“Be a philosopher, but amidst all your philosophy, be still a man”

---

This is a famous quotation from the first chapter of David Hume’s Enquiry, and it may be one of the most misunderstood famous quotations in the history of philosophy. 

When I first heard this quotation, I, like many, saw it as a beautiful advocacy for a humanistic philosophy — for it to be making a point about the need for philosophy to be human-faced and to play a role in an otherwise balanced and full life. And, to be fair, it does say that; it’s not just what Hume is saying. 

The first section of the Enquiry, titled “On the Different Species of Philosophy”, explores a crucial division between two methods of philosophical inquiry. The one “easy and obvious” which serves “only to represent the common sense of mankind in more beautiful and more engaging colours” — and the other “accurate and abstruse”, and that is fatiguing to the mind. 

Hume says of the former that it will always be the preferred method of mankind generally and that those philosophers who employ it will always receive the most lasting reputations; whereas the latter will more likely be met with annoyance and disinterest (presumably this is the reason that Hume felt was behind the neglect of his philosophy by his contemporaries). He makes a passing reference to the 18th-century popularity of reading Cicero at the neglect of Aristotle as evidence of this tendency. 

Finally, Hume observes the world of the modern man — where the man must be a social club member, businessman, sportsman, academic and husband — and he suggests that the easy philosophy is perfectly suited to its needs. He writes,

“In order to diffuse and cultivate so accomplished a character, nothing can be more useful than compositions of the easy style and manner, which draw not too much from life,”

From this, he suggests that the easy philosophy seems to be selected for us by nature. And here we arrive at the full quotation at issue. It begins with a personification of nature speaking to mankind, trying to convince him of the easy philosophy. 

“Indulge your passion in science, says she, but let your science be human, and such as may have a direct reference to action and society. Abstruse thought and profound researches I prohibit, and will severely punish, by the pensive melancholy which they introduce, by the endless uncertainty in which they involve you, and by the cold reception which your pretended discoveries shall meet with, when communicated. Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy be still a man”.

Hume is here caricaturing the way that nature and our society seem to push and tempt us into a softer brand of philosophy and reward us for it. Hume is not here blatantly advocating a humanist approach to philosophy. But what is he saying? 

While Hume is not here making a beautifully poetic statement as to the need for philosophy to have a human face, he is not concluding the opposite either. He is merely stating that external forces nudge us in this direction — toward the easy philosophy — and that the deeper and unsettling philosophy is often neglected as a result. The rest of the chapter involves an integration of these two methods, which he sees as critically interdependent. 

He compares it to the relationship between the work of the anatomist on rendering the intricacies of the human eye accessible to others and the work of the artist, who is benefitted by the abstruse work of the anatomist and yet focuses his enterprise on something much more accessible to society and incorporable into human life. He says, “Accuracy is, in every case, advantageous to beauty, and just reasoning to delicate sentiment”. 

With all this said, it’s clear that Hume does not disagree with the quotation at hand per se; but there is certainly much more beneath the surface that is simply uncaptured by the usual use of this quotation. 

Perhaps this mere fact is enough for us to conclude that Hume’s work is not of the “easy and obvious” variety. 

-AW