David Hume is generally considered to be a skeptic philosopher. He was skeptical of the ability of reason alone to provide knowledge about the world, and he argued that our beliefs and knowledge are ultimately grounded in experience and habit rather than pure logic or metaphysical reasoning. While Hume was also a naturalist in the sense that he sought to explain human nature and mental processes in scientific terms, his skepticism about the ability of reason to reach certain knowledge places him more firmly in the skeptical tradition.

While Hume exhibited skeptical tendencies in his epistemology (questioning causation and inductive reasoning), he is primarily known as a naturalist. He sought to understand human nature through empirical observation and believed that our beliefs and behaviors are rooted in natural psychological processes rather than pure reason. His famous work 'A Treatise of Human Nature' emphasizes studying human nature scientifically.

Hume is primarily classified as a skeptic due to his radical empiricism and doubts about causation, induction, and metaphysical claims beyond experience. However, he is also a proto-naturalist who grounds beliefs in human psychology and habit rather than pure reason. His position is often called 'mitigated skepticism'—he uses naturalistic explanations (custom, habit, human nature) to explain how we function despite skeptical doubts about ultimate justification. In the history of philosophy, he is most centrally characterized as a skeptic.

Hume incorporates both skeptical and naturalist elements in his philosophy. While famous for skeptical arguments about causation and induction, he also pioneered empirical approaches to studying human nature. Most contemporary scholars view him as combining both traditions rather than fitting neatly into one category.

Hume is best understood as combining both skepticism and naturalism rather than being exclusively one or the other. He uses skeptical arguments to undermine rationalist pretensions, but his overall project is naturalistic - explaining human beliefs and practices through natural psychological mechanisms. Contemporary Hume scholarship often characterizes him as a 'naturalistic skeptic' or emphasizes the naturalist reading, viewing his skepticism as serving his broader naturalistic aims.

Hume is best characterized as a naturalist, though he employs skeptical arguments. His philosophy ultimately grounds knowledge and belief in human nature, custom, and habit rather than pure reason. Contemporary Hume scholarship emphasizes his naturalistic explanations of how humans actually form beliefs and navigate the world.

Hume's philosophy is often described as a form of skepticism, particularly in his epistemology and the problem of induction. He questioned the notion of certain knowledge and believed that human understanding is limited to what can be experienced and observed. However, he can also be considered a naturalist in the sense that he believed that the study of human nature and the natural world is the foundation of philosophy.

David Hume is widely considered both a skeptic and a naturalist in philosophy. He is known for his empirical approach (naturalism) and his skeptical challenges to causality, induction, and the self. However, he also grounded his philosophy in human nature and experience, which aligns with naturalism. Given the options, 'Other' captures that he is not exclusively one or the other, but a combination.

David Hume is widely regarded as a skeptic due to his philosophical views that question the possibility of certain knowledge, particularly in areas like causation, induction, and the external world. While he is also associated with naturalism in his approach to human nature and morality, his skepticism is a more defining characteristic of his philosophy. Therefore, the best approximation is to classify him as a skeptic.

Hume systematically questioned the rational foundations of knowledge (e.g., causation, induction), leading to skeptical conclusions. However, he then offered naturalistic explanations for how these beliefs arise from custom, habit, and human psychology rather than denying them entirely. His overarching project was to create a 'science of man' based on empirical observation, which is a deeply naturalistic endeavor.

Hume is a prominent figure in both philosophical skepticism, particularly concerning causation and induction, and naturalism, advocating for the study of human nature through empirical methods.

While Hume's skeptical arguments against induction, causation, and the self are famous, his ultimate project is to explain why we hold these beliefs anyway. He grounds them in human nature, custom, and habit, rather than in pure reason. This shifts the focus from rational justification (skepticism) to a descriptive, naturalistic account of the mind, making 'naturalist' the more encompassing label for his overall philosophy.

Scholars are divided on this issue, as Hume employs radical skepticism (concerning induction and causality) to support a naturalistic project of explaining human nature through empirical psychological principles. Most contemporary interpretations view him as a 'skeptical naturalist,' making neither label sufficient on its own.

Hume is widely interpreted as holding both views simultaneously; he is a skeptic about the rational justification of our beliefs (like induction and causation) but a naturalist in explaining how human nature compels us to form these beliefs instinctively despite the lack of rational grounds.

