Titlebook: CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy; D. Z. Phillips (Danforth Professor of Philosophy o Book 1999 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan

纪念性

书目名称CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy影响因子(影响力)




书目名称CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy影响因子(影响力)学科排名




书目名称CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy网络公开度




书目名称CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy网络公开度学科排名




书目名称CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy被引频次




书目名称CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy被引频次学科排名




书目名称CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy年度引用




书目名称CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy年度引用学科排名




书目名称CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy读者反馈




书目名称CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy读者反馈学科排名

磨碎

演绎

savage

Is Humes’s ‘True Religion’ a Religious Belief? He wanted to combat two philosophical tendencies: one, the tendency of rationalists and the religiously orthodox to go beyond the limits of human knowledge; and two, the tendency of sceptics to restrict these tendencies prematurely.

Irritate

Book 1999me can be answered on his own terms. For others, while Hume shows us paths we should not take, these open up the way for a consideration of religious possibilities he never considered. These are not peripheral matters. The responses to them determine the style and spirit in which one pursues philosophy of religion today.

前兆

蕨类

占线

Playing Hume’s Handology. At the beginning of section XII even Philo sounds as though he accepts some version of the argument from design. But those who venerate Hume will rightly doubt whether his nerve failed him at this crucial point. I first argue that there is no need to suppose that it did. For it seems to me th

维持

Morality and Religion: Towards Meeting Hume’s Challenget the most austere religious belief as fanatical or superstitious. In this paper I will be calling on Chesterton, Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein (each of whom share Hume’s anti-rationalism) for help in refuting Hume’s equation of ‘true’ with ‘philosophic religion’, and in delineating some less constri

frenzy

Voices in Discussionthe universe bears some remote inconceivable analogy to the other operations of nature, and, among the rest, to the economy of human mind and thought’. This bare claim has no implications for practice whatsoever. It does not entail any moral or emotional stance. In other words, it is neither a prefa