “literary attempt.” Indeed, opposition between the “literary” and “philosophical” aspects of a text would have been foreign to Hume and his contemporaries—a notion for a later age, despite his occasional loose distinction between the relevant genres, as in his list of writings “historical, philosophical, or literary” in “My Own Life” (E-MOL: xxxvi).</p> <p>Yet despite Hume’s own understanding of the continuity between philosophy and literature, broadly conceived, it is still common for contemporary philosophers to ignore literary questions in their examination of Hume’s work, or to presume that one can easily distinguish the “philosophical” parts from the “literary” ones. Tim Milnes’s <em>The Testimony of Sense</em> is therefore a welcome addition to the Hume literature (pun intended). With a particular focus on the essay—a genre of great importance to Hume—Milnes contributes to the small set of engagements with Hume from the disciplinary perspective of English literature. With training in both philosophy and literature, as well as established expertise on Romanticism and its own essays, Milnes is well-qualified for the task. <em>The Testimony of Sense</em> includes sustained engagement with Hume’s contemporaries and successors, but for the purposes of this review, I engage the book primarily as a Hume scholar for Hume scholars.</p> <p>Milnes’s story plays out in three acts. The first establishes the need for public trust created by a skeptical crisis, itself a product of Hume’s criticism of the epistemic program of thinkers in the Cartesian and Lockean traditions. The second explains how the essays of the long eighteenth century constitute a response to that need in various ways. The third reveals in detail how the Romantic essayists, particularly William Hazlitt and Charles Lamb, both respond to and deviate from the “neoclassical” essayists, typified by Hume and Samuel Johnson.</p> <p>The first chapter, “Self and Intersubjectivity,” lays the groundwork by articulating how Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, and Dugald Stewart identify the need for what we now call intersubjectivity. Milnes describes the common thread as a kind of “natural transcendentalism.” In what sense are these thinkers properly understood as <strong>[End Page 175]</strong> transcendentalists? The central idea seems to be that all posit things other than reason as “conditions of meaningful thought” (72). For Hume, it is the social, linguistic experience of a community of virtuous judges. The intricate relations between self and other essential to such a community get “internalized within the specular drama of the impartial spectator” (72) in Smith’s writing, which itself takes part in the drama through his “halting, qualified syntax” that mimics “everyday speech” (44). Reid posits a “prescience” of trust, which grounds our reliance on both human testimony and the uniformity of nature, itself undergirded by the design of a benevolent God. Stewart, who posits axiomatic truths that help constitute the “stamina of intellect,” goes furthest, actually calling these truths transcendental (55). This chapter also puts these eighteenth-century thinkers in conversation with twentieth-century theorists, including Habermas, Davidson, and Rorty.</p> <p>Chapter 2, “The Subject of Trust,” deepens the analysis by situating these “natural transcendentalisms” in the broader enlightenment context. In contrast to Descartes, Bacon, and Locke, who were suspicious of our reliance on the opinions of others, the eighteenth-century thinkers understand trust as prior to reason in various ways—though not prior to solidarity. The particulars in each case depend on their responses to skepticism and their accounts of the relation between...</p> </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hume Studies\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hume Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2024.a924235\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hume Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2024.a924235","RegionNum":4,"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
摘要
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:评论者: 理智的见证:经验主义与从休谟到哈兹利特的论文》,作者:蒂姆-米尔恩斯 Margaret Watkins 蒂姆-米尔恩斯。理智的见证:The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt.牛津:牛津大学出版社,2019年。第 viii + 278 页。精装。ISBN:9780198812739。$91.00.休谟在其简短的自传《我自己的生活》中称,"[他的]一生几乎都是在文学追求和职业中度过的"(E-MOL: xxxi)。在这本简短的著作中,休谟至少有十处与 "文学 "或 "书信 "有关,而与哲学有关的最多只有四处。可以推断的寓意并不是休谟认为自己不是哲学家。相反,他将哲学视为一种文学。论文》本身就是一种 "文学尝试"。事实上,将文本的 "文学性 "与 "哲学性 "对立起来对休谟及其同时代人来说是陌生的,尽管他偶尔会对相关体裁进行松散的区分,如他在《我自己的生活》(E-MOL: xxxvi)中列出的 "历史、哲学或文学 "著作,但这是后人的观念。然而,尽管从广义上讲,休谟本人对哲学与文学之间的连续性有着自己的理解,但当代哲学家在研究休谟的著作时忽视文学问题,或假定人们很容易将 "哲学 "部分与 "文学 "部分区分开来,仍是司空见惯的现象。因此,蒂姆-米尔恩斯(Tim Milnes)的《感官的见证》(The Testimony of Sense)一书是休谟文献中值得欢迎的补充(双关语)。米尔恩斯特别关注散文--一种对休谟非常重要的文体--从英国文学的学科视角对休谟的少量研究做出了贡献。米尔恩同时接受过哲学和文学方面的训练,并在浪漫主义及其散文方面拥有丰富的专业知识,因此完全有能力胜任这项任务。理智的见证》持续涉及休谟的同时代人和后继者,但在这篇评论中,我主要以休谟学者的身份为休谟学者撰写这本书。米尔恩的故事分为三幕。第一幕确立了怀疑论危机对公共信任的需求,这一危机本身就是休谟对笛卡尔和洛克传统思想家的认识论纲领进行批判的产物。第二部分解释了十八世纪长篇散文是如何以各种方式对这种需求做出回应的。第三章详细揭示了浪漫主义散文家,尤其是威廉-哈兹利特和查尔斯-兰姆,是如何回应并偏离以休谟和塞缪尔-约翰逊为代表的 "新古典主义 "散文家的。第一章 "自我与主体间性 "阐明了休谟、亚当-斯密、托马斯-里德和杜格尔德-斯图尔特如何确定我们现在所说的主体间性的必要性,从而奠定了基础。米尔恩将这一共同点描述为一种 "自然超验主义"。这些思想家在什么意义上被正确理解为 [第 175 页完] 超验主义者呢?其核心思想似乎是,他们都把理性之外的东西视为 "有意义思想的条件"(72)。对休谟来说,这是一个由有德行的法官组成的群体的社会语言经验。在史密斯的写作中,这种群体所必需的自我与他人之间错综复杂的关系被 "内化于公正的旁观者的镜像戏剧之中"(72),而史密斯的写作本身也通过其模仿 "日常言语 "的 "停顿、限定的句法"(44)参与了这场戏剧。里德提出了一种信任的 "预知",它使我们对人类的证词和大自然的统一性都产生了依赖,而大自然的统一性又是由仁慈的上帝设计的。斯图尔特提出的公理真理有助于构成 "智力的耐力",他走得最远,实际上称这些真理为超验真理(55)。本章还将这些十八世纪思想家与哈贝马斯、戴维森和罗蒂等二十世纪理论家进行了对话。第 2 章 "信任的主体 "将这些 "自然超越论 "置于更广泛的启蒙背景中,从而深化了分析。笛卡尔、培根和洛克怀疑我们对他人意见的依赖,与之相反,18 世纪的思想家们在不同方面将信任理解为先于理性--尽管不是先于团结。每个案例的具体情况都取决于他们对怀疑论的回应,以及他们对 "信任 "与 "团结 "之间关系的描述。
