ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
David Hume’s racist footnote
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ม.ค. 2023
- David Hume’s racist footnote
Uncancelled History re-evaluates events, people, and ideas that have otherwise been cancelled from the past. Learn more at www.uncancelledhistory.com
Douglas Murray is a British author and political commentator, who - along with his guests - looks at great figures of the past through their historical context.
Watch the full episode here: • Uncancelled History wi...
Check out exclusive nebulous media content:
Website - bit.ly/3UzEGRT
Instagram - bit.ly/3O3kLIT
Twitter - bit.ly/3GdGr34
TH-cam - bit.ly/3gkXqWz
#enlightenment #philosophy #dougasmurray
![Exclusive! น้องลิกก้า&น้องโรร่า มาแล้ว!! [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.48 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UmlpJhRekyY/mqdefault.jpg)
and, so what? This is how people thought
you are 1 trillion % correct.
And one must be a modern akademik amerikun filosofer to fail to see this...
Because man enlightenment philosophers like Hume and many other social scientists like anthropologists were used to justify
And legitimise slavery and the arguement of superiority of whites over non whites!
The same way douglas murray and others post ww2 and the holocaust never speak of biological racism as this NOW has been comprehensively and scientifically dismantled
so therefore now its disguised through “cultural”superiority and differences and incompatibility of cultures as cause of ethnic conflict and socioeconomic deprivations and all other ills etc!
Thought? I still think like this and Hume was right then and he is even more right today.
Woke : Are you going to apologize for your racist remark?
Hume: I see no reason to. Nothing, since I wrote the footnote, has proven the fallacy of my remark.
I'd say the bigger point is that it has nothing to do with what Hume actually did or his philosophical insights. If Newton was racist (wouldn't be a surprise if he was at the time) his calculus and theory of gravity would still be (roughly) correct.
Agree. Newton had a lot of scientific ideas that were incontrovertibly refuted in later centuries. He devoted much time to exploring alchemy, which is now universally ridiculed (except by a few, including me.)
Just one racist note? Arnold Toynbee says the exact same thing which is the reason he says he did not include negroes in his multi-volume histories. Arthus Schopenhaur compares blacks to wild monkeys. F. Nietczhe also says something similar. and probably thousand of other authors. (can you blame them?)
Yes. Which is why Ayn Rand was infinitely a far better thinker
@@Mr.Witness NO!!! Ayn Rand WAS NOT A BETTER THINKER. Flannery O'Connor was right when she wrote "She [Ayn Rand] makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky."
@@josephr.gainey2079 Patrick o'Hara discerned an overly tendencious attributionalational characteristic deleterious to any inciseasiveness notablements with both the writers cited above - allegedly.
"It is said that the most sociable of all people are the negroes; and they are at the bottom of the scale in intellect. I remember reading once in a French paper [Le Commerce, Oct. 19th, 1837] that the blacks in North America, whether free or enslaved, are fond of shutting themselves up in large numbers in the smallest space, because they cannot have too much of one another's snub-nosed company."
The Wisdom of Life
by Arthur Schopenhauer
@@peteratkinson922 Man, you obsticants whats you pontificates. Muss be de genus.
Hume thought blacks were inferior because they never achieved anything. OK. I can see why he might have thought that at the time. So what? What bearing does it have on anything else?
Reading that quote it seems like he was saying about societies not separate individuals. If to look at it in this way then that quote is quite true even today
My reading of the famous footnote is that Hume was speculating about the differences among human populations. An hour’s reading in his published work shows that he was extremely reluctant to be definitive. He maintained that it is “merely probable“ that the sun would come up every day.
Hume is a great philosopher and in his field he found at his time probably no black philosophers. His footnote makes sense to me.
Go back to the 1700s and take a look at the world, and you’d be hard-pressed to disagree with the footnote. It was 100% accurate at the time. Huge parts of the world had yet to figure out the wheel.
My two favourite philosophers were David Hume and John Stuart Mill because both wrote so beautifully that I would sometimes read a paragraph more than once. After all, I found it so beautiful. However, a few years ago, I realized that John Stuart mill was a colonialist and that I had not noticed it reading him when I was young, perhaps because I had been raised as a colonialist myself without realizing it. It is unfortunate if David Hume was a racist, but that sure doesn't negate his writing on most things.
@@coreycox2345
So, David Hume wasn't perfect. That suddenly negated all the positive things that you found so beautiful when you were young. People are complex and if you cancel people on their mistakes, you'll end up cancelling everyone. Colonialism was a way of life, in human history. The Europeans did it. So did the Persians....and the Mongols and the Chinese. The Aztecs and the Iroquois. The Bantu and the Moghuls. All took land that didn't belong to them and brutally murdered anyone in their way.
