Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Giovanni Molteni Tagliabue's avatar
  2. Fabien Muller's avatar
  5. Saul Smilansky's avatar
  6. Dan Dennis's avatar

    Some background: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/may/12/thousands-of-university-of-nottingham-staff-told-they-are-at-risk-of-redundancy Not only does Nottingham University have a good academic reputation, the city of Nottingham has a great…

  7. Jacob Barrett's avatar

Best introductory texts in the history of early modern philosophy (or to particular figures in early modern philosophy)?

Brian Leiter

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 5, RIGHT BEFORE CORONAVIRUS STUFF OVERWHELMED US ALL–THIS DESERVES MORE COMMENTS

Continuing with our new series about the best introductory texts in various areas of philosophy, I now invite readers to name what they think are the best introductory texts to the history fo early modern philosophy (either through Kant or stopping just before Kant), as well as introductory texts to important figures in the history of early modern philosophy (e.g., Descartes, Hume, Leibniz etc.)  As before, don't just name a text, but say something about why you think it's particularly notable or valuable.  Although you don't have to sign  your comment, I do think signed ones will carry more weight with readers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

24 responses to “Best introductory texts in the history of early modern philosophy (or to particular figures in early modern philosophy)?”

  1. Ian

    I would recommend Don Garrett's Hume (from the Routledge Philosophers series) as an introduction to Hume's thought. The book is accessible (yet sophisticated) and wide-ranging. One of the best features of the book, as an introduction, is Garrett's practice of using annotated bibliographies after each chapter. It is really useful for students of Hume's philosophical thought not only to get Garrett's interpretation of the texts but also to get clear directions to the secondary literature.

    Reply
  2. Byron Williston

    I've been using Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources, by Roger Ariew and Eric Watkins for over 15 years. I love it. Its best feature, in my view, is that it combines classic texts (like big chunks of Spinoza's Ethics, all of Leibniz's Monadology, etc.) with lesser known texts and letters. Alas, I have also discovered over this period that my students are gradually becoming less and less inclined to read any of this material. Sentences with 10 interior clauses just don't cut it any more. Go figure.

    Reply
  3. Felix Sadeli

    For introductions to early modern philosophers, I find that philosophical or intellectual atmosphere of the time is especially crucial to understanding their works, so my preference is more for biographies and less for ones centered on key theme(s) (though, if I must name one, Michael Della Rocca's Spinoza which builds on PSR is very accessible). For Spinoza, Steven Nadler's is the easy pick. For Descartes, I am inclined towards Desmond Clarke's.

    As a way of introducing the intellectual background of the time of Descartes and Spinoza, I find Roger Ariew's "Descartes Among the Scholastics" illuminating. It is also a reminder of how, despite the two seemingly disparate labels, medieval philosophy is still the giant context behind the writings of the early moderns.

    Reply
  4. Matias Slavov

    Peter Millican's introduction to Hume's first Enquiry. The introduction does not only assess relevant history of philosophy, but it covers a lot of history of science as well. It is written with an enthusiastic manner.

    Reply
  5. Tom Llewellyn

    For new students to the subject I can heartily recommend two series that do a good job for commentary and clarity—The Routledge Philosophers and Polity's Classic Thinkers. My studies in early modern philosophy have centered on three philosophers—Locke's political philosophy, Spinoza, and Hume. For Locke I find Richard Ashcraft's two books to be indispensable. Garrett is a solid choice on Hume for beginners. Advanced students of Hume should definitely consider what are in my opinion the two best scholarly books on Hume in the last 40 years—Hume's True Scepticism by Donald Ainslie and The Riddle of Hume's Treatise by Paul Russell. I am also a fan of the above mentioned book by Peter Millican.

    Reply
  6. Tom Llewellyn

    For Spinoza the clear choice for a first introduction is Spinoza's Ethics by Stephen Nadler. This book is very clearly written and deals with extremely difficult ideas in a fashion that should be much envied. For advanced students I strongly recommend A Study of Spinoza's Ethics by Jonathan Bennett. This a rigorous work best suited for graduate students and professional philosophers. Also extremely useful are the two interpretations by Edwin Curley, Behind the Geometrical Method (for beginners) and Spinoza's Metaphysics (for advanced students). Bennett and Curley engaged in rival interpretations for some years, and I like Bennett better, but Curley is obviously a first-class Spinoza scholar.

    Reply
  7. Roger Albin

    Garrett's book on Hume is first-rate. Russell's The Riddle of Hume's Treatise is a splendid work of intellectual history. While somewhat specialized, it is very well written and approachable by anyone with reasonable knowledge of Hume and Enlightenment intellectual history. On par with the work of scholars like JGA Pocock.

    Reply
  8. Ty

    Georges Dicker's 'Descartes: An Analytical and Historical Introduction' (OUP, 2013) and 'Hume's Epistemology and Metaphysics: An Introduction' (Routledge, 1998) are excellent: neat presentation of arguments, critical and thorough.

