Hume's True Scepticism
Donald C. Ainslie
Reviews and Awards
Winner of th 2016 Journal of the History of Philosophy prize for the best book in the history of philosophy!
"this is one of the very most thought-provoking books yet written on Hume. It challenges many conventional assumptions about Hume, and gives him a new look. It is a look so different from what one is used to that I fear I may have fallen prey to some illusions both in reading Ainslie and in responding to him. I expect many rewarding re-readings and trust that these will correct my errors. Ainslie's is an indispensable contribution to the literature on Hume and on the history of the philosophy of mind and epistemology." -- Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews Online
"One of the best books written on Hume in a long time...there's much to be learned...for anyone interested in the foundations of Hume's philosophical project. Indeed, Ainslie's book can also be read as developing a novel Humean view about the nature and limits of philosophy itself. So this book will be of interest, not just to Hume scholars, but to anyone who is attracted to thinking about such meta-philosophical topics in a broadly Humean way. It seems to me a must-read for anyone interested in Hume's scepticism--or, indeed, Hume's philosophy more generally." -- Australasian Journal of Philosophy
"Ainslie's book is of tremendous scholarly worth, being valuable both in its own right as a novel and well-defended thesis, and also more instrumentally in offering a sustained and excellent analysis of the winding pathways of Book 1 Part 4." -- British Journal for the History of Philosophy
"This brief review cannot do justice to the book's richness and breadth. For any puzzle or ambiguity or seeming inconsistency in the seven sections of 1.4, Ainslie has a suggested interpretation of how to make sense of it or solve it. His analyses push us to think about a wide range of interpretive puzzles and seriously consider his way of addressing them. Some of the questions are ones rarely posed or thought of, thus revealing the complexity of Hume's ideas. Especially for those scholars immersed in Hume's texts, it is good to be reminded that even the most seemingly simple of Hume's claims are often ambiguous or overstated." -- Journal of the History of Philosophy