XVII-XVIII.

Revue de la socit
d'tudes anglo-amricaines des
XVIIe et XVIIIe sicles

Prmices de la subjectivit dans Dialogues Concerning Natural

Religion de David Hume
Patrick Menneteau

Abstract
Humes Dialogues concerning Natural Religion bring under scrutiny a number of explanatory discourses on the world from
religion, philosophy or science. Their critical study reveals the vulnerability of their respective grounds. In trying to
reconcile science, philosophy, and religion, this new discourse only brings to light their subjective character. Thus, the
philosophy of doubt appears to be rooted in an anachronistic subjectivist deconstructionism, and the conclusion of the
Dialogues
contributes to the assertion of the primacy of the subjective in human research, thus paving the way for its Jungian
interpretation as a privileged locus for archetypal manifestations.

Rsum
Les Dialogues sur la religion naturelle de David Hume passent en revue les discours explicatifs du monde, religieux,
philosophiques ou scientifique. Leur examen critique met en lumire la vulnrabilit de leurs fondements. En essayant de
rconcilier science, philosophie et religion, ce discours ne fait que rvler leur caractre subjectif. Ainsi la philosophie du
doute trouve-t-elle ses racines dans un dconstructionnisme subjectiviste avant la lettre, et la conclusion des Dialogues
participe de cette affirmation de la primaut du subjectif dans les recherches humaines, ouvrant ainsi la voie leur
interprtation jungienne comme lieu privilgi de manifestations archtypales.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Menneteau Patrick. Prmices de la subjectivit dans Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion de David Hume. In: XVIIXVIII. Revue de la socit d'tudes anglo-amricaines des XVIIe et XVIIIe sicles. N62, 2006. ges de la vie et rites de
passage [Colloque tenu en Sorbonne les 25 et 26 novembre 2005] pp. 143-160;
http://www.persee.fr/doc/xvii_0291-3798_2006_num_62_1_2416
Document gnr le 24/05/2016

PRMICES DE LA SUBJECTIVIT DANS

DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION
DE DAVID HUME

Rsum : Les Dialogues sur la religion naturelle de David Hume passent

en revue les discours explicatifs du monde, religieux, philosophiques ou
scientifique. Leur examen critique met en lumire la vulnrabilit de leurs
fondements. En essayant de rconcilier science, philosophie et religion, ce
discours ne fait que rvler leur caractre subjectif. Ainsi la philosophie du
doute trouve-t-elle ses racines dans un dconstructionnisme subjectiviste
avant la lettre, et la conclusion des Dialogues participe de cette affirmation
de la primaut du subjectif dans les recherches humaines, ouvrant ainsi la
voie leur interprtation jungienne comme lieu privilgi de
manifestations archtypales.
Abstract : Hume

sDialogues concerning Natural Religion bring under

scrutiny a number of explanatory discourses on the world from religion,
philosophy or science. Their critical study reveals the vulnerability of their
respective grounds. In trying to reconcile science, philosophy, and
religion, this new discourse only brings to light their subjective character.
Thus, the philosophy of doubt appears to be rooted in an anachronistic
subjectivist deconstructionism, and the conclusion of the Dialogues
contributes to the assertion of the primacy of the subjective in human
research, thus paving the way for its Jungian interpretation as a privileged
locus for archetypal manifestations.

Les Dialogues sur la religion naturelle sont publis trois ans aprs
la mort de David Hume, en 1779, une poque que caractrise le
triomphe de la raison exprimentale. Conforte par les ralisations de
la rvolution industrielle, la philosophie entend, dans le sillage des
dcouvertes astronomiques de Newton et de la systmatisation de la
dmarche empirique de Locke,s

a
t
t
a
q
u
e
ra
up
r
o
b
l

mer
e
l
i
g
i
e
u
x
,
synonyme depuis plusieurs sicles de perscutions et de guerres civiles

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

144

PATRICK MENNETEAU

s
a
n
g
l
a
n
t
e
se
td
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
r
i
c
e
s
,c
o
mmel
ep
e
r
s
o
n
n
a
g
ed
ePh
i
l
on

s
i
t
ep
a
s
le rappeler au cours du dbat : Factions, civil wars, persecutions,
subversions of government, oppression, slavery ; these are the dismal
c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
swh
i
c
ha
l
wa
y
sa
t
t
e
n
d[
r
e
l
i
g
i
o
n

s
]p
r
e
v
a
l
e
n
c
eo
v
e
rt
h
e
minds of men (131).1 Face aux dbordements historiques de la
religion, il convient de raffirmer le droit de la raison sans craindre
l

a
n
a
t
h

me: It is contrary to common sense to entertain

apprehensions or terrors, upon account of any opinion whatsoever, or
to imagine that we run any risk hereafter, by the freest use of our
reason (137).
Philo observe en effet que, contrairement ce qui se passait
l
poque des superstitions (celle que Cleanthes appelle ages of
stupidity and ignorance ), les hommes ont maintenant appris
rflchir par eux-mmes : men have now learned to form principles,
and to draw consequences (
1
2
3
)
.Le
sLu
mi

r
e
ss

a
f
f
i
r
me
n
td
o
n
ci
c
i
comme le retour de la raison face la religion, et ce qui sera peru par
les religieux comme audace ( the presumptuous questioning of
received opinions [49]) ne relve en fait que de la dmarche
philosophique normale, illustre par Socrate, de la remise en question
des opinions hrites de la tradition. Mieux, la raison lance un vritable
d

f
il
ar
e
l
i
g
i
o
ne
nr
a
p
p
e
l
a
n
tl

t
e
r
n
e
l
l
eq
u
e
s
t
i
o
nd
up
o
u
r
q
u
o
ide
l

e
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
ed
uma
l
.
There is no view of human life or of the condition of mankind, from
which, without the greatest violence, we can infer the moral
attributes, or learn that infinite benevolence, conjoined with infinite
power and infinite wisdom, which we must discover by the eyes of
faith alone. (112)
1. Voir galement le problme social et politique que pose la religion tout
souverain : Whence comes it then, that, in fact, the utmost a wise magistrate can
propose with regard to popular religions, is, as far as possible, to make a saving
game of it, and to prevent their pernicious consequences with regard to society ?
Every expedient which he tries for so humble a purpose is surrounded with
inconveniences. If he admits only one religion among his subjects, he must
sacrifice, to an uncertain prospect of tranquillity, every consideration of public
liberty, science, reason, industry, and even his own independence. If he gives
indulgence to several sects, which is the wiser maxim, he must preserve a very
philosophical indifference to all of them, and carefully restrain the pretensions of
the prevailing sect ; otherwise he can expect nothing but endless disputes, quarrels,
f
a
c
t
i
ons
,pe
r
s
e
c
ut
i
ons
,a
ndc
i
vi
lc
ommot
i
ons
(
134)
.Les rfrences renvoient
l

di
t
i
onPe
ngui
n(
1980)
.

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

DE LA SUBJECTIVIT DANS LES DIALOGUES DE HUME

145

cet gard, et de faon symptomatique, le texte, aprs avoir

expos les manifestations du mal sous de nombreuses formes
(maladies, catastrophes naturelles, insatisfaction perptuelle de
l

h
o
mme
,
m
l
a
n
g
edu plaisir et de la douleur, etc.), se borne rappeler
l
e
sq
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
sq
u

p
i
c
u
r
ep
o
s
a
i
t
a
us
u
j
e
t
d
eDi
e
u
,
e
t
q
u
i
h
a
n
t
e
n
tl
af
o
i
s
la philosophie et la religion d
e
p
u
i
sl