If you want to learn from history, don't go looking for only the wrongs of it. It should be a comprehensive learning experience. I've been interested in Mayan history. It was some brutal but they also accomplished some incredible things. You have to take in the dirty as well as the uplifting to learn about history, humanity and ultimately yourself.
@@JackHaveman52 Ok. So cancel everyone and start over.
@@cbbcbb6803
OR......cancel no one. Maybe you will feel better about yourself, going out and finding fault in others and then gleefully exposing them but what does it accomplish? It only strokes your own ego and I'd call that a selfish motive.
This cancelling people is one of the most vicious phenomena, without causing physical harm, that I've seen in my life and I'm 70 years old. It's like their some kind of religious fanatics, running around looking for sin and then pointing the sinner out. "Look...I've found another one" and then off they go to find another one. They'd have been great in the Spanish Inquisition.
@@JackHaveman52 We all need hobbies. Besides, humans lived tens or hundreds of thousands of years without "philosophers" and we could do it again.
In the "west", whatever the heck that is, you start out with "western" philosophy shoved down your throat. That permanently biases you in favor of "western" philosophy. You automatically close your eyes and ears to others. Are they better, worse, equal, or what? It doesn't matter. Your enforced education has already given you a prejudice.
He didn't rely on any intellectual reason in coming to his racist conclusion. It was his feelings, and the feelings generally and socially accepted at the time.
these 2 seem so uncomfortable. How is Douglas so confused?
Douglas is a white nationalist
Hes(sadly) confused on a few other topics, not sure why.
While Hume was known for his empiricism and skepticism. He was also known to encourage people to hold on to most of their common sense beliefs because its what helps people make their way in the world, and that the skepticism that he was advocating for would immediately vanish once the skeptic steps outside of an environment where they are asked to explain their skepticism. So at the time, Hume was just following what everyone else was thinking and convinced about
2:17 "Travel accounts"
In Europe far more books were sold about the exotic "Ottomans" than about
the New World
Europeans were fascinated by eastern culture
Not reciprocated : the "Indifference of the proud old Turk" dates back to C14th
Ibn Khaldun, who had zero interest in barbarian Europe
David Hume could out consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel..
Obviously Hume had not met James Brown.
Or Gill Scott Heron, Bill Withers and Grace Jones.
Hume's quote should be observed the way he came to it. Clinically. Had Hume rubbed elbows with modern society of today, perhaps he would have experienced the favorable privilege of a diversity on contribution. Put it this way. Hume came to a conclusion based upon his experience and observations during his time. Was he lying? Think about it. Certainly he recognized in his day the difference between advanced civilization and that which yet had to develope its own written language. Its about timing in the socially evolutionary development of cultures. Just the way it worked out. Ask yourself this. Is the protest really about the truth or something else we wish not to face. I don't think the fact Hume observed in his day should be celebrated but I don't think it should be hidden either. The whole world pulled off its skirt ,pulled on pants and thinks its a fkn social worker here to protect everyone's feelings. Anyone that has an inkling of intelligence knows well enough how not to offend, but when it comes to truth in academic studies I'm sorry Sally ,avoiding naked facts just isn't going to be an option for everybody. You do more harm focusing on the quote. USE YOUR FKN BRAIN . YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT A MILE AWAY BUT NO. Remember the toilet seat has a hinge. Use it. Up or down. When you lose your s##t on your husband because he left it up avoiding peeing on the seat, thats your problem. Put the seat anyway you want it using a hinge and SPARE US ALL THE GRIEF. LOL. Remember who we are being asked to make donations to because of mental health issues. STOP USING THE WORLD AND POLITICAL ACTIVITY TO COMPENSATE FOR YOUR SHORT COMINGS. Do what we do. Whats that that we do you ask? Thanks for asking. Well, its like this. You don't have to like it OR them but you SHOULD face FACTS anyway. P.S. You are quite welcome fellas. Someone has to fkn say it. G-d knows we have to listen to it enough so whats wrong with spinning it around once and awhile? Someone told me that if I ask that question there is an answer on reserve but it is dangerous to utilize. The answer is ACCOUNTABILITY not mood or comfort levels. The someone who told me was me. Have a REAL day. Bye. They collectively might not want to touch this with a ten foot pole because of our politically idiotic times, BUT YOU CAN BE DAMNED SURE THEY ARE LISTENING. People have the right to LIE to themselves and those around them, but they don't have the right to bitch ,whine and insist everyone else do the same. WTF have we become?
It seems the footnote is precisely based on his empiricism, contrary to the supposition of the discussion. For power or efficacy, being not a quality in the object, but a determination of the mind, to transition from one perception to another, based on all past instances, Hume is absolutely forced to assume what he does, there being not that easy transition in the one case, as in the other.
No-one is talking about the counter evidence to Hume's footnote
What do you mean?
And of course Hume was obviously correct.