The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt by Tim Milnes (review)
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
Reviewed by:
The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt by Tim Milnes
Margaret Watkins
Tim Milnes. The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Pp. viii + 278. Hardback. ISBN: 9780198812739. $91.00.
In his brief autobiography, “My Own Life,” Hume reports that “almost all [his] life has been spent in literary pursuits and occupations” (E-MOL: xxxi). This is one of at least ten places in this brief work in which he associates himself with “letters” or “literature”—as compared to at most four associations with philosophy. The moral to be inferred is not that Hume considered himself not to be a philosopher. Rather, he conceived of philosophy as a kind of literature. The Treatise was itself a “literary attempt.” Indeed, opposition between the “literary” and “philosophical” aspects of a text would have been foreign to Hume and his contemporaries—a notion for a later age, despite his occasional loose distinction between the relevant genres, as in his list of writings “historical, philosophical, or literary” in “My Own Life” (E-MOL: xxxvi).
Yet despite Hume’s own understanding of the continuity between philosophy and literature, broadly conceived, it is still common for contemporary philosophers to ignore literary questions in their examination of Hume’s work, or to presume that one can easily distinguish the “philosophical” parts from the “literary” ones. Tim Milnes’s The Testimony of Sense is therefore a welcome addition to the Hume literature (pun intended). With a particular focus on the essay—a genre of great importance to Hume—Milnes contributes to the small set of engagements with Hume from the disciplinary perspective of English literature. With training in both philosophy and literature, as well as established expertise on Romanticism and its own essays, Milnes is well-qualified for the task. The Testimony of Sense includes sustained engagement with Hume’s contemporaries and successors, but for the purposes of this review, I engage the book primarily as a Hume scholar for Hume scholars.
Milnes’s story plays out in three acts. The first establishes the need for public trust created by a skeptical crisis, itself a product of Hume’s criticism of the epistemic program of thinkers in the Cartesian and Lockean traditions. The second explains how the essays of the long eighteenth century constitute a response to that need in various ways. The third reveals in detail how the Romantic essayists, particularly William Hazlitt and Charles Lamb, both respond to and deviate from the “neoclassical” essayists, typified by Hume and Samuel Johnson.
The first chapter, “Self and Intersubjectivity,” lays the groundwork by articulating how Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, and Dugald Stewart identify the need for what we now call intersubjectivity. Milnes describes the common thread as a kind of “natural transcendentalism.” In what sense are these thinkers properly understood as [End Page 175] transcendentalists? The central idea seems to be that all posit things other than reason as “conditions of meaningful thought” (72). For Hume, it is the social, linguistic experience of a community of virtuous judges. The intricate relations between self and other essential to such a community get “internalized within the specular drama of the impartial spectator” (72) in Smith’s writing, which itself takes part in the drama through his “halting, qualified syntax” that mimics “everyday speech” (44). Reid posits a “prescience” of trust, which grounds our reliance on both human testimony and the uniformity of nature, itself undergirded by the design of a benevolent God. Stewart, who posits axiomatic truths that help constitute the “stamina of intellect,” goes furthest, actually calling these truths transcendental (55). This chapter also puts these eighteenth-century thinkers in conversation with twentieth-century theorists, including Habermas, Davidson, and Rorty.
Chapter 2, “The Subject of Trust,” deepens the analysis by situating these “natural transcendentalisms” in the broader enlightenment context. In contrast to Descartes, Bacon, and Locke, who were suspicious of our reliance on the opinions of others, the eighteenth-century thinkers understand trust as prior to reason in various ways—though not prior to solidarity. The particulars in each case depend on their responses to skepticism and their accounts of the relation between...