    Reply
  9. Jim

    Noel Malcolm's *Aspects of Hobbes* is (dazzlingly) at once a clear and thorough overview of Hobbes's thought, a knowledgeable account of his intellectual context, and a major work of scholarship. I prefer to give students, as introductory works, pieces of scholarship or criticism rather than things that announce themselves as 'introductions' or 'student guides' etc., so as far as possible to avoid instating a difference between what the students do week by week and what professional academics do. That two-tier system is infantilising and destructive for both parties.

    Isolating early modern philosophers from the disciplines and institutions in which they worked tends to deform in advance any understanding of their thought. Stephen Gaukroger's two books (so far) on natural sciences in the early modern period are useful introductory guides to some fields to which nearly every early modern philosopher contributed. Mordechai Feingold's three chapters in vol IV of *The History of the University of Oxford* constitute the major existing study of what, in England, was read under the heading of 'philosophy' and what was taught as 'philosophy'. The specific focus on Oxford does not in any way limit the usefulness of those essays for people working on any aspect of early modern intellectual culture.

    Reply
  10. Roger Albin

    Gaukroger's work is really impressive. A caution, however, is that it's mainly what might be called internal history, focusing on intellectual currents. In the first book, for example, the impact of the Reformation is hardly mentioned. He may just be assuming that his readers will have the appropriate general background knowledge of late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Whether or not this is the case, these books exhibit tremendous scholarship but are not books for the neophyte.

    Reply
  11. Tom Llewellyn

    Addendum on John Locke—

    Don't know how this slipped my mind. A. John Simmons, The Lockean Theory of Rights, is simply superb. A terrific discussion of Locke's most important moral concept, and the best short analysis of Locke on property.

    Reply
  12. Charles Pigden

    I teach a ‘British Moralists’ course and have done for about 30 years. Official title: ‘Morals and Politics: Hobbes to Hume’ Unofficial Title: Hobbes, Hume and Their Critics. Here’s the blurb:

    What do moral judgments mean, and what (if anything) makes them true? What must people be like if they are to respond to the demands of morality? What must morality be like if people are to respond to its demands? Hobbes (1588-1679) thought that right and wrong reduce to the commands of the sovereign and that a rational and selfish person would obey the sovereign’s commands for fear of lapsing into a war of all against all. (The idea that without an overarching power, rational but self-seeking agents would lapse into a state of war has implications for international relations. We investigate this claim with the aid of some rudimentary game theory, especially the Prisoner’s Dilemma.) Locke (1632-1704) thought that right and wrong reduce to God’s commands, that the sovereign should be obeyed if he rules for the public good, and that otherwise there is a right of rebellion. Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) argued a) that private vices – such as greed and vanity – are public benefits, since they lead to a flourishing commercial society and b) that morality is a put-up job devised by cunning politicians to keep the populace in line. Hume (1711-1776) argued that reason is the slave of the passions, that an ‘ought’ cannot be derived from an ‘is’, and that virtue is to be defined in terms of the responses of an impartial spectator. We discuss these views and those of their contemporary critics. We also discuss the sexual politics of Hobbes and Hume, and the relevance of social contract theory to the Treaty of Waitangi.

    It’s at 200 level, course which means that most of the students will have done a bit of philosophy but not necessarily all that much. I do not *prescribe* any secondary texts since it is hard enough to get students to buy the set texts themselves [D.D. Raphael ed., The British Moralists 2 vols. OR Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. E. Curley, Indianapolis, Hackett AND David Hume: Moral Philosophy, edited, with Introduction, by Geoffrey Sayre-McCord Indianapolis, Hackett.] However I do *suggest* a wide range of recommend readings which are kept on reserve at the Library.

    I will post a series of annotated recommendations from this list. I won’t include everything. For example though I strongly suspect that it is brilliant, I have not used and probably won’t be using Philip Pettit’s book on Hobbes ‘Made with Words’ and so cannot recommend it as a teaching text. I shall only list introductions and commentaries the I and/or my students have actually found to be useful

    Reply
  13. Charles Pigden

    The BRITISH MORALISTS Generally:

    J.L. Mackie, Hume's Moral Theory Routledge Kegan Paul (1980)

    Gill, Michael B, The British Moralists on Human Nature and the Birth of Secular Ethics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (2006).

    Rawls, John Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. (2000)

    Rawls, John Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press (2007).

    Prior, A.N. Logic & the Basis of Ethics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, (1949) henceforward LBE.
    LBE is a superb introduction to the writers of our period – indeed, this was the book that originally sparked my interest in these people. It's short too; not much more than 50,000 words. Don't be put off by the title. Although Prior's focus is on the logic of the debate, he uses hardly any technical apparatus. (The symbolically illiterate need have no fear.) There are sections on Hobbes, Cudworth, Hutcheson, Clarke, Smith, Price, Reid, Butler and Hume. There are lots of copies in the Library and the Departmental Library, and it is well worth getting out.

    Gill, Michael B, The British Moralists on Human Nature and the Birth of Secular Ethics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (2006).
    Another excellent book.

