Reddit reviews An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: with Hume's Abstract of A Treatise of Human Nature and A Letter from a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh (Hackett Classics)
We found 3 Reddit comments about An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: with Hume's Abstract of A Treatise of Human Nature and A Letter from a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh (Hackett Classics). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
HACKETT
I think you will learn the most by reading five textbooks, such as A History of Philosophy, volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; or something like Metaphysics: The Fundamentals, The Fundamentals of Ethics, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, and An Introduction to Political Philosophy.
If what you have in mind is more of a "Great Books" program to get your feet wet with some classic works that are not too difficult, you could do a lot worse than:
I think you would love David Hume.
http://www.amazon.com/Hume-Enquiry-Concerning-Human-Understanding/dp/0872202291/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381844680&sr=8-1&keywords=an+enquiry+concerning+human+understanding
It's a relatively short but very profound read. Basically he concludes that "logic" is a direct result of experience and not of a priori type rationalism. He also concludes that the notion that the future will always resemble the past is just an assumption and unprovable. According to him one cannot prove or disprove the statement "the sun will not rise tomorrow" until it is actually witnessed. The fact that it has risen every single time before does not in any way guarantee that it will rise again (the future resembling the past). The only way one can prove or disprove this statement is to sit there and wait until the next day and see what happens: experience.
His whole idea is that we accept something as "truth" after witnessing a so called effect rise from a so called cause a certain number of times. He calls this "constant conjunction".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_conjunction
edit: It is commonly stated that Hume has never been refuted. Kant tried, and it is up to you to decide if he was successful. But other than potentially Kant, his work has not been refuted.
> I didn't know that their were multiple versions of metaphysical naturalism, thats very interesting.
For this, I'd recommend looking at Quine, Peirce, Nietzsche, Early Wittgenstein.
> Anything i can read that would expand on these other versions of naturalism?
Well, to put it plainly, secular philosophies - both naturalistic and non-naturalistic - have dominated the discipline of philosophy for more than a century. So your best bet would be to acquire a passing familiarity with philosophy generally (/r/askphilosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy are good starting points).
But I'll also throw up a few resources that I prefer for their engaging style:
Good luck with Nagel!