In this essay I advance major criticisms of recent work on the concept of liberty by, Among others, I berlin, G maccallum, H j mccluskey, S I benn, And f oppenheim. Emerging from these critical analyses is a new definition of 'liberty, In the spirit of negative liberalism', Which differentiates it from the related but distinct goods of human autonomy, Opportunity, Ability, Power, And self-Development.

My principal objective in this essay is to present a much more thorough and carefully wrought argument than Kemp Smith’s on behalf of the thesis that Philo is indeed Hume’s spokesman. To accomplish this objective I must show that Hume would definitely or likely accept all of the basic ideas, principles, and arguments explicitly advanced or implicitly endorsed by Philo, while he would likely or definitely disclaim at least one of Cleanthes’ beliefs and at least one of Demea’s. Moreover, in (...) claiming that Hume would or would not accept a certain thesis put forth in the Dialogues we must refer solely to the principles and arguments he defends in other works. What must be avoided at all costs is to contend, for example, that Philo is Hume’s spokesman because Philo thinks the dispute over theism is verbal without adducing any textual evidence from sources other than the Dialogues pertaining to Hume’s views on verbal disputes which would support this contention. (shrink)