    Hudson , W.D ed, New Studies in Ethics: vol. 1: Classical Theories (1974) New York, St Martins Press.
    An anthology collecting several short books on the history of ethics. Sections 3, 4 and 5 on naturalism, intutionism and Kant by Kemp, Hudson and Acton respectively are quite useful., though by far the silliest is the chapter on Intuitionism by Hudson. He is a slave to the non-cognitivist prescriptivism of R. M Hare.

    Darwall, Stephen The British Moralists and the Internal ‘Ought’, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (1995).
    As the title of the book suggests, this book is about the British Moralists and the concept of obligation. Excellent and illuminating sections on Locke, Hobbes, Cudworth and Hutcheson. Good, but a hard-going for beginners.

    Schneewind, Jerome, The Invention of Autonomy Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (1998)
    An excellent history of 17th and 18th Century moral philosophy.

    Rivers, Isabel, Reason, Grace and Sentiment, vol. 1, Whichctore to Wesley, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. (1991).
    Rivers, Isabel, Reason, Grace and Sentiment, vol. 2, Shaftesbury to Hume, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. (2000).
    Rivers first volume concentrates on the religious debates whilst her second concentrates on the secular philosophical debates. Good for history buffs.

    Dunn, Urmson and Ayer, The British Empiricists: Locke, Berkeley and Hume,
    Oxford, Oxford University Press, (1992).
    This is a sort of compilation album, composed of three of the Oxford Past Master texts bound together. (Dunn's Locke, Urmson's Berkeley and Ayer's Hume are all available separately.) The contributors cover epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of mind as well as ethics. Useful if you want to understand how the moral theories of the British empiricists fit into their larger philosophic systems. Dunn unfortunately is rather more bent on demonstrating the refinement of his own intellect than in discussing Locke's ideas. ('Hi Ma! Look at Me! My appreciation of Locke is more subtle than anyone else's!') Ayer's section on Hume is good on the whole and contains an excellent short biography, but his account of Hume's ethics is crude. As one of the inventors of emotivism he does not see what a silly doctrine this is and consequently how unlikely Hume was to have believed it. His remarks on No-Ought-From-Is also leave a lot to be desired. However, Urmson's Berkeley is excellent. It contains a lucid overview of Berkeley's metaphysics and theory of meaning together with a good brief statement of Berkeley's moral theory. Urmson's account of the philosophical background is also very illuminating.

    Hermann, Arthur, The Scottish Enlightenment: the Scots’ invention of the Modern World, London, Harper-Collins (2003)
    Buchan, James, Capital of the Mind: How Edinburgh Changed the World, John Murray, London, (2003)
    During the 18th Century, Scotland was the intellectual power-house of Britain and maybe even Europe. These are two excellent and readable histories of he Scottish Enlightenment

    Halevy, Elie, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism Morris trans.
    London, Faber, (1928). This is really a book about Bentham and the philosophic and political movement he came to lead. Only Bentham's early works fall within our period, so much of it is irrelevant to the course. However, there are excellent chapters on the background to Bentham's thought, containing many illuminating comments on Hutcheson, Hartley, Hume, Helvetius and Smith. The sections on Smith are particularly useful to someone who would like to know what Smith's economics is all about but is put off by the vast bulk of The Wealth of Nations.

    Reply
  14. Charles Pigden

    HOBBES 1. When it comes to introductions to and commentaries on Hobbes, there is in my view an embarras de richesses, so many really useful, well-written and engaging analyses, commentaries and introductions.

    J.L. Mackie, Hume's Moral Theory (1980) Routledge Kegan Paul
    This was originally a set text and only escalating costs forced me to downgrade it to recommended reading status. It is a really excellent book. Though mainly about Hume, there are good chapters on his predecessors and critics including Hobbes.

    J.W.N. Watkins Hobbes' System of Ideas, 2nd edn. (1973) Hutchinson, reissued (1989) by Gower Publishing Co.
    This is an excellent introduction to Hobbes, more concise, readable, and less technical than some of the analytical works listed below. Watkins is very good at setting Hobbes in his philosophical and historical context whilst preserving his contemporary relevance. Hobbes is represented as a revolutionary in philosophy, out to overthrow the old Aristotelian order, and a reactionary in politics, out to preserve the King's government against the threat of Puritan ideologues. Hobbes was a devotee of the New Science of Harvey and Galileo. He wanted to apply the methods of the new science to the political realm in order to demonstrate the absurdity of Puritan doctrines. Hobbes was a proponent of the resolutive-compositive method developed at the University of Padua. The idea was that to understand how a thing works, you must take it apart and put it back together again, either in actuality or (if this is not practicable) in thought. This is just what Hobbes is doing when he imagines the bonds of government dissolved and describes how a sovereign could be reconstituted by the a-social atoms in a state of nature. Watkins makes much of the image of a watch taken 'insunder' in DC p. 98-99, Watkins is also good on Hobbes' philosophy of language and its political and moral consequences. His comparison of the Sovereign to a supreme Humpty-Dumpty is particularly illuminating. (Lewis Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty declares that 'When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less. The sovereign usurps this power with respect to the moral vocabulary, giving these words a common meaning and a uniform set of truth-conditions. Within the confines of a state, right and wrong are what the sovereign says they are. Unlike the real Humpty-Dumpty, the Hobbesian sovereign can be put back together again if he has a great fall – that at least is the presumption of the resolutive-compositive method.)

