Entre histoire et analyse : le progrès selon David Hume et Adam Smith

This dissertation examines the relationship between history and analysis in Hume’s and Smith's considerations on progress. Its objective is twofold. First, it aims to show that these two Scottish thinkers bring together an historical approach, i.e. conjectural history, with another historical approach stemming from their analysis of the rise of civil society. Hume conflates these two distinct historical approaches in his political philosophy, whereas Smith separates gradually his economic analysis of from his political philosophy ― which is a conjectural history of civil society. According to both of them, the government originates from the inequality of wealth within society and its main purpose is to secure private property. The economic analysis of the Wealth of Nations derives from this theory of government and justice. Secondly, this study aims to emphasize that Smith’s economic theory is less historical than Hume. This is illustrated by the difference between Hume’s and Smith’s stance on the problem of the British public debt. While Hume points out the danger proceeding from Great Britain's aggressive international politics ― by drawing a parallel with the Roman Empire ―, Smith brings to the fore the economic effects of public debt, which, despite their harmfulness, are offset by private savings. Such a comparison explains the subsequent emergence of the classical school which deploys a purely theoretical economic analysis that lacks historical context.Cette thèse porte sur la relation entre histoire et analyse dans les considérations de Hume et de Smith sur le progrès. Son objectif est double. En premier lieu, elle vise à montrer que ces deux auteurs écossais articulent une approche historique, dite conjecturale, avec une autre approche historique qui relève de leur analyse de l’émergence de la société civile. Tandis que Hume rassemble ces deux approches historiques distinctes dans sa philosophie politique, Smith fait émerger son analyse économique de sa philosophie politique, qui est une histoire conjecturale de la société civile. Selon les deux auteurs, le gouvernement naît d’une inégalité de richesse au sein de la société et son but principal est de sécuriser la propriété privée. L’analyse économique de la Richesse des Nations dérive de cette théorie du gouvernement et de la justice. En second lieu, ce travail a pour but de souligner que Smith donne un moindre rôle à l’histoire dans sa théorie économique que Hume. Les attitudes divergentes de Hume et Smith vis-à-vis du problème de la dette publique britannique en témoigne. Tandis que Hume met en avant le danger provenant de la politique belliqueuse de la Grande Bretagne en traçant un parallèle avec l’Empire romain, Smith privilégie les effets économiques de la dette, qui, malgré leur nocivité, sont compensés par l’épargne privée. Une telle comparaison explique l’émergence ultérieure de l’école classique qui privilégie une analyse économique purement théorique, dépourvue de contexte historique

Between history and analysis : progress according to David Hume and Adam Smith

Cette thèse porte sur la relation entre histoire et analyse dans les considérations de Hume et de Smith sur le progrès. Son objectif est double. En premier lieu, elle vise à montrer que ces deux auteurs écossais articulent une approche historique, dite conjecturale, avec une autre approche historique qui relève de leur analyse de l’émergence de la société civile. Tandis que Hume rassemble ces deux approches historiques distinctes dans sa philosophie politique, Smith fait émerger son analyse économique de sa philosophie politique, qui est une histoire conjecturale de la société civile. Selon les deux auteurs, le gouvernement naît d’une inégalité de richesse au sein de la société et son but principal est de sécuriser la propriété privée. L’analyse économique de la Richesse des Nations dérive de cette théorie du gouvernement et de la justice. En second lieu, ce travail a pour but de souligner que Smith donne un moindre rôle à l’histoire dans sa théorie économique que Hume. Les attitudes divergentes de Hume et Smith vis-à-vis du problème de la dette publique britannique en témoigne. Tandis que Hume met en avant le danger provenant de la politique belliqueuse de la Grande Bretagne en traçant un parallèle avec l’Empire romain, Smith privilégie les effets économiques de la dette, qui, malgré leur nocivité, sont compensés par l’épargne privée. Une telle comparaison explique l’émergence ultérieure de l’école classique qui privilégie une analyse économique purement théorique, dépourvue de contexte historique.This dissertation examines the relationship between history and analysis in Hume’s and Smith's considerations on progress. Its objective is twofold. First, it aims to show that these two Scottish thinkers bring together an historical approach, i.e. conjectural history, with another historical approach stemming from their analysis of the rise of civil society. Hume conflates these two distinct historical approaches in his political philosophy, whereas Smith separates gradually his economic analysis of from his political philosophy ― which is a conjectural history of civil society. According to both of them, the government originates from the inequality of wealth within society and its main purpose is to secure private property. The economic analysis of the Wealth of Nations derives from this theory of government and justice. Secondly, this study aims to emphasize that Smith’s economic theory is less historical than Hume. This is illustrated by the difference between Hume’s and Smith’s stance on the problem of the British public debt. While Hume points out the danger proceeding from Great Britain's aggressive international politics ― by drawing a parallel with the Roman Empire ―, Smith brings to the fore the economic effects of public debt, which, despite their harmfulness, are offset by private savings. Such a comparison explains the subsequent emergence of the classical school which deploys a purely theoretical economic analysis that lacks historical context

Ryan P. Hanley (ed.), Adam Smith: His Life, Thought and Legacy

With an astute analogy Hanley compares this collection of essays with a travel guide: travellers are offered invaluable guidance throughout the universe of Adam Smith which, as Buchan notes in taking up the analogy, “is one of the sights of philosophy and, as the old Michelin tourist guides used to say, merits the detour” (15). Smith’s universe is indeed that of a philosopher and in presenting him overall as a moral philosopher the book gives Smith his due. Yet the proclaimed purpose of the b..

How did it all begin? Adam Smith on the early and rude state of society and the age of hunters

International audienceScholars tend to examine Smith's historical approach as a whole from the perspective of the four stages theory. This leads to a neglect of Smith's ability to use history in different ways as his different purposes require. This article distinguishes Smith's recourse to primitive society with respect to his purposes in Wealth of Nations and in Lectures on Jurisprudence. In the former, Smith analyses the capitalist economy, thereby laying emphasis on capital and the division of labour in his account of wealth. In the latter, he explains the evolution of institutions in order to challenge contractarian accounts of government

Book Review of Ryan Patrick Hanley (ed.), Adam Smith: His Life, Thought, and Legacy, Princeton University Press, 2015

Recensio

David Hume on the Origin of Government: A Restatement

International audienceThe purpose of this paper is to reinvestigate David Hume’s explanation of the origin of government by stressing the existence therein of two distinct accounts of how government emerges: (i) a decisional account which presents the instauration of government as an institutional answer to difficulties related to decision in time, (ii) an historical account depicting how allegiance as a practice acquired during wartime in primitive societies paved the way for the establishment of civil government. This paper thus continues, on the one hand, a secondary literature (Mackie 1980, Baier 1991, Cohon 2008) drawing generally upon prior literature on the determination of action in time by introducing in Hume’s account of the origin of government the familiar distinction in decision theory between impatience and time-inconsistency. On the other hand, it qualifies a line of interpretation (Stewart 1963, Forbes 1975, Waszek 1988, Haakonssen 1994, 2009) which argues that Hume, by giving a truly historical account in his posthumous essay “Of the Origin of Government” (Hume 1777), had changed his explanation of the origin of government originally given in the Treatise of Human Nature (Hume 1739-40, 3.2.7). By contrast, we show that the historical explanation was already present in the Treatise, and that it did not contradict the decisional one, since the latter, involving the acceptability of the rules of justice, gives an account of how civil government (and not any government) emerges, succeeding the primitive form of government