An
t
i
q
u
i
t
: Ep
i
c
u
r
u
s

so
l
d
questions are yet unanswered. Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but
not able ? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing ? Then is he
malevolent. Is he both able and willing ? Whence then is evil ? (108).2
Pour traiter de ce problme, David Hume choisit non pas la forme
c
l
a
s
s
i
q
u
ed
el

e
s
s
a
io
ud
ut
rait de philosophie, pourtant en vogue chez
ses contemporains et dj par lui exprimente, mais celle du dialogue,
l
a
q
u
e
l
l
e p
r

s
e
n
t
e l

a
v
a
n
t
a
g
e d
e p
e
r
me
t
t
r
e u
n
e t
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e d
e
comprhension mutuelle entre partisans de bords idologiques
diffrents. En lieu e
tp
l
a
c
ed

u
nd
i
s
c
o
u
r
sa
c
h
e
v

,i
l
sme
t
t
e
n
te
ns
c

n
e
(au sens thtral) la confrontation de points de vue contradictoires,
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
sd
ep
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
ss
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
sp
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
i

r
e
s
,q
u

e
l
l
e
ss
o
i
e
n
t
philosophique ( the accurate philosophical turn of Cleanthes 39),
sceptique ( the careless scepticism of Philo [39]), ou religieuse
( the rigid inflexible orthodoxy of Demea [39]).
L

i
n
c
o
n
v

n
i
e
n
te
s
tq
u
el
ed
i
s
c
o
u
r
sd
e
me
u
r
e
r
ai
n
a
c
h
e
v

,s
a
n
s
conclusion vritable, car incapable de proposer une certitude dfinitive,
c
eq
u
ir

l
eq
u
es
o
no
b
j
e
tn

t
a
i
tp
a
st
a
n
td

a
t
t
e
i
n
d
r
el
av

r
i
t
q
u
e
d

t
u
d
i
e
rl
e
sr
a
i
s
o
n
si
n
t
r
i
n
s

q
u
e
sd
el

c
h
e
cd

u
n
et
e
l
l
ee
n
t
r
e
p
r
i
s
e
.
Au
s
s
i
,l

a
i
d
ed
uc
o
n
c
e
p
t
-cl du subjectivisme, dont Hume a dj
c
o
mme
n
c
d
e
s
s
i
n
e
rl
e
sc
o
n
t
o
u
r
sd
a
n
sd

a
u
t
r
e
s ouvrages, nous
tenterons ici de mettre en lumire ce qui constitue une dmonstration
sous-jacente au texte des Dialogues, dont les tapes principales
apparaissent clairement :c

e
s
td

a
b
o
r
dl
ad

f
i
n
i
t
i
o
nd
el

o
b
j
e
te
td
u
p
r
o
g
r
a
mmed
el

t
u
d
es
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
i
s
t
e dans les Dialogues ; vient ensuite
c
eq
u
el

o
np
o
u
r
r
a
i
ta
p
p
e
l
e
ru
ndconstructionnisme subjectiviste
des systmes de pense ;c

e
s
te
n
f
i
nu
n
e
t
u
d
ed
uf
o
n
d
e
me
n
td
e
sc
h
o
i
x
subjectifs, avec le concept de pr-d
i
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
nd

e
s
p
r
i
t
.

2. Philon s
en fera de nouveau l

c
h
o: Why is there any misery at all in the
world ? Not by chance, surely. From some cause then. Is it from the intention of the
deity ? But he is perfectly benevolent. Is it contrary to his intention ? But he is almighty.
No
t
h
i
n
gc
a
ns
h
a
k
et
h
es
o
l
i
d
i
t
yo
ft
h
i
sr
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g[
] (111).

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

146

PATRICK MENNETEAU

o
b
j
e
tc
e
n
t
r
a
ld
e
sDialogues n

e
s
tp
a
se
x
p
o
s
d
ef
a

o
nl
i
mi
n
a
i
r
e
mais, plusieurs fois voqu, se dgage plutt au fil de la lecture. Contre
les excs de la religion traditionnelle, et du mysticisme en particulier,
contre les raisonnements a-priori de la mtaphysique, contre l
i
mp
a
s
s
e
d
us
c
e
p
t
i
c
i
s
mer
a
d
i
c
a
l
,i
ls

a
g
i
r
ad
ep
r
o
p
o
s
e
rl
er
e
c
o
u
r
sl

e
x
p

r
i
e
n
c
e
d
el

o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
ne
tl
ar

f
l
e
x
i
o
np
o
u
rf
o
n
d
e
ru
n
er
e
l
i
g
i
o
nnaturelle ,
a
us
e
n
so
e
l
l
es

a
p
p
u
i
es
u
rl
e
sf
a
c
u
l
t

sn
a
t
u
r
e
l
l
e
sd
el

h
o
mmee
ts
u
rl
e
spectacle de la nature. Gr

c
el

r
i
t
a
g
ed
eNe
wt
o
ne
td
el

e
mp
i
r
i
s
me
lockien, Cleanthes peut dnoncer comme subjectif le rejet de la raison
e
x
p

r
i
me
n
t
a
l
ec
o
mmes
i
g
n
ed

u
ns
c
e
p
t
i
c
i
s
mer
a
d
i
c
a
la
p
p
l
i
q
u
a
u
domaine religieux :
Light is in reality anatomized : The true system of the heavenly
b
o
d
i
e
si
sd
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
da
n
da
s
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
e
d
s
c
e
p
t
i
c
s
,t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,a
r
e
obliged, in every question, to consider each particular evidence apart,
and proportion their assent to the precise degree of evidence, which
occurs. This is their practice in all natural, mathematical, moral, and
political science. And why not the same, I ask, in the theological and
religious ? Why must conclusions of this nature be alone rejected on
the general presumption of the insufficiency of human reason,
without any particular discussion of the evidence ? Is not such an
unequal conduct a plain proof of prejudice and passion ? (47)

o
p
p
o
s
d
uc
h
o
i
xs
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
fd
us
c
e
p
t
i
c
i
s
me
,De
me
ad

f
e
n
dc
e
l
u
id
e
la foi en revandiquant le fondement subjectif de son dogme : each
man feels, in a manner, the truth of religion within his own breast
(
1
0
3
)
.
C
e
s
tp
o
u
r
q
u
o
il
e
sp
r

d
i
c
a
t
e
u
r
ss

a
d
r
e
s
s
e
n
ta
u
x
mo
t
i
o
n
sd
el
e
u
r
a
u
d
i
t
o
i
r
ep
o
u
rl
e
u
rp
a
r
l
e
rd
el
ami
s

r
a
b
l
ec
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
nd
el

h
o
mme:
[F]or that purpose a talent of eloquence and strong imagery is more
requisite than that of reasoning and argument. For is it necessary to
prove, what everyone feels within himself ? it is only necessary to
make us feel it, if possible, more intimately and sensibly. (103)

Mais avec de tels arguments, Demea ne tarde pa

ss

e
x
c
l
u
r
e
symboliquement de lui-mme du dialogue philosophique :i
ls

a
g
i
te
n
e
f
f
e
t
d

a
f
f
r
a
n
c
h
i
rl
ap
e
n
s

ed
uj
o
u
gd
el
as
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
r
e
l
i
g
i
e
u
s
e
,
c
e
l
l
e
-l
m
meq
u
ic
o
n
d
u
i
tl
e
sh
o
mme
ss

e
n
t
r
e
-t
u
e
r
.C
e
s
tl
af
a
c
u
l
t
d
el
a
raison qui prendra le relais, avec toutefois un a-priori :l

e
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
ed
e
Dieu est considre, ds le dbut des dialogues, et par les trois
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
e
u
r
s
,c
o
mmea
c
q
u
i
s
e
.C
e
s
tu
np
o
i
n
td
ed

p
a
r
tq
u
en

e
s
tp
a
s

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

DE LA SUBJECTIVIT DANS LES DIALOGUES DE HUME

147

remis en question.3 Les dveloppements du programme des Dialogues

passent en effet en revue un certain nombre de grands systmes
e
x
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
f
sd
umo
n
d
e
.
L

a
r
g
u
me
n
t
a
i
r
ed
el
am
t
a
p
h
y
s
i
q
u
ed

i
n
s
p
i
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
i
s
t
o
t

l
i
c
i
e
n
n
e
,r
a
p
p
e
l
p
a
rDe
me
al
o
r
s
q
u

i
l
v
o
q
u
el
an

c
e
s
s
i
t
d

u
n
e
cause premire, est rapidement cart par Cleanthes avec sa
condamnation radicale de tout difice intellectuel qui ne serait pas li
a
u
xp
r
e
u
v
e
sd
el

e
x
p

r
i
e
n
c
es
e
n
s
i
b
l
e: Whatever we conceive as
existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being,
therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction (99). Quant
a
u
xr

l
a
t
i
o
n
sd

o
r
d
r
emy
s
t
i
q
u
e
,e
l
l
e
si
mp
l
i
q
u
e
n
tl

a
n
n
i
h
i
l
a
t
i
o
nd
el
a
facult de la raison, dont le droit naturel constitue la base des
Dialogues. Elles sont donc cartes, la suite des systmes
mtaphysiques et du scepticisme religieux. Le dbat sera par
consquent essentiellement centr sur la nouvelle religion naturelle
expose par Cleanthes :
Look round the world : Contemplate the whole and every part of it :
You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into
an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of
subdivisions, to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties
can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their
most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which
ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them.
The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout nature, resembles
exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human
contrivance ; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence.
Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by
all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble ; and that the
a
u
t
h
o
ro
fn
a
t
u
r
ei
ss
o
me
wh
a
t
s
i
mi
l
a
rt
ot
h
emi
n
do
fma
n[
](53)