    Martinich, A.P. (2005) Hobbes, London, Routledge.
    Excellent. A clear concise introduction to Hobbes. He’s good (among otters things) on Hobbes’ philosophy of religion carefully distinguishing between his own idiosyncratic interpretation of Hobbes on Religion and the more atheistic consensus. He is also pretty funny.

    Jean Hampton, Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition, (1986) Cambridge University Press
    A brilliant work. Not quite as stylish a performance as Watkins' book, but well-written nonetheless. Though Hampton knows her history and quotes contemporary writers, she tends to concentrate on the argument rather than the context. Her analysis of the State of Nature in terms of the Prisoners' Dilemma is particularly good. Ditto her account of Hobbes' ethics and her treatment of his Psychology. Her analysis of Hobbes argument for absolute (as opposed to divided or limited) sovereignty seems to me needlessly elaborate. Highly recommended for those of you who want to specialize in Hobbes.

    Reply
  15. Charles Pigden

    HOBBES continued
    Gregory Kavka , Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory, (1986) Princeton, Princeton University Press.
    The best of an excellent bunch. Kavka is lucid and unpretentious and great fun to read and his argument pushes forward at a cracking pace. Unlike most of the commentators on Hobbes, Kavka is actually a Hobbist. He thinks that Hobbes's opinions are largely true, and that error can be expunged with a little judicious tinkering. So he is not just writing a commentary on Hobbes – he is trying to develop a Hobbesian moral theory on his own account. This means that he is sometimes more interested in what an idealized Hobbes ought to have said, than in what the historical Hobbes did say. As a commentary therefore, it is not quite as good as Hampton and Watkins, since the reader often finds herself worrying about Kavka's opinions rather than Hobbes'. As a piece of philosophy, however, it is rather better, since Kavka develops a surprisingly convincing defence of rule-egoism. I find this doctrine repellent, but Kavka's is the best defence it is likely to get. A masterpiece.
    One criticism: Kavka's Hobbism does not endorse absolute government. (Indeed, like many Americans he seems to regard the United States Constitution as the pinnacle of human perfection.) Hobbes defended absolute government on the basis of some sociological hypotheses which can easily be dropped. Hence Kavka improves on the Master. He provides us with a new Hobbes without the mistaken sociology who turns out to be a liberal after all. I am not so sure that this can be done. It seems to me that Hobbes' case against divided governments (and hence against limited governments, since there is no limitation without division) is based on the thesis that the persons in a divided government (who may, of course, be conglomerate persons) will be in a state of nature with respect to one another. And a state of nature is a state of war. Hence divided governments are inherently unstable. Let us suppose, with Kavka, that this is wrong. Let us suppose that the persons in a divided government can cooperate despite the fact that they are in a state of nature. If the persons in a divided government can get along together without a super-sovereign to coerce them, why not the individuals in a state of nature? If the little anarchy of a divided government can get by without undue strife, why not the big anarchy in which there is no government at all? Kavka's argument for the viability divided government undermines Hobbes's argument for the state.

    Hirschmann, Nancy J. and Wright, Joanne H. (eds.), Feminist Interpretations of Thomas Hobbes, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012.

    Newey. Glenn, (2008) Hobbes and Leviathan, London, Routledge,
    A good introduction.

    Lloyd, S. A ed (2013) The Bloomsbury Companion to Hobbes [also marketed as The Continuum Companion to Hobbes) Bloomsbury Academic.
    Seems pretty good to me.

    Sommerville, Johann P. (1992) Thomas Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context, Houndmills, Macmillan.
    Excellent on the history; good as analyst of Hobbes’s arguments. He is particularly interesting on Hobbes’ philosophy of religion and his views on Church and State.

    Harrison, Ross, Hobbes, Locke, and Confusion's Masterpiece: An Examination of Seventeenth-Century Political Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (2003).
    A book on Hobbes and Locke by my old Cambridge supervisor. A stylish performance, highly recommended.

    Reply
  16. Charles Pigden

    LOCKE

    Chappell, Vere, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Locke, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (1994). (Abbreviated as CCL.)

    Lowe, E.J. (2005) Locke,London, Routledge. A good introduction.

    Harrison, Ross, Hobbes, Locke, and Confusion's Masterpiece: An Examination of Seventeenth-Century Political Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (2003)

    Vere Chapell ed Locke, Oxford, Oxford University Press (1998)

    Jolley, Nicholas, Locke and Leibniz, Oxford, Oxford University Press (1999).
    Has a useful chapter on the innate ideas debate

    Biographical
    There are many controversies about Locke’s life and thought. Was he a radical democrat or a relatively conservative defender of property and privilege whose opposition to Charles II and James II was partly based on a perceived threat to private property? Was he actively engaged in revolutionary intrigue or a relatively passive hanger-on of other less inhibited conspirators? If he was an active revolutionary does this suggest that shared the program of other revolutionaries such as the elderly ex-Leveller Major Wildman? For interesting essays on some of these themes see Anstey ed. chs. 7 & 8 and 56-58. The book which set the controversial ball rolling is:

    Ashcraft, Richard, Revolutionary Politics and Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, Princeton, Princeton University Press (1986).