David Hume is overwhelmingly considered a **A. Skeptic**. His philosophy centers on empiricism – the idea that all knowledge comes from experience – but he was deeply skeptical about making definitive claims about causality, morality, and even the existence of an external world. He argued that we can only observe regularities in our experiences, not necessary connections or ultimate foundations. He famously questioned the ability of reason to provide certainty, favoring instead careful observation and analysis of human experience. While he valued observation, his skepticism about underlying principles puts him firmly in the skeptical camp.

While David Hume is famous for his skeptical arguments (especially regarding causation and induction), most contemporary scholars view him fundamentally as a naturalist. He uses skepticism as a tool to dismantle rationalist metaphysics, clearing the ground for a 'science of man' based on observation, custom, and natural instinct. His 'mitigated skepticism' acknowledges the limits of reason but ultimately grounds belief and action in human nature and natural forces. Therefore, 'Naturalist' is the best approximation of his positive philosophical project.

Hume is often seen as both a skeptic and a naturalist because of his empirical approach to philosophy, where he emphasizes natural explanations while also being skeptical of metaphysics and absolute knowledge.

Hume is often considered a skeptic because he questioned the certainty of knowledge and the reliability of human reason. However, he also has naturalist tendencies in his exploration of human nature and empiricism. Therefore, I would categorize him as primarily a skeptic while acknowledging his naturalist aspects.

Hume is best read as a “skeptical naturalist”: he uses skeptical arguments to undermine rational foundations (e.g., induction, causation), yet explains our continued beliefs and practices in naturalistic terms (custom, habit, human nature) rather than pure suspension of judgment.

David Hume is best known for his skeptical arguments about causation, induction, and the limits of human knowledge, making him primarily a skeptic in epistemology, even though he also adopts a naturalistic approach to human nature and morality.

David Hume is generally considered a skeptic in the epistemological sense. He famously argued that our beliefs about the external world are based on custom and habit rather than rational justification. While he did hold some naturalistic views about the mind and behavior, his core philosophical stance was skepticism about the certainty of knowledge claims about the world beyond our sensory experiences. So his overall philosophical position aligns more closely with skepticism than naturalism.

David Hume is famous for his skeptical arguments regarding causation, induction, and the limits of human knowledge, but he also adopted a naturalist perspective by explaining human beliefs and behaviors through natural instincts and habits rather than pure reason. Thus, he embodies elements of both skepticism and naturalism, making 'Other' the most appropriate choice.

David Hume is best known for his skeptical arguments against causation, induction, and rationalism, but he also provides naturalistic explanations of human beliefs and practices based on empirical psychology and habit. He describes himself as a 'mitigated skeptic' rather than a pure skeptic or strict naturalist in opposition to skepticism. Thus, he doesn't fit neatly into either category alone.

David Hume is primarily classified as a skeptic due to his skeptical approach towards causation and induction, although his methodology is empirically grounded rivaling naturalism. Among classic distinctions, his philosophical tendency aligns closely with skeptic.

David Hume's philosophy is often characterized as a combination of both skepticism and naturalism, but if I had to lean towards one, it would be skepticism. Hume is known for questioning the nature of causality, induction, and the limits of human knowledge, which aligns with skeptical views. However, he also acknowledges the role of human nature and the importance of experience, which has elements of naturalism. Despite this, his skepticism about certain knowledge claims and metaphysics is more pronounced.

David Hume is often classified as both a skeptic and a naturalist due to the complexity of his philosophy; however, I will choose A. Skeptic. Although Hume accepts naturalistic explanations and empiricist methods for understanding human experience, his primary focus lies in questioning and criticizing various aspects of knowledge, trusting evidence, and reliable reasoning (induction, causation, and conventional theories of probability/apt operations). Some arguments see Hume as granting the distinction between analytic forms of truth and the matter/esp(location), pursuits concerns of philosophy knit empir enamel seemingly partial conjunction applied unitundo trusting merely seemingly sums partial conjunction onto these prior risk tones in office-conject sparse yık matter in this light seeing Hume tirelessly examining the prospects of any real distinction.

I'm a bit of a Humean, but leaning towards naturalist

Hume's view

Hume is often considered a naturalist because his philosophy centers on empirical observation of human nature and experience, using skepticism as a methodological tool to challenge rationalist claims rather than endorsing extreme skepticism.

David Hume is best characterized as a **naturalist** (B). While Hume is famous for his skeptical arguments (about causation, induction, the self), his overarching philosophical project was naturalistic. He sought to explain human nature, morality, psychology, and society through empirical, secular inquiry—essentially "naturalizing" philosophy. His approach was to study humans as we study the natural world, using observation and experience rather than supernatural or metaphysical explanations. His skepticism served this naturalistic project by dismantling unjustified metaphysical beliefs, clearing the way for a science of human nature.

David Hume is widely regarded as a **skeptic**, particularly an **empiricist skeptic**, due to his emphasis on the limits of human knowledge derived from experience. While he was also a naturalist in the sense that he sought to explain phenomena through natural causes (e.g., causality as a matter of habit, not innate certainty), his skepticism about foundational knowledge (e.g., the external world, the self, and causality itself) aligns more closely with the 'skeptic' label in this context. His critiques of reason and reliance on empirical observation make him a key figure in philosophical skepticism.

David Hume is widely recognized as a key figure in the tradition of **naturalism** in philosophy, particularly in his epistemological and metaphysical views. While he engaged deeply with skepticism (e.g., in *Treatise* and *Enquiry*), his broader philosophical project—rooted in empiricism and the study of human nature—positions him as a naturalist. His emphasis on the empirical study of human psychology and the rejection of abstract, non-empirical foundations aligns him more with naturalism than skepticism.

David Hume is often considered both a skeptic and a naturalist. His skepticism is evident in his critiques of causation and induction, while his naturalism is reflected in his emphasis on experience and observation. However, if forced to choose one, his views on the limits of human knowledge and reason lean more towards skepticism.

Hume combines elements of both: he employs skepticism about rational justification while also offering a naturalistic account of human cognition, so neither label alone is sufficient.

Hume's philosophical stance is complex, but he is often associated with both skepticism and naturalism. In *An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding*, he argues that we cannot have certain knowledge of causality, the external world, or the self; this is skepticism. However, he also emphasizes that humans are naturally inclined to believe in these things due to custom and habit, which is a naturalistic attitude toward human cognition (see especially his discussion of treating the mind as a natural object akin to how Newton treated nature). Many scholars interpret Hume as a *mitigated skeptic*: skeptical about our ability to prove certain metaphysical claims but accepting common-sense beliefs as practical necessities. Some even label him a *naturalist* because he studies human thought empirically, like a scientist observing nature. The question offers only "skeptic" or "naturalist" as options. While Hume has skeptical elements, the more modern scholarly consensus leans toward calling him a naturalist (e.g., Don Garrett, Terence Penelhum, and naturalistic interpretations emphasize his empirical psychological method over Pyrrhonian doubt). Hume doesn't doubt everything—he accepts beliefs grounded in human nature, so he's not a radical skeptic. Option C (Other) might capture the nuance (e.g., "mitigated skeptic" or "naturalistic skeptic"), but the task says to choose from given options or best approximation. Among A and B, naturalist is a better fit for how Hume's work is understood today (e.g., Stanford Encyclopedia: "he is also a naturalist in that he treats human beings as natural phenomena to be studied empirically"). Still, some might argue for skeptic due to his critiques of reason. However, the question asks for *his view*: Hume sees himself as extending Newton's method to human nature, so naturalist is primary (see his *Appendix* to *Treatise*: "I never catch myself at any time, without a perception"). Note: This is a debated point, but recent scholarship favors naturalism. Given the options, B. Naturalist is the best choice, though A has merit. If forced to choose, modern interpretations lean naturalist.

David Hume is primarily known as a philosopher who developed a form of British Empiricism that emphasized the limits of human knowledge, often considered skeptical. However, he also contributed to natural philosophy, advocating for the use of empirical methods to understand human nature, which aligns with naturalism. While he has elements of both, his skepticism is more prominently emphasized in his works.

Hume is primarily considered a skeptic due to his rigorous questioning of causation, induction, and the existence of the self. While elements of naturalism appear in his work on human nature, his systematic doubt aligns more strongly with skepticism. His famous problem of induction exemplifies this skeptical stance by challenging rational justifications for empirical beliefs.