MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2058714033 · doi:10.1353/hms.2011.0258

On the Nature and Conduct of the Passions, with Illustrations on the Moral Sense, 1728 (review)

2000· article· en· W2058714033 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark H. Waymack

Notice bibliographique

RevueHume studies · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueEconomic Theory and Institutions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPassionsAdmirationPhilosophyGeniusEconomic JusticeEpistemologyCommon senseLiteratureLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Hume Studies Volume 30, Number 1, April 2004, pp. 208-209 FRANCIS HUTCHESON. An Essay on the Nature and Conduct ofthe Passions and Affections , with Illustrations on the Moral Sense. Edited with an Introduction by Aaron Garrett. Indianapolis: The Liberty Fund, 2002. Pp. xxv+226. ISBN 0-86597-386-5, cloth, $20.00. ISBN 0-86597-387-3, paper, $12.00. With the reintroduction of Hume's philosophical works in the form of the Green and Gross editions, and the concomitant decline of the British Hegelians about a century ago, respect for Hume's philosophical talent rose enormously. Our respect and admiration for Hume's genius, whether we entirely agree with his work or not, has been a sustained, perhaps ever growing, philosophical attitude throughout the time since. However, we have been much slower to recapture and appreciate the philosophical discourse that helped to shape Hume's thought. One can, I think, argue that doing justice, in a historical sense as well as a moral sense, requires sufficient attention to Hume's immediate predecessors. And perhaps the most important figure in that sense is Francis Hutcheson, for even the most cursory study of Hutcheson's works reveals and sheds much light on where Hume found many ideas on the moral sense and moral psychology, as well as ideas concerning the very nature of moral philosophy as a discipline of inquiry. Yet, Hutcheson's works have not been widely available, nor very critically reprinted in our time. Serious scholars of Hutcheson have typically looked to the Hildesheim edition of Hutcheson collected works (seven volumes, Hildesheim: Olms, 1969-1971). But that multi-volume set is really nothing but a facsimile edition , offering no critical apparatus. Peter Kivy produced a helpful critical edition of Hutcheson's Inquiry Concerning Beauty (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973), but that edition neglected the second of Hutcheson's inquiries, the one on moral good and evil. And Bernard Peach presented an edition of the Illustrations on the Moral Sense (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), an edition which made no real claim to being fully critical and which, for whatever reasons, chose to overlook the Essay on the Nature and Conduct ofthe Passions and Affections, which was bound with the Illustrations as a single volume in Hutcheson's time. And, interesting to note, the most helpful of critical editions of Hutcheson, at least to date and as evidenced by the footnotes of the scholars who work on Hutcheson, has been the editions produced in Italian by Luigi Turco. For all these reasons, and more, it is a delight to see Aaron Garrett's critical edition of Hutcheson's An Essay on the Nature and Conduct ofthe Passions and Affections , with Illustrations on the Moral Sense. While I have differences of opinion concerning some of Garrett's choices, they are relatively minor differences. First, Garrett, following a long-standing Hume Studies Book Reviews 209 and rather staid tradition of editorial work (drawing from scholarship in English literature, particularly Shakespeare scholarship), has chosen the first edition as his copy text, presenting textual changes from later editions in endnotes. I would have preferred the third edition as copy text, on the rationale that it would best reflect Hutcheson's own final thoughts on his work. However, my preference here certainly represents a minority view, while Garrett's represents mainstream editorial principles. Second, I would have preferred to have the textual variants noted on the page rather than in endnotes. Garrett's justification for using endnotes is that the inclusion of all the minor variations (such as capitalization, spelling, etc.) would hopelessly clutter the reading page. And I suppose that may be true. At the worst, the interested scholar simply has to flip from reading page to endnote page in order to note textual changes: a tad inconvenient, but still quite feasible. Third, I would have wished for a richer philosophical introduction. But here one might justly reply that this is meant as an edition of Hutcheson, not a book about Hutcheson. On the specifically positive side, my own spot checks from microfilm copies affirmed the textual accuracy of Garrett's work. And, unlike Peach's edition, which was presented with rather unorthodox...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,620
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,632

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,085
Tête enseignante GPT0,261
Écart entre enseignants0,176 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHume studiesMême sujetEconomic Theory and InstitutionsTravaux en français237 207