    This takes Locke to have been both an active revolutionary conspirator and a radical revolutionary. Some of Ashcraft’s claims – that Locke’s correspondence is replete with coded messages – have now been discredited, since references in letters to ‘lime trees’ have been shown to be literally about lime trees and not about guns, soldiers or munitions. The following book, though influenced by Ashcraft, takes a more moderate line:

    Marshall, John John Locke: Resistance, Religion and Responsibility, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (1994).
    A good intellectual and political biography of Locke.

    An older biography which tends to play down Locke’s role as a conspirator is:
    Maurice Cranston, John Locke, Longmans, (1957) (1985) now available as an Oxford paperback.
    This is very evocative biography. Particularly good on the intrigues of Charles II's reign.

    A recent biography, which judiciously suspends judgment where nothing is known is:
    Woolhouse, Richard, Locke: a Biography, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, (2007).

    If you want to get to grips with Locke himself the following is a good selection from his voluminous correspondence.
    Goldie Mark ed. John Locke: Selected Correspondence, Oxford, Oxford University Press (2001)

    Reply
  17. Charles Pigden

    LEIBNIZ
    Jolley N. ed. The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (1994). (Abbreviated as CCLe.)

    For a general conspectus of Leibniz’s own – exceedingly weird – philosophy, I recommend:
    Mates, Benson, The Philosophy of Leibniz, New York, Oxford University Press, (1986).

    Jolley, N (2005) Leibniz, London, Routledge. An excellent introduction.

    MANDEVILLE
    Kaye M.M. 'Introduction' to Kaye ed. Mandeville, Fable of the Bees, (1924).

    Monro, D.H. The Ambivalence of Bernard Mandeville, Oxford, Oxford University Press, (1975).

    Goldsmith, M.M. Private Vices, Public Benefits: Bernard Mandeville's Social and Political Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, (1985).
    According to Goldsmith, Kaye's 'Introduction' is so good, that for a long time scholars wondered if there was anything more to say. But both Monro and Goldsmith himself have managed to come up with fascinating studies full of fresh insights and novel facts. For our purposes Kaye and Monro are probably the best, since they focus more on Mandeville's meta-ethic, but all three can be read with pleasure and profit. As to the pleasure, I can testify that 2. was the only philosophy book that my wife (a non-philosopher) was ever willing to read to me whilst I did the washing up. It's a book that passes the soap-suds test.

    von Hayek, F.A. 'Dr Bernard Mandeville' in New Studies, London, Routledge, (1978). This is a stimulating essay. According to Hayek, Mandeville's claim to fame is to see how an orderly social arrangement can emerge out of disorderly elements. Many social set-up are not natural, since they are the products of conscious human activity. But this does not mean that they are planned either; since the emergent order need not be intended by any of the actors. Such an unplanned order may nevertheless be stable. If we want to use the ancient distinction between natural and artificial institutions, we must remember that not every artificial order is the result of conscious artifice.
    No doubt Mandeville was groping towards this insight. But in Part I of the Fable, morality is represented as a conscious creation, the invention of cunning politicians. In other words Mandeville's alleged insight is not embodied in 'An Enquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue'. A more sophisticated picture only emerges in Part II of the Fable and in An Enquiry into the Origin of Honour. Indeed, one of the chief objections to Mandeville's earlier theory is that it makes morality a conscious creation rather than something which gradually emerged. It is certainly not a case of unplanned order.

    Tolonen, Mikko (2013) Mandeville and Hume:Anatomists of HumanSociety, Oxford, Voltaire Foundation.

    So far a I have only skimmed this but it looks very good indeed.

    Reply
  18. Charles Pigden

    BUTLER
    Mossner, Ernest Campbell, Bishop Butler and the Age of Reason, Bristol, Thoemmes, (1990) [originally published 1936].

    Penelhum, Terence, Butler, London, Routledge, (1985).

    BERKELEY
    Dunn, Urmson and Ayer, The British Empiricists: Locke, Berkeley and Hume, Oxford, Oxford University Press, (1992)

    Urmson’s contribution, also (I think!) available as a separate publication, is excellent on Berkeley’s moral philosophy as on everything else.

    Pitcher, G. Berkeley, London, Routledge (1977).
    Has a chapter on Berkeley's ethics.

    Winkler, Kenneth, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, (2005).
    Has a chapter on Berkeley’s ethics by Darwall.

    Reply
  19. Charles Pigden

    HUME 1

    Bailey, A and O’Brien D, eds. Continuum Companion to Hume, London, Continuum (2012)

    Good Useful for students.

