Reviews for Constitutional History Of England From 1760 To 1860

The average rating for Constitutional History Of England From 1760 To 1860 based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-05-26 00:00:00 Haewon Jeon كتاب مهم يناقش التطور الديني من التعددية إلى التوحيد والتأرجح بينهما، يبحث في الأسباب الذي أدت للانتقال للتوحيد والنتائج التي ترتب عليها هذا الانتقال، يرى هيوم أن لكل مرحلة خصائصها وسماتها التي تتميز بها عن الأخرى مع الاعتقاد النهائي بعد قدرة الاثنين بشكلهما الحالي للوصول العقلاني الصحيح إلى الغرض الحقيقي للدين، وتشوه نظرة هذه الأديان للإله.< لا أعتقد أنني قابلت ترجمة بمثل هذا السوء من قبل، ولا أعتقد أنني سأقابل. سيئة لأقصى حد. جعلت من الكتاب ألغاز لغوية بحاجة لمجهود كبير لفهمها./b>

Review # 2 was written on 2015-10-25 00:00:00 Mark Krass Don't get tricked by the book title! It seemed like a pamphlet about the evolution of religion, but it's totally not about that. This "Natural" "History" of "Religion" should be read as: the development ("history") of human nature and its attitude ("natural") on transcendental affairs ("religion"). I have read some other works by Hume. He is the kind that a naive reader would sip in carelessly, perhaps even with a contempt smile, and then cause trouble from within. A Treatise on Human Nature seemed to be cumbersome at times, but here is the waking bell: Hume discussed moral issues in the middle of discussing pride/humility and beauty/ugliness. I almost had the deja vu of reading the Genealogy of Morality when I was reading it. Voilà, this is Hume: as sedate as his style might be, he is undoubtably subversive. He continued this style in his discourse on the religious emotions, and I felt it worth pointing out that Hume has completely restricted himself to the discussion of human affairs. He is not talking about the soundness of theology, but the effect of unsound theology might have on people; he refrained from the topic of the characters of gods, but how the believers forced some personalities onto their deities; he said nothing of the essence of devotion per se, but the various excuses human called devotion in order to justify their deeds. His viewpoint is very Nietzschean-Freudian (well, maybe we should say that conversely Nietzsche and Freud are Humeists). What differentiates Hume with Nietzsche and Freud is that he is prudent on this matter -- at the price that he is less well known than those two berserkers in Humanities division. Perhaps that's why Rousseau approached him and then... well. Different types just won't get along.