Sur le modle de la mise en vidence, par-del la rfrence aux

textes canoniques, des fondements purement subjectifs des croyances
r
e
l
i
g
i
e
u
s
e
s
,l
ap
r
o
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
nd
eCl
e
a
n
t
h
e
sv
a
t
r
ep
a
s
s

ea
uc
r
i
b
l
ed

u
n
e
3. Faut-il y voir un avatar du poids historique de la religion sur le dbat
philosophique du XVIIIe sicle ?Sa
nsdout
e
,c
a
rl
apr
ude
nc
es

i
mpos
a
i
tf
a
c
ea
ux
va
ng
l
i
s
t
e
sdel

gl
i
s
ed
c
os
s
e
,qui
,e
nl
ape
r
s
onnedel
e
urpa
s
t
e
urJ
ohnBona
r
,
a
va
i
e
nta
c
c
us
Humed
h
r

s
i
ee
n1755,l
or
sdel
apubl
i
c
a
t
i
ondeAnalysis of the
Moral and Religious Sentiments. Dans les Dialogues, que Hume avait rdigs ds
les annes cinqua
nt
e
,ma
i
squ
i
lnepubl
i
apa
sdes
onvi
va
nt
,de
shypot
h
s
e
ss
e
r
ont
t
out
e
f
oi
se
nvi
s
a
g
e
s
,quif
e
r
ontl

c
onomi
edel

e
xi
s
t
e
nc
edeDi
e
u,ma
i
sdef
a

on
moins provocante que si elles avaient t prises en considration ds le dbut de
l

ouvr
a
ge
.

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

148

PATRICK MENNETEAU

c
r
i
t
i
q
u
eq
u
el

o
np
o
u
r
r
a
i
ta
p
p
e
l
e
r
,d
ef
a

o
na
n
a
c
h
r
o
n
i
q
u
e
,u
n
dconstructionnisme subjectiviste .
Celui-ci va prendre pour cible (mais aussi comme modle) la
nouvelle religion naturelle, qui donne son nom au titre des dialogues, et
qui, sur la base de la rcente synthse astronomique propose par
Newton pour dcrire (et prvoir) le mouvemen
td
e
sp
l
a
n

t
e
sl

a
i
d
e
4
d

u
n
es
e
u
l
ef
o
r
mu
l
e
,
p
r
o
p
o
s
ed
o
n
c
,p
a
rl
ab
o
u
c
h
ed
eCl
e
a
n
t
h
e
s
,
l

i
d

e
d

u
n Di
e
ug
r
a
n
da
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
e
.Ce
t
t
eh
y
p
o
t
h

s
ee
s
tb
i
e
n
t

tt
a
x

e
d

a
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
mo
r
p
h
i
s
me
,c

e
s
t
--dire dnonce comme le produit du
r
e
g
a
r
dc
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
a
n
td

u
n
es
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
i
t particulire. La premire question
est celle de la nature comme ordre ou comme dsordre : la tirade de
Cleanthes rappele ci-dessus rpond comme en cho (soulign par
l

a
n
a
p
h
o
r
eLook round ) celle de Philo, qui propose une lecture
c
o
n
t
r
a
i
r
ed
el

u
n
ivers :
Look round this universe. What an immense profusion of beings,
animated and organized, sensible and active ! You admire this
prodigious variety and fecundity. But inspect a little more narrowly
these living existences, the only beings worth regarding. How hostile
and destructive to one another ! How insufficient all of them for their
own happiness ! How contemptible or odious to the spectator ! The
whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind nature, impregnated by a
great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without
discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children ! (120)

i
n
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
es
u
rc
e
t
t
ep
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
d
ed
e
u
xl
e
c
t
u
r
e
sc
o
n
t
r
a
d
i
c
t
o
i
r
e
sd
u
mo
n
d
er
e
l

v
ed

u
n
ep
h

n
o
m
n
o
l
o
g
i
ed
el
ap
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
na
v
a
n
tl
al
e
t
t
r
e
.
Elle conc
e
r
n
e
g
a
l
e
me
n
tl

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
ne
n
t
r
el
av
i
s
i
o
nd
umo
n
d
eh

r
i
t

e
d

Ar
i
s
t
o
t
ee
t
c
e
l
l
e
,
p
l
u
sr

c
e
n
t
e
,
e
t
u
n
i
f
i
c
a
t
r
i
c
e
,
d
eGa
l
i
l

e:
I
fwep
e
r
u
s
eGa
l
i
l
e
o

sf
a
mo
u
sDi
a
l
o
g
u
e
sc
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
gt
h
es
y
s
t
e
mo
f
the world, we shall find, that that great genius, one of the sublimest
that ever existed, first bent all his endeavours to prove, that there was
no foundation for the distinction commonly made between
elementary and celestial substances (61)

4. L o Kepler avait laiss un hritage de formules mathmatiques multiples et

complexes pour rendre compte des mouvements apparents des plantes, Newton avait,
la fin du XVIIe sicle, propos sa clbre synthse associant la gravit au rapport
entre le produit des masses des corps considrs et le carr de la distance qui les spare
(g = m1xm2/d).

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

DE LA SUBJECTIVIT DANS LES DIALOGUES DE HUME

149

Ai
n
s
i
,
c

e
s
te
nd

p
a
s
s
a
n
tl
ad
i
v
i
s
i
o
ns
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
me
n
t
t
a
b
l
i
ee
n
t
r
el
a
terre (lieu du changement) et la quintessence (domaine de la perfection

t
e
r
n
e
l
l
e
)q
u
el

a
s
t
r
o
n
o
mi
eap
up
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
e
r
.
Ceg
r
a
n
dp
a
se
na
v
a
n
t
a
t

f
a
i
t
g
r

c
el

a
n
a
l
o
g
i
e:
Is not the moon another earth, which we see to turn round its centre ?
Is not Venus another earth, where we observe the same
phenomenon ? Are not the revolutions of the sun also a confirmation,
from analogy, of the same theory ? All the planets, are they not earths,
which revolve around the sun ? Are not the satellites moons, which
move round Jupiter and Saturn, and along with these primary planets,
round the sun ? These analogies and resemblances, with others which I
have not mentioned, are the sole proofs of the Copernican system.
(61)

Ce
p
e
n
d
a
n
t
,c
ec
o
n
c
e
p
to
p

r
a
t
o
i
r
ed
el

a
n
a
l
o
g
i
e
,r

c
e
mme
n
tremis
a
ug
o

td
uj
o
u
rp
a
rl

a
s
t
r
o
n
o
mi
e
,p
e
u
tl
u
i
-m
mef
a
i
r
el

o
b
j
e
td

u
n
e
c
r
i
t
i
q
u
e
,c
a
ra
v
e
cl
u
i
,o
ns

a
v
e
n
t
u
r
ea
v
e
cl

r
e
t
h
o
r
sd
uc
a
d
r
e
empirique dfini par Locke, comme le souligne Philo : Our ideas
reach no farther than our experience : We have no experience of divine
attributes and operations : I need not conclude my syllogism : You can
draw the inference yourself (53). Sommes-nous donc condamns
ne pas connatre un Dieu inaccessible ?L

i
mp
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
ne
s
tp
l
u
t

tq
u
e
toute connaissance prtendu
ed
eDi
e
un
ec
o
n
s
i
s
t
ee
nf
a
i
tq
u

l
e
r
a
me
n
e
ra
u
xp
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
sd
el

e
n
t
e
n
d
e
me
n
t
h
u
ma
i
n:
Does not the great disproportion bar all comparison and inference ?
From observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything
concerning the generation of man ? Wouldt
h
ema
n
n
e
ro
fal
e
a
f

s
blowing, even though perfectly known, afford us any instruction
concerning the vegetation of a tree ?
But allowing that we were to take the operations of one part of
nature upon another for the foundation of our judgement concerning
the origin of the whole (which can never be admitted) yet why select
so minute, so weak, so bounded a principle as the reason and design
of animals is found to be upon this planet ? What peculiar privilege
has this little agitation of the brain which we call thought, that we
must thus make it the model of the whole universe ? Our partiality in
our own favour does indeed present it on all occasions : But sound
philosophy ought carefully to guard against so natural an illusion. (58)

Ai
n
s
i
,l

i
n
s
t
a
rd
ec
et anthropomorphisme, tout regard constituant
r
e
p
o
s
a
n
ts
u
ru
n
eb
a
s
es
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
en

e
s
tq
u
es
o
p
h
i
s
me: the narrow

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

150

PATRICK MENNETEAU

views of a peasant, who makes his domestic economy the rule for the
government of kingdoms, is in comparison a pardonable sophism
(59). Et le r
e
g
a
r
dq
u
i
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
el

o
r
d
r
ed
el

u
n
i
v
e
r
sp
e
r
ds
al

g
i
t
i
mi
t
:
Stone, wood, brick, iron, brass, have not, at this time, in this
minute globe of earth, an order or arrangement without human art
and contrivance : therefore the universe could not originally attain
its order and arrangement, without something similar to human
art. But is a part of nature a rule for another part very wide from
the former ? Is it a rule for the whole ? Is a very small part a rule
for the universe ? (59)

La relation de cause effet, fondement du concept de cause premire

e
td
el
ad

f
i
n
i
t
i
o
nd
el

o
r
d
r
e
,q
u
ir
e
p
o
s
es
u
rd
e
sh
a
b
i
t
u
d
e
s
d

o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
,e
s
te
l
l
e
-mme mise mal, dans la mesure o elle ne
r
e
p
o
s
ep
l
u
s
,d
a
n
sl
ed
o
ma
i
n
ed
el
ar
e
l
i
g
i
o
nn
a
t
u
r
e
l
l
e
,s
u
rl

h
a
b
i
t
u
d
e
ancre dans l
e
x
p

r
i
e
n
c
e: How this argument can have place, where
the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without
parallel, or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain (60).
D
a
i
l
l
e
u
r
s
,
s
i
l

o
nma
i
n
t
i
e
n
t
l

a
n
a
l
o
g
i
ee
n
t
r
el

u
n
i
v
e
r
se
tune maison, ne
devra-t-on pas, au vu du spectacle de la misre humaine, condamner
l

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
e? If you find many inconveniences and deformities in the
building, you will always, without entering into any detail, condemn
the architect (115).
Ai
n
s
i
,
l

e
xprience empirique, qui est la base du raisonnement de
la religion naturelle, et qui connat un essor sans prcdent grce
l

i
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
nr

c
e
n
t
ed
en
o
u
v
e
a
u
xi
n
s
t
r
u
me
n
t
sd

o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n(
l
u
n
e
t
t
e
a
s
t
r
o
n
o
mi
q
u
e
,mi
c
r
o
s
c
o
p
e
)
,p
e
u
td
o
n
n
e
rl
i
e
u
,c
o
mmeo
nl

av
u
, des
interprtations diffrentes :s
e
l
o
nq
u
el

o
ns
o
u
t
i
e
n
tl

i
d

ed

u
nd
i
e
u
s
e
mb
l
a
b
l
el

e
s
p
r
i
th
u
ma
i
no
uc
e
l
l
ed

u
nd
i
e
ui
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
,l
e
s
dernires dcouvertes scientifiques apparatront comme arguments
supplmentaires ou comme objection :
All the discoveries in astronomy, which prove the immense grandeur
and magnificence of the works of nature, are so many additional
arguments for a deity, according to the true system of theism : But
according to your hypothesis of experimental theism they become so
many objections, by removing the effect still farther from all
resemblance to the effects of human art and contrivance. (75)

Un
ef
o
i
sq
u

o
ne
n
t
r
ed
a
n
sl
ed
o
ma
i
n
es
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
f
,d
emu
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
hypothses contradictoires deviennent en effet possibles, sans

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

DE LA SUBJECTIVIT DANS LES DIALOGUES DE HUME

151

q
u

a
u
c
u
n
ep
u
i
s
s
el

e
mp
o
r
t
e
rs
u
rl
e
sa
u
t
r
e
s: pourquoi la cause de
l

u
n
i
v
e
r
ss
e
r
a
i
t
-elle unique plutt que plurielle ?Co
n
c
e
v
o
i
rl

u
n
i
v
e
r
s
c
o
mme u
nt
o
u
tq
u
ia
p
p
e
l
l
eu
n
ec
a
u
s
e
,n

e
s
t
-ce pas dj une
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
ns
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
ed
el

e
s
p
r
i
t
?
The WHOLE, you say, wants a cause. I answer, that the uniting of these
parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct counties into
one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is
performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no
influence on the nature of things. (101)

Ce
t
t
ed
e
r
n
i

r
ec
i
t
a
t
i
o
ns
u
rl

a
c
t
ea
r
b
i
t
r
a
i
r
ed
el

e
s
p
r
i
ts
ef
a
i
tl

c
h
od
el
a
dfinition du phnomne subjectif de la croyance telle que la prsentait
Hume lui-mme dans A Treatise of Human Nature : that act of the
mind which renders realities more present to the mind than fictions,
causes them to weigh more in the thought, and gives them a superior
influence on the passions and imagination (629 et Enquiry 49).
Ena
l
l
a
n
tp
l
u
sl
o
i
nd
a
n
sl

a
u
d
a
c
e
,l
ed
i
a
l
o
g
u
ee
nv
i
e
n
tc
o
n
s
i
d

r
e
r
uneh
y
p
o
t
h

s
eq
u
is

a
f
f
r
a
n
c
h
i
td
uc
o
n
c
e
p
td

e
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
ed
eDi
e
u
.En
e
f
f
e
t
,l
ep
r
i
n
c
i
p
ed

o
r
d
r
eo
b
s
e
r
v
d
a
n
sl
an
a
t
u
r
en
ep
o
u
r
r
a
i
t
-il pas
relever de caractristiques intrinsques de la matire ?Enl

a
b
s
e
n
c
ed
e
donnes exprimentales, cette hypothse vaut autantq
u
ec
e
l
l
ed

u
n
dieu crateur :
To say, that the different ideas, which compose the reason of the
supreme being, fall into order, of themselves, and by their own
nature, is really to talk without precise meaning. If it has a meaning, I
would fain know, why it is not as good sense to say, that the parts of
the material world fall into order, of themselves, and by their own
nature ? Can the one opinion be intelligible, while the other is not so ?
(72-73)

Lar

p
o
n
s
e
,o
nl
ed
e
v
i
n
e
,e
s
tq
u

i
ls

a
g
i
td
en
o
u
v
e
a
ud

u
n
ea
f
f
a
i
r
ed
e
r
e
g
a
r
ds
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
f
.Ph
i
l
ov
am
mej
u
s
q
u

n
o
n
c
e
rl
ad

ma
r
c
h
ed
e
Cl
e
a
n
t
h
e
s
,q
u
ii
n
t

g
r
ed
ef
a

o
ni
n
j
u
s
t
i
f
i

es
e
sy
e
u
xl

e
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
ed
e
Dieu, comme fonde sur de simples prjugs. De faon provocatrice, il
met encore une nouvelle hypothse :p
o
u
r
q
u
o
il

u
n
i
v
e
r
sn
ep
o
u
r
r
a
i
t
-il
pas tre compar un animal ?I
ls

a
g
i
r
a
i
ts
i
mp
l
e
me
n
td

u
n
ev
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
mo
r
p
h
i
q
u
es
u
p
p
l

me
n
t
a
i
r
e
,ma
i
sq
u
in

a
u
r
a
i
tr
i
e
ne
n
v
i
e
r
,e
n
termes de justification, celle de Cleanthes :
Here, therefore, is a new species of anthropomorphism, Cleanthes, on
which you may deliberate ; and a theory, which seems not liable to