    Cohon, Rachel Hume's Morality: Feeling and Fabrication, Oxford, Oxford University Press (2008).
    OK though not notable for its logical acuity. [On page 13 she gives two version the Motivation Argument and claims that they are valid whereas obviously – and I mean OBVIOUSLY – they are not.].

    Norton, David Fate ed. The Cambridge Companion to Hume, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (1993). (Abbreviated as CCHu.)
    Revised edition coedited with Jacqueline Taylor 2008. Okay.

    Radcliffe, Elizabeth ed. A Companion to Hume, Oxford, Blackwell (2008).
    Several good chapters. Perhaps a bit tough for beginners. Abbreviated as CH.

    J.L. Mackie, Hume's Moral Theory Routledge Kegan Paul (1980). (Henceforward HMT).
    I have listed this already since it deals with other philosophers besides Hume. But the bulk of it is devoted to the Treatise. It is an excellent commentary, clear, thorough and down to earth. Mackie gives a qualified endorsement to No-Ought-From-Is and the Slavery of Reason, agrees that moral distinctions are not derived from reason and goes on to argue for the Error Theory. He not only believes in the Error Theory but believes that Hume believed it, though he admits that this last is rather dubious. His account of the artificial virtues is superb. Ditto his account of Hume's political theories.

    Harrison, Jonathan, Hume's Moral Epistemology, Oxford, Oxford University Press (1976), henceforward HME.
    A good, clear but exceedingly argumentative introduction to Hume's meta-ethics. Harrison agrees with the Slavery of Reason and makes rather too much of No-Ought-From-Is. (Like many modern philosophers he thinks it is more important than it really is.) However, he challenges the argument from the Slavery of Reason to the claim that morality is based on sentiment rather than reason. The one does not prove the other. He canvasses the various options concerning Hume's meta-ethic but does not come to any firm conclusions.

    Harrison, Jonathan. Hume's Theory of Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press (1981).
    An equally argumentative introduction to Hume's theory of justice and the artificial virtues. A bit too relentlessly myopic to be really useful. The reader risks missing the wood for the trees. Still a very good book. I agree with Harrison's evident belief that if we really wish to learn from a great philosopher, we should give him a thorough going over.

    Hardin, Russell David Hume: Moral and Political Theorist Oxford, Oxford University Press (2007).
    Good., but too inclined to take a non-cognitivist view.

    Miller, David Philosophy and Ideology in Hume's Political Thought, Oxford, Oxford University Press (1981),.
    The blurb quotes a reviewer (himself a specialist in Hume's political theory) "Through the difficult terrain of Hume's political thought, David Miller has driven an intelligently constructed and elegant motorway, down which students and others will travel with ease, pleasure and instruction". I agree. To be more specific, Miller gives a clear, brief account of Hume's epistemology and philosophy of mind. He explains the Slavery of Reason and elucidates the claim that moral distinctions are not based on reason. He makes light of No-Ought-From-Is and construes Hume (correctly) as an Ideal Observer theorist. But he is best on the artificial virtues and Hume's political theory which he sets in its historical context (and in the context of Hume's History). Besides this, Miller gives a very useful overview of Hume's economics. Finally his main thesis – that Hume's political thought is based in part on his philosophy and in part on ideological prejudices – is of considerable interest. Hume had a gentlemanly conception of politics as an activity from which the greater part of the population were excluded. If he had lived in more exciting times his relaxed (almost Olympian) conservatism might have transformed itself into rancorous reaction. Of the books in this section, Miller's is the most fun to read. If I have a gripe, it is that Miller's book has the opposite vice to Harrison's – it is not analytic enough. A bit more in the way of criticism and rational reconstruction would not have come amiss.

    Norton. David. David Hume: Common-Sense Moralist, Sceptical Metaphysician, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
    A good book. Excellent on the philosophical background to Hume's views with long sections on Shaftesbury and Hutcheson. (Indeed, I might have listed it under the GENERAL heading.) Norton also comes to the right conclusions. Although Hume believed in the Slavery of Reason, this does not commit him to emotivism. In fact he was a moral realist (i.e. someone who believes that moral judgments are, or can be, true, and that moral truth is, to some extent, independent of the judging intellect). Though Norton is a little vague about it, his view seems to be that Hume subscribed to the Ideal Observer Theory. Good and evil are those properties of things which induce approbation and disapprobation. No-Ought-From-Is hardly rates a mention. Norton has an attractive style but meanders along at rather too leisurely a pace for my taste. He is difficult to skim since he does not signal when he is coming to the punch-line.

