Hume Complete

I have not posted about Hume in a while and for fear of another professor being possessed, I felt obligated to show him some attention. Hume was a great author and presumably a great scholar, based on the fact that he wrote his first book in his twenties. He seems to have been, however, a little too aware of these points in his younger age. His first book addresses human nature, and like many philosophers, Hume supposes himself to be an expert of all fields. He addresses human nature without the scientific ability to prove any arguments. He does establish great points and uses arbitrary evidence to support it, which benefits him in the literary world. This is why I think his later book is the better of the two. In this book, he does not make as many thought provoking claims or develop any new ideas, but he was able to reinforce his earlier ideas through dissecting other aspects of morality. I am not trying to say that the later book has more revolutionary ideas, because it obviously does not, I am just noting that without the second, more concise book, the first is weaker. The second book also brings up the interesting notion of utility. This idea or characteristic seems to mimic the idea of sympathy in the first book. I say this because the two are central to the themes of each book respectively, but I would like to hear a professional compare the two and the application of them to society. Either way, I am glad that the Hume section has completed, not because I disagree with the man, but that his writing seemed a little over bearing and became cumbersome to read. I don't know much about Kant, but what little of it I have seen on other blogs does not inspire me.