International Relations
No TL;DR found
Abstract
extent to which both thinkers lived according to their philosophical principles. Ironically, Hume’s reasonableness sees him generally cast in a better light than Rousseau, while surprisingly it is le bon David – and not the great autobiographer – who appears most concerned with his reputation in the quarrel’s aftermath. The danger of such an approach is that the reader may be tempted to judge the philosophy by the philosopher, and the claim that Rousseau and Hume offer the best critiques of reason is never substantiated in depth. Hume’s critique is well known, but Rousseau’s is often overlooked and here a more penetrating analysis would have been welcome, not least to confute the proto-Kantian interpretations of Rousseau that abound. To this extent the only real shortcoming is the book’s ambition.Yet this detracts little from the authors’ success in providing both a clear and compelling narrative and an intriguing interpretation of one of the most captivating encounters in Enlightenment history.