    Russell, Paul ed. The Oxford Handbook of Hume, Oxford, Oxford University Press. (2016)

    Snare, Francis, Morals, Motivation and Convention, Hume's Influential Doctrines, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (1991).
    A brilliant book, but perhaps a little too advanced for the present course. Snare construes Hume as some sort of emotivist who justifies his position on the basis of the Slavery of Reason. Furthermore, most latter-day Humeans are non-cognitivists of some sort, and it is the non-cognitivist interpretation of Hume that Snare is concerned to discuss. Snare's argument is very intricate, but in so far as I understand him, he seems to be saying this. The Slavery of Reason is susceptible to several readings. Some are true but trivial. These do not imply emotivism. Some are provocative but false. These do imply emotivism , but since they are false, this makes no difference. No-Ought-From-Is is less important than most people suppose. If it is an argument for emotivism it begs the question, and if it is a consequence of emotivism it can do nothing to establish its truth. This ignores the possibility (canvassed below) that No-Ought-From-Is is a) a consequence of emotivism and b) obviously true. Hence it could provide evidence for emotivism, if emotivism were the best explanation of its obvious truth. At all events, my reply is that No-Ought-From-Is is an instance of the logical principle that you don't get out what you haven't put in and has nothing to do with emotivism one way or the other. It is not a non-cognitivist thesis, nor for that matter a cognitivist thesis. It is a neutral thesis.

    Wiggins, D. 'Towards a Sensible Subjectivism' in his Needs, Values and Truth, Oxford, Blackwell, (1987). Despite its title this is an attempt to update Hume who is conceived as an Ideal Observer Theorist. A good philosopher but a wretchedly incompetent writer.

    Wiggins, D. Ethics, Harmondsworth, Penguin (2006)
    Contains three good chapters on Hume, though you have to put up with Wiggins’ convoluted prose style.

    Wright, John P Hume’s A Treatise of Humam Nature: an Introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge Univeristy Press. 2009

    Phllipson, Nicholas David Hume: the Philosopher as Historian, Harmondsworth, Penguin. (2011).
    Of particular interest to Politics and History students.

    Reply
  20. Charles Pigden

    HUME continued

    Botros, Sophie, Hume, Reason and Morality, London, Routledge, (2006).
    A highly critical analysis of the Motivation Argument.

    Bricke, John. Mind and Morality: An Examination of Hume’s Moral Psychology.
    New York: Oxford University Press, (1996).
    A competent but slightly stodgy interpretation of Hume along non-cognitivist lines.

    Chappell, V.C ed Hume: a Collection of Critical Essays, London Macmillan (1968)

    Cohon, Rachel. ed. Hume: Moral and Political Philosophy. Aldershot: Ashgate,
    (2001).
    A good anthology of writings on Hume’s ethics.

    Garrett, Don. Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy. New York:Oxford University Press, (1997).
    Excellent commentary.

    Garrett, Don (2015) Hume, London, Routledge.

    Smith, Norman Kemp. The Philosophy of David Hume. London: Macmillan,(1941).
    Classic study emphasizing the links between Hutcheson and Hume.

    Traiger, S. ed. The Blackwell Guide to Hume's Treatise, Oxford Blackwell (2005)
    Generally good, chapters 13-15 especially useful.

    Phllipson, Nicholas David Hume: the Philosopher as Historian, Harmondsworth, Penguin. (2011).
    Of particular interest to Politics and History students.

    Biographical
    Harris, James A (2015) Hume: an Intellectual Biography, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    Probably the best biography. More intelligent though a bit less lively than Graham. Less turgid than Mossner. It’s a bit like Hume thought life was though in fact his life wasn’t – one damn thing after another. Not as much fun as it ought to be.

    Mossner, Ernest C. The Life of David Hume, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, (1980).
    Scholarly but stodgy

    Graham, Roderick, The Great infidel: a Life of David Hume, Edinburgh, Birlinn (2006)
    Sloppy but a bit more fun.

    Baier, Annette The Pursuits of Philosophy, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.
    Good short biography-cum-introduction of and to Hume written by the distinguished Hume scholar and Otago graduate Annette Baier. Fairly accessible

    Edmonds, D. and Eidinow, J Rousseau’s Dog, Harper-Collins, new York (2006).
    An account of the famous quarrel between the paranoid Rousseau and he charitable Hume, excessively kind to Rousseau and excessively judgmental towards Hume who was attacked without provocation.

    Zaretsky and Scott, The Philosophers' Quarrel: Rousseau, Hume, and the Limits of Human Understanding, New Haven, Yale University Press (2010)
    Another and more fair-minded account. of the famous quarrel.

    Greig J.Y.T ed. The Letters of David Hume, 2.vols Oxford: Clarendon Press, (1932).

    Greig J.Y.T David Hume, Jonathan Cape, (1931).
    An earlier biography

    Klibansky and Mossner eds. New Letters of David Hume, Oxford: Clarendon Press, (1954).
    Some of Hume’s most amusing letters are avaialble from the Online Library of Liberty in the Correspondence of Adam Smith

    Reply
  21. Charles Pigden

    PRICE

    Thomas,D.O.., The Honest Mind: The Thought and Work of Dr Richard Price, Oxford University Press, (1977).
    A workmanlike account of Price's ideas and activities. Good on the ideas, better on the activities

    SMITH
    Haakonssen, Knud ed. The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. (2006)

    Otteson, James R. Adam Smith's Marketplace of Life, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. (2002)
    Seeks to integrate Smith's ethics and economics.

