The philosophers' quarrel : Rousseau, Hume, and the limits of human understanding /

On a cursory reading, this book is about the well-known quarrel between Rousseau and Hume, two friends and intellectual giants of the 18th-century Enlightenment. The quarrel derives arguably from a basic misunderstanding between them and a series of happenstances. Significantly, however, it brings out their insecurities and provides insight into aspects of their respective personalities. Fairly or unfairly, Rousseau comes across as ungrateful, eccentric, egocentric, and erratic; and Hume as duplicitous, insincere, and egotistical. On such a reading, a discrepancy appears to exist between each philosopher and the individual person whose philosophic views people admire today. On a substantive reading, however, this book is a backhanded critique of the Enlightenment's exorbitant claims about the power of reason to unravel the complexity of nature and all therein. Both philosophers are among the most vocal critics of the very Enlightenment claims in favor of reason. Thus, that the conflict in question derives arguably from a misunderstanding that reason was incapable of mediating further validates their respective critiques of reason's impotency. All in all, Zaretsky (Univ. of Houston) and Scott (Univ. of California, Davis) provide a rich, humorous, and lively context for experiencing Rousseau and Hume as human beings rather than simply as philosophers. Summing Up: Recommended. Upper-level undergraduates and above. C. S. Johnson Middle Tennessee State University

In a remarkable salvage operation, Zaretsky and Scott rescue from the wreckage of a famous friendship the remains of two contrasting Enlightenment perspectives. Improbable from the start, the friendship of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and David Hume united a Frenchman of passionate sentiment and a Scot of tough-minded skepticism. Even in these unlikely friends' early ardor, the authors discern incipient tensions that rapidly harden into a bitter antagonism involving partisans on both sides of the Channel. The result of more than conflicting personalities, the Rousseau-Hume breakup involves different critiques of the vaunted rationality governing the Age of Reason. Making sincerity of personal feeling his mainstay, Rousseau leveled histrionic accusations against Hume so vehemently that his erstwhile friend feared for his sanity. Relying for his part on communal solidarity, Hume deflected Rousseau's indictments by strengthening his network of social ties. Though the authors favor Hume in this notorious dispute, they highlight lapses in both men's reasoning and actions. An engaging narrative showing how divergent philosophical principles play out in real life.--Christensen, Bryce Copyright 2009 Booklist

Imagine a world where philosophers are celebrities, their works are greeted with stone throwing and literary correspondences are the stuff of tabloid-style publication. This was the world of 18th-century Europe, where David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's friendship, which lasted but six months, created a public stir and has a remarkable enough trajectory to be the centerpiece of this study of Enlightenment mores. Further, the dispute highlights a key divergence in the study of human understanding: "Rousseau represented an alternative way of knowing that went, in a certain sense, beyond reason to regions reached only through the imagination and the passions." This mode of thinking sets the stage for Rousseau's dramatic misunderstanding of Hume's intentions and actions, and ushers in Rousseau's revolutionary demotion of "adherence to external or objective truth," replacing it with "loyalty to one's own self." Zaretsky and Scott (coauthors of Frail Happiness: An Essay on Rousseau) weave vivid storytelling together with elegant arguments about this transitional period from the Enlightenment to the Romantic period. The book is also a revealing intellectual history of Rousseau's compelling madness and mystifying genius. Illus. (Mar.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved