MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2623756022 · doi:10.1353/hms.2015.0012

Reflecting Subjects: Passion, Sympathy, and Society in Hume's Philosophy by Jacqueline Taylor

2015· article· en· W2623756022 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karl Schäfer

Notice bibliographique

RevueHume studies · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePhilosophical Ethics and Theory
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPassionsPassionSympathyPhilosophyInterpretation (philosophy)EpistemologyScholarshipSociologyPsychologyLawSocial psychologyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Reflecting Subjects: Passion, Sympathy, and Society in Hume's Philosophy by Jacqueline Taylor Karl Schafer Jacqueline Taylor. Reflecting Subjects: Passion, Sympathy, and Society in Hume's Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Pp. 240, ISBN 9780198729525, cloth, $60.00. Reflecting Subjects is an important and timely book, both as a piece of Hume interpretation and as a work of philosophy more generally. Let me begin with the first. It has increasingly become a commonplace in Hume interpretation that the passionate and social dimensions of human life play an unusually fundamental role in Hume's philosophy. But we are only beginning to appreciate the significance of this side of Hume in a systematic way. (Indeed, Taylor's book may be the first piece of Hume scholarship focused primarily on the passions since Páll Árdal's—although the centrality of the passions is also a major theme of Annette Baier's work.) It is precisely here that Taylor focuses her attention, providing us with a new perspective on why the passions stand at the center, not just of the books like the Treatise, but also of the philosophy they expound. For Taylor, the heart of Hume's social philosophy lies in his account of the passions and, in particular, in the manner in which they reciprocally inform and are informed by our social context and relations. In this way, Taylor finds in Hume's account of the passions the foundations of a truly social psychology, as well as a theory of social relations and power that has surprising critical potential. It is here that the broader philosophical relevance of Taylor's book is perhaps most obvious. A signal development in recent "analytic philosophy" is a renewed interest in the social dimensions of human life. Topics like race and gender—and [End Page 289] the forms of social oppression associated with them—are finally returning to the center of contemporary philosophical discussion. One of the main themes of Taylor's book is that Hume is a worthy contributor to the renewal of interest in these topics. Indeed, if Taylor is right, is was precisely Hume's concern for these issues that explains some of the major developments in Hume's philosophical view over his career. Thus, the time is doubly ripe for Taylor's book. Despite its relatively short length, Taylor's discussion is extremely rich, so there is no possibility of doing justice to it here. Instead, I will simply try to present a few of the main themes of her discussion, while raising a few questions along the way. As should already be clear, I am very sympathetic to the story Taylor has to tell, although, of course, as a professional picker of nits, I will do my best to find some details to bicker over. Taylor begins Reflecting Subjects by situating Hume's account of the passions within his larger project of developing a "science of man." In doing so, Taylor takes aim at the popular perception of Hume as a philosopher whose methodology falls far short of his own experimental ambitions. Here Taylor makes two important points. First, she convincingly argues that the conception of "experimental method" operative among Hume's contemporaries was importantly different from our own. Thus, if we are to fairly evaluate Hume's methodological claims, we must read them as expressing a commitment to "experimental method" in Hume's sense of these words. This might seem to save Hume from the charge of methodological inconsistency at the cost of allowing that his methodology is in fact naive and simplistic by present standards. But Taylor goes on to argue that while Hume's experimental method differs from our current conception of experimental practice, it nonetheless represents a serious and systematic approach to the nature of the human mind. With this background in place, Taylor moves on to discuss the details of Hume's theory of the passions—focusing on the key passion of pride. Taylor's discussion here is too rich to summarize, but a central theme is again the links between Hume's account of the passions and his social philosophy. As noted before, this connection is twofold. First, Taylor convincingly argues...

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)0,001
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: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,664
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,680

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,184
Tête enseignante GPT0,347
Écart entre enseignants0,164 · 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
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHume studiesMême sujetPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryTravaux en français237 207