    Raphael, D.D. Impartial Spectator : Adam Smith's Moral Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    REID

    Cuneo, Terence and van der Woudenberg. Rene ed. The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Reid, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. (2004) I Okay but I think that there are mistakes in Cuneo’s essay on Reid’s moral philosophy, particularly in his account of Hume.

    Davis, William, C, Thomas Reid's Ethics: Moral Epistemology on Legal Foundations, London, Continuum, (2006)

    Roeser,Sabine Reid on Ethics, London, Palgrave Macmillan. (2009).

    Reply
  22. Charles Pigden

    ADVANCED HUME
    Some readers may she surprised that I have not mention the two collections that I myself have edited ‘Hume on Is and Ought’ and ‘Hume on Motivation and Virtue’ . This is not because I am excessively modest or reluctant to assign or recommend my own stuff but because I don’t explore these themes in depth in my 200-level course. Instead I have a 300/400 level course ‘Themes From Hume’ which is as much about contemporary Meta-ethics and the Philosophy of Logic as it is about Hume (for example, there will probably be an optional question next semester about the Normativity of Logic and Medieval Obligationes). Here’s the blurb:

    This course deals with three themes from the work of David Hume (together with ‘matters arising’ from the Humean agenda):

    1) The Slavery of Reason Thesis (‘reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions’). What does this mean? Is the Slavery of Reason Thesis (or something like it) correct? And what (if anything) does this suggest about the nature of ethics?

    2) The Motivation (or Influence) Argument:

    (i) Morals have an influence on the actions and affections. [Premise.]
    (ii) Reason alone, as we have already proved, can never have any such influence [Premise: the Slavery of Reason Thesis].
    (iii) Morals … cannot be derived from reason. (T, 3.1.1.6/457.)

    What exactly is this argument supposed to prove? Does it succeed? If not, is there a decent argument in the neighborhood that proves something similar?
    and
    3) Hume’s No-Ought-From-Is thesis: It 'seems altogether inconceivable' says David Hume 'that this new relation or affirmation [ought] can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it'. What did Hume mean by this? Can you deduce an ought from an is? If not, why not? And what (if anything) does this suggest about the status of moral judgments? We focus on the idea, common in the 18th century that logic is conservative – that in a valid inference you cannot get out what you haven’t put in. In a famous paper the great New Zealand logician Arthur Prior challenged No-Ought-From-Is along with the concept of conservativeness. We discuss the responses of Pigden, Schurz, Restall and Russell who all try to vindicate different versions of No-Ought-From-Is in the face of Prior’s counterexamples.

    For THIS course my principle texts (apart form Sayre-McCord’s edition of Hume’s Moral Philosophy plus a couple of other Humean texts) are 1) Pigden ed, ‘Human Is and Ought’, 2) Pigden ed ‘Hume on Motivation and Virtue, 3) Hudson’s old anthology ‘The Is/Ought Problem’ plus 4) a set of essays and drafts by me (often ‘Director’s Cut’ versions of my past papers).

    Reply
  23. Pete Helali

    Let me just second that comment by Byron Williston towards the top, on Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Roger Ariew and Eric Watkins). That was the book Derk Pereboom utilized in our "Modern Philosophy" class at Cornell, and it was a fantastic resource. I actually pulled it off the bookshelf at home the other day as we endure this lockdown…needed to give Berkeley, Hume, and Kant another run-through.

    Reply
  24. Eric E. Wilson

    One excellent introductory resource is the "Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Philosophy," ed. Rutherford. This volume is organized by topic rather than author. Each article surveys the issues with clarity, precision, and breadth. A nice feature is the wide range of topics. Many non-specialist sources covering this era focus only on M&E (which makes no sense, historically speaking). But this volume has excellent chapters on emotion (S. James), ethics (S. Darwall), and political philosophy (J. Simmons) – just to mention a few examples. Judging from my experience, students at a variety of levels (incl. grad) find these quite accessible and helpful. So would professors.

    Another very good introductory resource is "Debates in Modern Philosophy: Essential Readings and Contemporary Responses," ed. Duncan and Lolordo (Routledge, 2013). The volume has 13 main parts. Each part pairs two contemporary scholars offering rival views of a particular issue or theme in philosophers such as Descartes, Hume, and Kant. Part 13 is about methodological issues in the history of philosophy, pairing Daniel Garber's criticisms of Jonathan Bennett with Martin Lin's response to Garber. On the whole, the volume would serve as an excellent companion to those studying the primary texts. One major upside is its accessibility. One does not have to slog through long articles or books written for specialists. A downside — common as well as significant — is the exclusive focus on M&E. There are no sections on ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, logic, method, language, etc.

    I've described the volume as an "introductory" resource, but that assumes a pretty decent background in philosophy and sufficient motivation. My experience teaching mid-level surveys of modern philosophy at a variety of institutions suggests that it would be too advanced for most students in such courses in most institutions. Advanced undergrad philosophy majors could tackle it, and portions would be useful for grad students seeking a first introduction to scholarly debates they aren't already familiar with.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress