Let me start off by saying that when Dr. Mashburn posted the questions about the reading for us to think about for class, none of those things had stuck out to me while reading the Dialogues. I found that although dialogue presentation is a great way to suppose counter arguments, it does nothing for the reader if they do not know what the conversation is about. For instance, in discussing good and evil in the world (Part XI), I was highly confused on everything here. Why does Cleanthes pose the question of the immortality of God? Why does Philo respond with the requirements of evil in the world? Why does Demea get so upset over this? Overall, the Dialogues as a whole went completely over my head because written dialogue conveys differently than spoken dialogue.
The only part of this entire book that I could effectively comprehend were the essays at the end. His essay concerning miracles is something that I have believed for a very long time: Christianity makes no logical sense, so faith is the only thing that we can trust. This is why so many philosophers, agnostics, and atheists have a problem with Christianity. Therefore, I believe Hume wrote this collection in this way specifically for the skeptics and the unbelievers, so that they see both the logic and illogic of Christianity and hopefully will choose to not think for once.
I commented on Zane's and Gabby's posts.
Comments