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

152

PATRICK MENNETEAU

any considerable difficulties. You are too much superior surely to

systematical prejudices, to find any more difficulty in supposing an
animal body to be, originally, of itself or from unknown causes,
possessed of order and organization, than in supposing a similar order
to belong to the mind. (82)

l
af
i
nd
ec
ed

b
a
t
,l
o
r
sd
u
q
u
e
ll

u
n
i
v
e
r
ss
e
r
aa
u
s
s
ic
o
mp
a
r
u
n
vgtal, la question reviendra : why may not the material universe be
the necessary existent being ? (100). Cette question rvle en ngatif
q
u
el
er
e
c
o
u
r
sl

i
d

ed

u
nd
i
e
uc
r

a
t
e
u
rr
e
l

v
ed

u
n
ep
r

-disposition
d

e
s
p
r
i
ts
a
n
sj
u
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
no
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
. c
es
t
a
d
ed
ud
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
,t
r
a
v
e
r
s
l

t
u
d
e des donnes subjectives, on accde la confrontation
archtypale entre la perspective supra-matrialiste, reprsente par
Cleanthes, et la perspective matrialiste, reprsente par Philo. Aucun
d
e
sd
e
u
xi
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
e
u
r
sn
ep
e
u
t
c
o
n
v
a
i
n
c
r
el

a
u
t
r
ed
ub
i
e
n
-fond de son
choix, parce que ces choix sont par ncessit (du fait des limites de
5
l

e
x
p

r
i
e
n
c
eh
u
ma
i
n
e
)p
u
r
e
me
n
t
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
f
s
.
Ai
n
s
il

a
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
mo
r
p
h
i
s
med
el
ar
e
l
i
g
i
o
nn
a
t
u
r
e
l
l
es
er
e
t
r
o
u
v
e
-il,
t
r
a
v
e
r
sc
e
t
t
ec
r
i
t
i
q
u
ed
el
as
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
i
t

,s
u
ru
np
i
e
dd

g
a
lit avec le
mysticisme contemplatif. Dieu est-il absolument incomprhensible, ou
b
i
e
na
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
el

e
n
t
e
n
d
e
me
n
th
u
ma
i
n? Tels sont les deux ples
envisageables de la qute subjective du divin :
The ancient Platonists, you know, were the most religious and devout
of all the pagan philosophers : Yet many of them, particularly
Plotinus, expressly declare, that intellect or understanding is not to be
ascribed to the deity, and that our most perfect worship of him
consists, not in acts of veneration, reverence, gratitude, or love ; but
in a certain mysterious self-annihilation or total extinction of our
faculties. These ideas are, perhaps, too far stretched : but it still must
be acknowledged, that, by representing the deity as so intelligible,
and comprehensible, and so similar to a human mind, we are guilty of
5. Cette confrontation traverse bien sr l
histoire des ides, depuis l
opposition
Platon-Aristote dans l
Antiquit celle, plus moderne qui spare un William Blake
( Mental things are alone real , A Vision of the Last Judgment) d
un Jacques Monod et
son postulat d
objectivit de la nature : La pierre angulaire de la mthode scientifique
est le postulat d
objectivit de la Nature. C
est--dire le refus systmatique de
considrer comme pouvant conduire une connaissance vraie toute interprtation
des phnomnes donns en termes de causes finales, c
est--d
i
r
ed
ep
r
o
j
e
t
[
]
.
Po
s
t
u
l
a
t
pur, jamais indmontrable, car il est videmment impossible d
imaginer une
exprience qui pourrait prouver la non-existence d
un projet, d
un but dans la nature
(Monod 37-38).

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

DE LA SUBJECTIVIT DANS LES DIALOGUES DE HUME

153

the grossest and most narrow partiality, and make ourselves the
model of the whole universe. (67)

Lec
h
o
i
xd
eDe
me
as
er

c
l
a
ma
i
to
u
v
e
r
t
e
me
n
t
,o
nl

av
u
,d

u
n
fondement subjectif. Il apparat maintenant que celui de Cleanthes
r
e
l

v
e
g
a
l
e
me
n
td
el
am
mec
a
t

g
o
r
i
e
,a
i
n
s
iq
u

i
ll
es
o
u
l
i
g
n
el
u
i
mme : Consider, anatomize the eye : Survey its structure and
contrivance ; and tell me, from your own feeling, if the idea of a
contriver does not immediately flow in upon you with a force like that
of sensation (65). Ce sentiment de vrit, qui se prsente avec la
f
o
r
c
ed

u
n
es
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
no
ud

u
n
ei
mp
r
e
s
s
i
o
nv
e
n
u
ed
e
ss
e
n
s
,c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
x
a
c
t
e
me
n
tl
ad

f
i
n
i
t
i
o
nd
el
ac
r
o
y
a
n
c
et
e
l
l
eq
u
el

a
v
a
i
tp
r
o
p
o
s

e
Hume dans A Treatise of Human Nature,u
n
ei
d

ed
o
t

ed

u
n
ef
o
r
c
e
particulire lie une impression : a lively idea related to or
associated with a present impression (96).
Ai
n
s
i
,c

e
s
tl
al
u
mi

r
ed
el
ac
r
i
t
i
q
u
ed
el
as
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
i
t

l
a
b
o
r

e
dans le Trait que les enjeux des Dialogues prennent tout leur relief.
C
e
s
ts
u
ru
ns
i
mp
l
es
e
n
t
i
me
n
td
ev

r
i
t
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
fq
u
es
ef
o
n
tn
o
sc
h
o
i
x
en matire de systmes philosophique ou thologique, comme
religieux :
Thus all probable reasoning is nothing but a species of sensation. T
is
not solely in poetry and music, we must follow our taste and
s
e
n
t
i
me
n
t
,b
u
tl
i
k
e
wi
s
ei
np
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
y
.Wh
e
nIa
mc
o
n
v
i
n
c

do
fa
n
y
principle, t
is only an idea, which strikes more strongly upon me.
When I give the preference to one set of arguments above another, I
do nothing but decide from my feeling concerning the superiority of
their influence. (Treatise 103)

Ainsi discours religieux, thologique et philosophique partagent-ils

la vulnrabilit de leurs fondements subjectifs. Par del la rfrence
aux dialogues socratiques ou ceux de Galile, se trouve ici sans doute
la vritable justification de la forme choisie par Hume, puisque la
c
r
i
t
i
q
u
ed
us
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
i
s
mef
o
n
c
i
e
ri
n
t
e
r
d
i
tl

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
nd

u
nd
i
s
c
o
u
r
s
q
u
ip
o
u
r
r
a
i
ts

a
f
f
r
a
n
c
h
i
rd
ec
e
t
t
em
mec
r
i
t
i
que. cette impossibilit
du discours systmatique correspond une forme qui manifeste
p
r

c
i
s

me
n
tl
ec
o
n
f
l
i
td
e
ss
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
i
t

s
.L

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
fu
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
i
s
t
ed
u
d
i
s
c
o
u
r
sd

u
nPl
a
t
o
ns
u
rl
aRa
i
s
o
ne
s
td
o
n
cd

f
i
n
i
t
i
v
e
me
n
ta
b
a
n
d
o
n
n

.
Te
le
s
tl

r
i
t
a
g
ep
o
s
t
h
u
med
e David Hume la philosophie des
Lumires :
u
nl
e
g
sp
o
u
rl
emo
i
n
se
n
c
o
mb
r
a
n
t

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

154

PATRICK MENNETEAU

Puisque le concept-cl est celui de la subjectivit, quels sont donc

les fondements de nos choix subjectifs ?
La subjectivit est le domaine privilgi des prjugs ou des prd
i
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
sd

e
s
p
r
i
t
,c

e
s
t
--d
i
r
ed
ec
eq
u
if
a
i
tq
u
el
ec
h
o
i
xd

u
n
systme explicatif est par avance conditionn, avant mme que son
c
o
n
t
e
n
un
es
o
i
tc
o
n
n
u
.C
e
s
te
nc
e
c
iq
u
el
e
sp
e
r
s
o
n
n
a
g
e
sd
e
s
Dialogues p
e
u
v
e
n
ts

a
c
c
u
s
e
rmu
t
u
e
l
l
e
me
n
t
: Cleanthes accuse Demea
d

a
c
t
e
sa
r
b
i
t
r
a
i
r
e
sd
el

e
s
p
r
i
t
(
arbitrary act of the mind [101]), ou de
suppositions non moins arbitraires ( arbitrary suppositions [110]) ;
tandis que Demea lui reproche son anthropomorphisme (72) et accuse
Philo de suppositions folles et elles aussi arbitraires ( wild, arbitrary
suppositions [87]). Cleanthes dnoncera aussi les lucubrations
fantaisistes de Philo ( whimsies [91])
.Ler

s
u
l
t
a
te
s
tq
u

p
l
u
s
i
e
u
r
s
r
e
p
r
i
s
e
s
,l
ed
i
a
l
o
g
u
eme
n
a
c
ed
es

a
r
r

t
e
r
,c
o
mme par exemple dans le
passage qui oppose anthropomorphisme et mysticisme.6 Chacun, en
fait, se laisse emporter par son propre conditionnement, et ce qui
t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
a

ti
c
ie
s
tl

i
mp
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
p
o
u
rc
h
a
q
u
ei
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
e
u
rd
e
convaincre les autres, en vertu du caractre subjectif de ses vues. De ce
p
o
i
n
td
ev
u
e
,t
o
u
td

f
e
n
s
e
u
rd

u
ns
y
s
t

mee
s
tu
nd
o
g
ma
t
i
s
t
e
,e
tl
a
c
o
n
f
r
o
n
t
a
t
i
o
nn

o
p
p
o
s
eb
i
e
n
t

tp
l
u
sq
u
ed
e
u
xc
a
t

g
o
r
i
e
sd
ep
e
n
s
e
u
r
s:
les dogmatistes et les sceptiques, pour qui tout systme est intenable.
Philo dconstruit alors le mcanisme de ces dialogues impossibles
en termes de pr-d
i
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
sd

e
s
p
r
i
t
i
n
s
u
r
mo
n
t
a
b
l
e
s:
It seems evident, that the dispute between the sceptics and the
dogmatists is entirely verbal, or at least regards only the degrees of
doubt and assurance, which we ought to indulge with regard to all
r
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
.
[
]Th
eo
n
l
yd
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,
t
h
e
n
,
b
e
t
we
e
nt
h
e
s
es
e
c
t
s
,
i
ft
h
e
y
merit that name, is that the sceptic, from habit, caprice, or inclination,
insists most on the difficulties ; the dogmatist, for like reasons, on the
necessity. (130)

6. Who could imagine, replied Demea, that Cleanthes, the calm,

philosophical Cleanthes, would attempt to refute his antagonists, by affixing a
nickname to them ; and like the common bigots and inquisitors of the age, have
recourse to invective and declamation, instead of reasoning ? Or does he not
pe
r
c
e
i
ve
,t
ha
t[
]a
nt
hr
opomor
phi
t
ei
sa
na
ppe
l
l
a
t
i
ona
si
nvi
di
ous
,a
ndi
mpl
i
e
sa
s
dangerous consequences, as the epithet of mystic, with which he has honoured
us ? (69).

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

DE LA SUBJECTIVIT DANS LES DIALOGUES DE HUME

155

Habitude, caprice, penchant naturel : tels sont les concepts auxquels se

ramnent, au terme de cette analyse de la subjectivit, des sicles de
polmiques philosophiques et thologiques. La philosophie de Hume
s

a
f
f
i
r
mei
c
imoi
n
sc
ommec
e
l
l
edudoute que comme celle du
subjectivisme.
Philo et Cleanthes se livrent alors un vritable moment de
confession, le premier reconnaissant sa pr-disposition la
provocation ( in proportion to my veneration for true religion, is
my abhorrence of vulgar superstitions ; and I indulge a peculiar
pleasure, I confess, in pushing such principles, sometimes into
absurdity, sometimes into impiety [131]), le second son penchant
naturel en faveur de la religion ( my inclination, replied Cleanthes,
lies, I own, a contrary way. Religion, however corrupted, is still
better than no religion at all [131]).
Ap
pl
i
q
u d
a
u
t
r
e
sa
ut
e
ur
s
,l
e pr
i
n
c
i
pe d
e
x
pl
i
c
a
t
i
on
s
u
bj
e
c
t
i
vi
s
t
epe
r
me
td
clairer l
apo
s
i
t
i
o
npa
r
a
do
xa
l
ed
u
nLe
i
b
ni
z
,
qui
,d
a
nss
o
ns
ys
t

me
,ni
el

e
xi
s
t
e
n
c
edel
ami
s

r
edel

h
o
mme
(110). Cleanthes, en adoptant la mme position que Leibniz, sera
obl
i
gd
a
d
me
t
t
r
eq
uel
ef
o
n
d
e
me
nte
ne
s
ts
u
bj
e
c
t
i
f
. Ils

a
g
i
td
e
pr

s
e
r
ve
rt
ou
tp
r
i
xl

i
d
epr
e
mi

r
e(
e
to
bj
e
c
t
i
v
e
me
nti
nf
o
nd
e
)
d
un Dieu de bont :
The only method of supporting divine benevolence (and it is what
I willingly embrace) is to deny absolutely the misery and
wickedness of man. Your representations [of evil] are
exaggerated : your melancholy views mostly fictitious : your
inference contrary to fact and experience. (110)

Cef
a
i
s
a
nt
,i
ln
ousdo
n
nei
c
il

e
xe
mpl
ed
ho
mme
spi

g
spa
rl
e
ur
s
propres choix subjectifs, alors que lui-mme avait, au dbut des
dialogues, mis en garde contre ce dfaut : It is very natural, said
Cleanthes, for men to embrace those principles, by which they can
best defend their doctrines (50). Ainsi, Demea et Cleanthes
pr
o
p
os
e
nt
,pa
r
t
i
rd
u
nem
meba
s
ee
x
p
r
i
me
nt
a
l
e(
l

o
b
s
e
r
va
t
i
on
dumo
nd
e
)d
e
u
xl
e
c
t
ur
e
sdi
f
f

r
e
nt
e
s
,ma
i
sa
us
s
id
oc
t
r
i
na
i
r
e
sl

un
e
qu
el

a
ut
r
e: harmonie, ou prdominance du chaos et du mal.
Ce
t
t
ei
d
es
ef
a
i
tl

c
h
odel

e
xe
mp
l
ede
sde
uxl
e
c
t
e
ur
squ
i
,
dans A Treatise of Human Nature,f
o
ntd
u
n m
mel
i
vr
ede
u
x
lectures diffrentes cause de leurs pr-di
s
p
os
i
t
i
o
n
sd
e
s
pr
i
t
.L
un

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

156

PATRICK MENNETEAU

d
c
i
dedel
el
i
r
ec
ommeuv
r
edef
i
c
t
i
on
,a
l
or
squel

a
ut
r
el
e
considre comme histoire vraie :
If one person sits down to read a book as a romance, and another
as a true history, they plainly receive the same ideas, and in the
same order ; nor does the incredulity of the one, and the belief of
the other hinder them from putting the same ideas in both ; t
ho
his testimony has not the same influence on them. (98)

En effet, si les perceptions objectives sont les mmes dans les deux
c
a
s
,
e
nr
e
va
n
c
he
,
l

e
f
f
e
ts
ubj
e
c
t
i
fdec
e
spe
r
c
e
pt
i
on
se
s
tdi
f
frent :
The latter has a more lively conception of all the incidents. He
enters deeper into the concerns of the persons : represents to
himself their actions, and characters, and friendships, and
enmities : He even goes so far as to form a notion of their
features, and air, and person. While the former, who gives no
credit to the testimony of the author, has a more faint and languid
conception of all these particulars ; and except on account of the
style and ingenuity of the composition, can receive little
entertainment from it. (Treatise 98)

C
e
s
tl
em
meph

n
om
nes
u
bj
e
c
t
i
fquie
s
te
nc
a
us
eda
n
sl
e
s
lectures du monde envisages dans les Dialogues : ordre ou chaos,
l
i
e
ud
emi
s

r
eoue
xpr
e
s
s
i
ond
un
epe
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n,Di
e
uc
o
nn
a
i
s
s
a
bl
eou
inaccessible, etc. Ds l
or
sq
ue l

o
ns

l
oi
g
ne du d
oma
i
n
ed
e
l

e
x
p
r
i
e
nc
e di
r
e
c
t
ep
o
ur e
n
t
r
e
rd
a
ns c
e
l
ui d
e
ss
p

c
ul
a
t
i
on
s
abstraites, on se place sous le sceau de la subjectivit des prdi
s
po
s
i
t
i
o
nsd
e
s
pr
i
toud
e
spr

j
ug

s: All these systems, then, of

scepticism, polytheism, and theism you must allow, on your
principles, to be on an equal footing, and that no one of them has
any advantage over the others (85), ou encore : A false, absurd
system, human nature, from the force of prejudice, is capable of
adhering to, with obstinacy and perseverance (127-28).
Ai
ns
i
,e
nf
a
i
s
a
nt
,l

i
ns
t
a
rdeSoc
r
a
t
e
,l
ac
r
i
t
i
qu
ed
e
sopi
ni
o
n
s
reues de la tradition, les dialogues mettent en vidence les limites
mmes de la raison humaine. Celle-ci ne travaille pas tant sur la
ba
s
ed

unee
xp

rience objective que sur celle de la subjectivit. Les

mtaphysiciens eux-mmes ne font que suivre leur penchant et leurs
pr-dispositions mathmatiques :
[T]he argument a-priori has seldom been found very convincing,
except to people of a metaphysical head, who have accustomed
themselves to abstract reasoning, and who, finding from

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

DE LA SUBJECTIVIT DANS LES DIALOGUES DE HUME

157

mathematics, that the understanding frequently leads to truth,

through obscurity and contrary to first appearances, have
transferred the same habit of thinking to subjects, where it ought
not to have place. (102)

De multiples systmes cohrents sont certes possibles,7 mais,

comme ils reposent tous sur des bases subjectives, aucun ne pourra
apporter de preuve dfinitive sur Dieu.8 Ainsi, ce qui fonde en
dernire instance ce que l

onaa
p
pe
l
l
es
c
e
pt
i
c
i
s
medeHumes
e
r

v
l
e
t
r
e
,pa
rde
l
l
ec
on
s
t
a
tde
sl
i
mi
t
e
sdel

e
xp

r
i
e
nc
ee
tdel
a
r
a
i
s
o
nhuma
i
ne
s
,l
as
u
bj
e
c
t
i
vi
t

,d
oma
i
nedel

i
ns
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
:
We never find two persons, who think exactly alike. Nor indeed
does the same person think exactly alike at any two different
periods of time. A difference of age, of the disposition of his body,
of weather, of food, of company, of books, of passions ; any of
these particulars or others more minute, are sufficient to alter the
curious machinery of thought, and to communicate to it very
different movements and operations. (72)

Un choix par nature arbitraire scelle la limite intrinsque des

r
a
i
s
o
n
ne
me
n
t
sh
u
ma
i
ns
,q
uine pe
uv
e
ntd
onc s

a
f
f
r
a
nc
hi
r du
caractre vulnrable de leurs fondements.
Now that vegetation and generation, as well as reason, are
experienced to be principles of order in nature, is undeniable. If I
rest my system of cosmogony on the former, preferably to the
latter, it is at my choice. The matter seems entirely arbitrary. (89-90)

Et la conclusion dlibrment dcevante des Dialogues,

pui
s
q
u

e
l
l
en

n
o
n
c
equ

unepr
o
ba
b
i
l
i
t
r
e
l
a
t
i
ve
me
ntva
gues
ur
Dieu, en est elle-m
me l

i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n.En e
f
f
e
t
,du d
butde
s
di
a
l
og
ue
sl
e
urf
i
n,i
le
s
tunpr
i
n
c
i
pea
r
c
h
t
yp
a
lquin
e
s
tj
a
ma
i
s
re
mi
se
nc
a
u
s
epa
r
c
eq
u
i
le
s
tl
ef
on
d
e
me
ntm
medel
al
og
i
qu
e
humaine :c

e
s
tc
e
l
uidel
ac
a
us
a
l
i
t

,quif
o
nd
a
i
td
j
l
ec
on
c
e
ptd
e
cause premire chez Aristote. Tous les systmes envisags se
7. Without any great effort of thought, I believe that I could, in a instant,
propose other systems of cosmogony, which would have some faint appearance of
truth ; though it is a thousand, a million to one, if either yours or any one of mine
be the true system (92).
8. The consistency is not absolutely denied, only the inference. Conjectures,
especially where infinity is excluded from the divine attributes, may, perhaps, be
sufficient to prove a consistency ; but can never be foundations for any inference
(115).

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

158

PATRICK MENNETEAU

pl
a
c
e
n
tda
nsl

opt
i
qu
ed

uner
e
c
he
r
c
hed
el
aoude
sc
a
us
e
sde
l
uni
v
e
r
se
ti
l
l
us
t
r
e
nta
i
n
s
il
ec
o
ndi
t
i
o
nn
e
me
ntd
u
nc
a
dr
edep
e
ns

e
pa
r
t
i
c
u
l
i
e
rq
ui
,d
Ar
i
s
t
ot
eHume
,e
npa
s
s
a
ntp
a
rl
as
c
i
e
nc
ed
e
Ne
wt
o
ne
tp
a
rl

e
mpi
r
i
s
medeLoc
k
e
,
r
i
gee
n pr
i
n
c
i
pea
b
s
ol
u
commun la logique formelle et la science la relation de cause
e
f
f
e
t
.Ce
ta
r
c
h
t
y
p
ee
s
tt
e
l
l
e
me
ntf
or
tqu
i
lf
i
ni
tp
a
rr
e
mpl
a
c
e
rl
e
vocable de Dieu dans la proposition finale sur laquelle Philo et
Cl
e
a
nt
he
spa
r
vi
e
nn
e
nts
eme
t
t
r
ed
a
c
c
or
d: the cause or causes
of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to
human intelligence (138). Probabilit portant sur une ou plusieurs
c
a
us
e
(
s
)d
u
nor
dr
equin
e
s
tquec
e
l
uide
sl
oi
sdel
ana
t
ur
e
,e
n
f
onc
t
i
ond
u
npr
i
n
c
i
ped
a
na
l
o
gi
ea
f
f
a
i
bl
i: les pouvoirs de la raison
humaine sortent considrablement amoindris des dialogues, alors
que sont dans le mme temps raffirms, devant la question de la
dfinition de Dieu reste sans rponse, les principes subjectifs de
l

t
o
n
ne
me
n
t
, de l
a m
l
a
n
c
ol
i
e
,e
t du d

s
i
r de r

v
l
a
t
i
o
n
supplmentaire :
Some astonishment will naturally arise from the greatness of the
object : Some melancholy from its obscurity: Some contempt of
human reason, that it can give no solution more satisfactory with
regard to so extraordinary and magnificent a question. But believe
me, Cleanthes, the most natural sentiment, which a well-disposed
mind will feel on this occasion, is a longing desire and
expectation, that heaven would be pleased to dissipate, at least
alleviate this profound ignorance, by affording some more
particular revelation to mankind, and making discoveries of the
nature, attributes, and operations of the divine object of our
faith. (139)

Si cette conclusion philosophique ressemble paradoxalement plutt

u
nepr
i

r
e
,c

e
s
td
u
nepa
r
tpa
r
c
eq
u
e
l
l
eapo
urf
on
c
t
i
o
nd
e
dfinir un plus petit dnominateur commun entre religion et
phi
l
o
s
op
hi
e
,q
uip
e
u
ve
n
ts
er
e
j
oi
ndr
es
ou
sl
es
c
e
a
ud
unn
o
uv
e
l
accord reconnu comme subjectif et ouvertement dclar comme
tel :
What can the most inquisitive, contemplative, and religious man
do more than give a plain, philosophical assent to the proposition,
as often as it occurs ; and believe, that the arguments, on which it
is established, exceed the objections, which lie against it ? (138)

