Ellie: I'm almost of the opinion that what he is saying in the second part is that he's conflating people who, whose sentiments already are such that they can enjoy some of these like philosophical considerations and scientific study and inquiry. He gets back to saying things like the reflections of philosophy are too subtle and distant to take place in common life or eradicate any affection. The air is too fine to breathe in where it is above the winds and clouds of the atmosphere. And then he says, look, these refined reflections which philosophy suggests to us is that commonly they cannot diminish or extinguish our vicious passions without diminishing or extinguishing such as our virtuous and rendering the mind totally indifferent or
David and Tamler gild and stain David Hume’s essay “The Sceptic†with their sentiments. If nothing is inherently valuable or despicable, desirable or hateful, then what do philosophers have to offer when it comes to happiness? If reason is powerless, does it all come down to our emotions and “humours� Or does the study of philosophy and liberal arts naturally lead to a fulfilling and virtuous life? Plus we look at a new non-traditional social psych paper on how we always imagine that things could be better, and tip our caps to the queen of handling Twitter pile-ons (and former VBW guest) – Candy Mom.
Sponsored By:
Support Very Bad Wizards
Links: