Aleksandra Davidović

One of the reasons for many different and even opposing interpretations of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is the absence of consensus concerning the question of which character in the Dialogues represents Hume. In this paper I argue that taking Philo to be his primary spokesperson provides us with the most consistent reading of the whole work and helps us better understand Hume's religious viewpoint. I first stress the specific dialogue form of Hume's work, which requires us to take into account literary tools such as irony and double-talk when interpreting it. From there I proceed to show why I believe that my hypothesis is better supported than the other two main hypotheses concerning Hume's presence in the Dialogues, the first one being that Cleanthes represents Hume and the other one that none of the characters consistently speaks for Hume but rather that the whole structure of the work does that. Although there is both textual and historical evidence which suggests that Hume favoured Cleanthes, I show that his opinions deviate from Hume's well-known views on important subjects such as scepticism, morality and Christianity, while Philo's opinions on these subjects agree with Hume's almost verbatim. The second hypothesis is proven to be wrong by the fact that Philo actually consistently defends Hume's opinions. Finally, I argue that Philo's understanding of true religion as a philosophical position devoid of any religious import agrees with Hume's religious scepticism.

One of the reasons for many different and even opposing interpretations of Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is the absence of consensus concerning the question of which character in the Dialogues represents Hume. In this paper I argue that taking Philo to be his primary spokesperson provides us with the most consistent reading of the whole work and helps us better understand Hume’s religious viewpoint. I first stress the specific dialogue form of Hume’s work, which requires us to take into account literary tools such as irony and double-talk when interpreting it. From there I proceed to show why I believe that my hypothesis is better supported than the other two main hypotheses concerning Hume’s presence in the Dialogues, the first one being that Cleanthes represents Hume and the other one that none of the characters consistently speaks for Hume but rather that the whole structure of the work does that. Although there is both textual and historical evidence which suggests that Hume favoured Cleanthes, I show that his opinions deviate from Hume’s well-known views on important subjects such as scepticism, morality and Christianity, while Philo’s opinions on these subjects agree with Hume’s almost verbatim. The second hypothesis is proven to be wrong by the fact that Philo actually consistently defends Hume’s opinions. Finally, I argue that Philo’s understanding of true religion as a philosophical position devoid of any religious import agrees with Hume’s religious scepticism.

U ovom radu istražujem kako su se Hjumova gledišta o odnosu između skepticizma i filozofije razvijala i kako su sazrevala tokom njegovog filozofskog rada. Hjumovo prvo delo, Rasprava o ljudskoj prirodi, ostavlja otvoreno pitanje zašto bi se iko bavio filozofijom u svetlu otkrića da su skeptički argumenti neoborivi. Cilj mi je da pokažem da, iako se Hjumov stav o skepticizmu i njegova skeptička pozicija nisu suštinski menjali tokom godina, Istraživanje o ljudskom razumu i Dijalozi o prirodnoj religiji, kao i nekoliko njegovih kraćih spisa sadrže interesantne promene, dodatke i poboljšanja kada je reč o njegovom shvatanju toga na koji način skepticizam može da utiče na filozofiju. Tek u svom poslednjem delu Hjum nedvosmisleno tvrdi da skepticizam ostvaruje trajan i pozitivan uticaj na naše bavljenje filozofijom, a ovaj uticaj se pre svega ogleda u intelektualnoj skromnosti i ograničavanju predmeta filozofskog istraživanja

Predmet ovog rada je Vitgenštajnovo razlikovanje i novo razumevanje pojmova znanja i izvesnosti u spisu O izvesnosti iz kojih proističe i njegova inovativna kritika skepticizma. On pokazuje da čitava rasprava o skepticizmu nastaje zato što i tradicionalni epistemolozi poput Mura i skeptik pogrešno shvataju prirodu takozvanih murovskih iskaza koji predstavljaju sadržaj naših osnovnih verovanja kao i naš stav prema njima. Vitgenštajn tvrdi da ovi iskazi nisu ni istiniti ni lažni već da funkcionišu poput pravila te da stoga ne mogu biti ni predmet znanja niti podložni sumnji. Naš stav prema njima nije epistemički već je odraz praktične sposobnosti učešća u jezičkoj praksi. Vitgenštajnov najubedljiviji i najoriginalniji argument protiv skepticizma pokazuje da skeptik, formulišući svoje sumnje, dovodi u pitanje sopstveno razumevanje reči kojima se pritom služi. Na kraju se tvrdi da sam Vitgenštajn zastupa jednu vrstu naturalizma hjumovskog tipa.