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

DE LA SUBJECTIVIT DANS LES DIALOGUES DE HUME

159

C
e
s
ta
us
s
ip
a
r
c
eq
uel

o
bj
e
td
el

e
xpl
or
a
t
i
o
ns
o
ut
e
r
r
a
i
neme
n
e
t
r
a
v
e
r
sl

e
ns
e
mb
l
ede
sdi
a
l
o
gu
e
s
,l
as
u
bj
e
c
t
i
v
i
t

,e
s
tl
ed
o
ma
i
ne
privilgi de manifestations archtypales. Au premier rang de
celles-c
if
i
gu
r
el
ep
r
i
nc
i
pedec
a
us
a
l
i
t

,qu
in
e
s
tj
a
ma
i
sr
e
mi
se
n
question. On ne connat videmment pas encore le principed

a
causalit commun la physique quantique et la psychanalyse
j
un
gi
e
nn
e
,e
toni
gn
or
el

e
xi
s
t
e
nc
ed
ec
em
mepr
i
nc
i
ped
a
n
sl
e
s
philosophies extrme-or
i
e
nt
a
l
e
s
,ma
i
sa
us
s
ida
nsl

a
l
c
hi
mi
ee
td
a
ns
les penses magiques. Viennent ensuite les questions archtypales
d
pi
c
ur
e
,q
ui
,de
va
ntl
ec
o
ns
t
a
td
el

e
xi
s
t
e
nc
ed
uma
l
,s
o
ul
i
gn
e
n
t
l

i
gn
or
a
nc
ef
on
da
me
nt
a
l
edel

h
ommee
tdo
nn
e
ntl
es
e
nt
i
me
ntqu
e
l
aphi
l
os
op
hi
et
our
nee
nr
on
dp
l
usq
u

e
l
l
en
epr
o
g
r
e
s
s
edef
a

on
linaire vers la Vrit. Ce sont enfin les oppositions reconnues
c
ommes
t
r
uc
t
ur
a
ntl

hi
s
t
oi
r
ed
e
si
d
e
s:l

or
d
r
ee
tl
ec
ha
o
s;l

Une
t
l
e mul
t
i
pl
e
,l
e mys
t
i
c
i
s
me e
tl

a
nt
hr
o
p
omor
p
hi
s
me (
ou Di
e
u
inaccessible et Dieu connaissable) ; le matrialisme et le supramatrialisme.
Enc
o
nc
l
us
i
on
,pa
r
t
i
sd
el

a
ffirmation, contre la religion, du
pouvoir de questionnement de la raison, et, contre le subjectivisme,
del
av
a
l
e
urdel

e
xp

r
i
e
nc
e
,l
e
sDialogues sur la religion naturelle
a
b
out
i
s
s
e
ntl

a
f
f
i
r
ma
t
i
onc
o
nc
omi
t
a
nt
ed
e
sl
i
mi
t
e
sa
bs
ol
u
e
sd
e
l

e
x
p
r
i
e
nc
ee
tde la raison humaines. La philosophie du doute pose
d
a
b
or
dq
uel

hommee
s
ti
r
r

m
di
a
bl
e
me
ntc
o
nda
mns
ui
vr
es
e
s
sentiments subjectifs, que ce soit dans ces grands systmes de
pense ou dans la probabilit incertaine nonce dans la conclusion.
Cette rfr
e
nc
el

a
r
c
h
t
yp
e de l

i
gn
or
a
nc
ef
on
da
me
nt
a
l
ed
e
l

homme
,p
a
r
a
d
ox
a
l
e
me
ntf
a
i
t
ee
np
l
e
i
ns
i

c
l
ed
e
sLu
mi

r
e
s
,e
s
t
annonciatrice de la crise des sciences europennes selon Husserl.
Le dialogue, dans sa tradition socratique, avait pour fonction,
travers la maeutique, de faire accoucher de la vrit des idesformes : les Dialogues de David Hume se mettent au service du
do
ut
epo
ure
xpr
i
me
ra
uc
o
nt
r
a
i
r
el

i
mpos
s
i
bi
l
i
t
d
u
nev
r
i
t
f
a
i
t
e
de certitudes. Locke a discrdit les ides innes de la tradition
plat
on
i
c
i
e
n
ne
,ma
i
sf
a
c
el

e
mpi
r
i
s
met
r
i
o
mpha
n
t
,l
ap
hi
l
os
ophi
e
du subjectivisme (corollaire du doute) commence dj fissurer
l

di
f
i
c
ede
sLumi

r
e
s: elle fleurira dans la phnomnologie et
produira ses fruits les plus amers dans le post-modernisme.

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)

160

PATRICK MENNETEAU

L
homme
,e
ne
f
f
e
t
,e
s
tr
e
l

g
ua
us
e
c
o
ndpl
a
n.L
a
s
t
r
on
omi
e
l

a
va
i
td
j

c
a
r
t
d
uc
urd
el
ac
r

a
t
i
o
ndi
vi
n
ea
ve
cl
es
y
s
t

me
hliocentrique. Perdu sur sa plante et dans son ignorance
f
on
da
me
nt
a
l
e
,i
ln

e
s
tpl
usqu
es
p
e
c
t
a
t
e
urd
u
ndr
a
mec
os
mi
qu
e
dont la final
i
t
l
ui
c
ha
pp
ej
a
ma
i
s
.
Ce
r
t
a
i
nsmy
s
t
i
q
ue
snel

a
va
i
e
n
t
dj dfini que comme instrument de la connaissance de Dieu par
Lui-mme : la voie est ouverte pour que cet archtype de la cration
comme miroir de Dieu rapparaisse travers le discours de Hegel
s
url

a
c
t
ua
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
ndel
aRa
i
s
onda
nsl

hi
s
t
o
i
r
e
,e
tdel
as
c
i
e
n
c
edu
XXes
i

c
l
e
,quipl
a
c
e
r
al

hommea
us
omme
td
el

vo
l
u
t
i
o
nc
omme
c
o
ns
c
i
e
nc
ed
el

u
ni
ve
r
s
,o
ue
nc
o
r
eda
n
sl
aps
yc
ha
n
a
l
ys
ej
un
gi
e
n
ne
,
quie
nf
e
r
al

i
ns
t
r
u
me
ntdel
ama
ni
f
e
s
t
a
t
i
ona
r
c
h
t
yp
a
l
e du Soi .
L
hommee
s
te
n pa
s
s
edepe
r
dr
es
o
ns
t
a
t
utpr
i
vi
l

gi
des
uj
e
t
connaissant pour devenir, dans sa subjectivit foncire, miroir de la
ma
ni
f
e
s
t
a
t
i
ondel

i
nc
on
n
u,
c

e
s
t
--di
r
edel

i
nc
on
s
c
i
e
ntc
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
f
.
Patrick MENNETEAU
Universit du Sud Toulon - Var

OUVRAGES CITS
ANSCOMBE, G. E. M. Metaphysics and the Philosophy of the Mind. 1961.
Minneapolis, MN : U of Minnesota P, 1981.
GASKIN, J. C. A. Dialogues and Natural History of Religion. Oxford :
Oxford UP, 1993.
HUME, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. 1740. Oxford : Clarendon,
1983.
___. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. 1748. Oxford :
Clarendon, 1983.
___. Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. 1779. London : Penguin,
1980.
HUSSERL, Edmund. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental
Phenomenology. 1913. Evanston, IL : Northwestern UP, 1970.
MICHAUD, Yves. Hume et la fin de la philosophie. Paris : PUF, 1983.
MONOD, Jacques. Le Hasard et la Ncessit. Paris : Seuil, 1970.
YOLTON, John W. Realism and Appearances : an Essay in Ontology .
The Review of Metaphysics 55.4 (1 June 2002) : 881.

RSAA XVII-XVIII 62 (2006)