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

紀(jì)念性

書目名稱CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy被引頻次




書目名稱CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy年度引用




書目名稱CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy讀者反饋




書目名稱CSPR;Religion and Hume‘s Legacy讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

磨碎

演繹

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

蕨類

占線

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

維持

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