How dare u? Black societies achieved a lot. For example.... um anyway they achieved a lot.
Also open borders to enrich Western culture
Well. Hume knew more than us now. Being swamped by migrants
@@purple-lu2pjeven if they didn't achieve anything that doesn't justify hatred against individuals or slave trade. It is a simple concept yet you fail to get it
@@AymanPlayer😅
Yeah, how this old philosophers be so arrogant. They didn't even visit any black country. I'm sure they would find wakanda there and immediately change their minds
Read a book about Europeans first visits to Africa by Hinton Rowan Helper
@@Virgo_Moon_77Negroes in Negroland
@@Virgo_Moon_77 its free at Archive
.net
@@Virgo_Moon_77 Pop back leave a review
Negroes in negroland, it's called. Amazon has it. Positive reviews. Many making connections to modern behaviour. Seems nothing changes
With the exception of this quotation, I think the view today is that David Hume was clearly enlightened for his time and even for our own time; and yet on this point he does seem curiously lacking in enlightenment compared to, of all institutions, the Church, which preached, as far as I know, that all human beings share the same ancestor and were created in the image of God (albeit, the Church also said, many were "lost" to paganism or bore Noah's curse).
You have hit the nail on the head. Atheists in particular admire Hume, but clearly his "enlightenment" is not quite as advertised.
Actually you're wrong. I grew up in south africa and Hume is 100% correct. It adds to genius he could see the negro for what he was with limited contact
Does anyone else teach the same things as Hume's good parts. That way we don't have to read the bad parts just to get to the good parts.
What bad part? Hume was 100% correct on what he said.
It was ONE footnote..
Trump for Prison 2024
300 years later, have they done anything worth remembering yet
Well the dominant culture around the world is hip hop...something blacks gave to the world they should have kept
Hume was 100% correct. It's not racist. It's amazing how he knew the black without overt experience
Crazy
Certain modern filosoferz have fallen of the existential turnip truck in failing to comprehend that their pre-modern colleagues carried and expressed the thoughts and ideas of their own era. So strange to tell, Hume was a racist because 18th century England was racist, Duh. End of story.
Otherwise, it was noted by Deleuze that all Philosophy is temporal. In this respect, Hume was answering contemporary philosophical questions; that we today consider him of value today is a tribute to both his intrinsic worth and, of course, that he still answers today's philosophical questions.
So in sum-- and to keep oneself on the turnip truck-- Hume was no more racist than Kant or any of those old greecians who spoke of all nons greecians as barbarians--Turkohemosarkis!
Likewsie, we can understand perhaps far better than the athest Hume that the impetus for a universalist view of humanity came from deeply religious sources: Aquinas through to the Salamanca School ave of Universal Human Rights.
I don't think that what was at that time the common understanding of the nature of the different peoples of the world could really be described as "racist".
@@jamesflames6987 No, 'racism' has always meant, 'using physical manifestations as an indicator of intelligence and character'. It's only the emotional disorder of modern middel amerikun that calls 'racism' not 'liking' people of color, or rap music, basketball, or whatnot.
What's so commonly stupid about this filosofer iz that he appears totally ignorant that generic, genetic based assumptions of race and racism were considered received wisdom everywhere until around 1980.
Or perhaps that even today people possessing serious, non-filosofer degrees use fancy math to prove a genetic relationship between intelligence testing, school performance, and skin pigmentation. Ditto that in a strict scientic sense, assuming the possibility of testing, all genetic/race/intelligence modeling falls under the rubric 'null hypotheses'.
In other words, for socio-political reasons which I accept, a rejection of racism is based upon an Ontology of 'paradigm choice and an epistemology that's broadly Coherentist. in both cases, given the lack of acceptable proof, it's simply better to be non-racist.
But Coherentism and Paradigm Choices themselves are broadly based upon community standards. So to this end, Hume had no reason to assume anything but racism.
@@00billharris Racism today largely has connotation of irrational prejudice. And while I myself am sceptical if "racism" or "racists" actually exist. I am even more sceptical that the idea that people have in their mind when they use that word applies to Hume.
@@jamesflames6987 Placing a cumbaya adjective such as 'irrational' with 'prejudice' adds nothing to the argument more than belaboring the point and causing resentment among whites: What's so 'iiarional about hating Snoop Dog and his genre? To this end, my Rx for your scepticism is to take another look.
However, you are correct that prejudice against black culture becomes irrational when said attitude is transferred to any particular 'black' individual as an unwarranted generalization.
As for Hume, all I can do is to repeat myself that yes, in middel amerika since around 1980, the working definition of 'racism has been changed from a phentype> genotype connection of skin coloer to intelligence to one of personal sentiment. Therefore, that modermn middel amerika has no understanding of the definition used by Hume is not surprising. They're simply too stupid to come to terms with the older model that dominated social thought for at least 300 years prior...