Well, it's possible. His works did not become widely appreciated in his time, though. He seems to have aimed for a middle ground between the two parties in England, but ended up pissing them both off. On the one hand he argues for the absolutist rule, but on the other hand he appreciates that this must be the people's choice. So, he would not please the anti- royalists, and he would not please the anglican church by his denying of the divine rule of the Kings. As far as I know, ever the reconciler as some call him, died a bitter man. He defended his mechanical world- view to the last, though. There apparently was a meaning with that too.
It is. About now, we would be sightseeing the quagmire the empiricists all had problems with escaping. Given the theory of the "blank slate" that the empiricists all held(whether Locke is an empiricist is questionable to a certain extent, btw. Both Hobbes and Locke, as well as Hume, Berkeley and Bacon would hold this belief to a certain extent, and would be branded together because of this. Their individual works should not be branded like that, though. They all have their own way of looking at it and "solving" the "problem".), evil and good are both very questionable terms. Because, if a human simply is the product of his experiences, how will he know if what he has been taught is good, or evil? What point is there in believing that it is in fact possible for every person to percieve the world in the same manner, as the empiricists' belief would seem prove, when we cannot ultimately trust anything else than that it is our experiences which dictate whether we see an act as good or bad? For instance, would it not be possible that a person's well thought out and righteous belief is nothing more to another than an elaborate ploy to exploit someone? Is it inevitable that such clashes exist? Is it inevitable that there is nothing but complete subjectivity? Several philosophers, before as well as after the british empiricists, would not accept this. Or, perhaps, grudgingly accept it anyway. Locke, for instance would in the end take a good look at his theories and possibly accept the notion that there exists such things as ideas that all people are born with. It may even be possible to suggest that Locke was not content with his initial theories and rather tried to disprove them than defend them (that is, while still saving the methaphysical, or without giving up the idea that there is, in fact, real knowledge of course. A problem worthy of a lifetime of thought, no doubt).

David Hume goes a few steps further. He says, there is no such thing as objective truth. He says, all right, maybe there exists an objective world, but there is no way to tell that. How could we, he argues, it is perfectly possible for man to percieve of such a thing as "God", an infinitely wise and good being, without ever witnessing it. He explains this notion by analyzing it down to an idea of wisdom and then of good, which would then be extended to infinity. What about a simpler thing, like a pillow? It is also only a series of simple notions, he would say(probably), soft, good to sleep upon, and so on. Yet, it is not what we see, of course. We know "pillow" and we know "God", rather than what we should've been seeing, if there was any order in the universe. It is, then, inevitable that our "real" notions are nothing but the machinations of the human psyche, and they are proof of the fallibility of our senses, as we now have shown that several notions can be changed from one perception to another. It is out of necessity, Hume says, that "real" terms exist, but they are not real at all, it is a deception.

It is said that in his youth Hume wrote a comprehensive explanation on life, the universe and everything, and he apparently saw that it was good as well as definitively absolute. Soon after, he burned all his papers. We know nothing of them other than that.

Is there anything at all that is certain, then? Of course, says Hume. Mathemathics, for instance. This is because it concerns the relationship between different perceptions, he further argues. Surely the perceptions, after being analyzed and separated properly, can be treated as arbitrary entities. Their relationships must therefore be certain, Hume concludes - oh, and this would also, you know, btw, explain that philosophy is also worthwile, indeed of the highest form of knowledge (Hume would be careful not to state that too loudly, though. Probably he used up his bravado elsewhere). It is in other words only possible to ascertain true knowledge only by that which the operations of thoughts, careful ones at that, are employed. Anyone, says Hume, that would claim to have certain knowledge about the physical, however, is a charlatan.

What would Hume migh have to say about morality, or about free will, then? We're talking about the self-proclaimed saviour of the methaphysical here, after all, obviously he must have something particularly interesting to say: Free will does not exist, says Hume. It is a misconception, a simple desire not to aknowledge the truth, something man never does in favour of what he finds pleasing. The truth is that an action is always followed after another, and that only our fabulous ineptitude at perceiving the world is the reason we cannot see the real chain of events. We are determined then, and not free to make our own choices. Have we no responsibility for our actions, for instance? Of course we do, Hume says, a complete determined chain of events is necessary for us to be compelled to make moral choices. Only then would we feel compelled to choose a responsible course of action. Alas, we cannot have such knowledge, so what is it that guides us? Feelings, says Hume. Desires to do something is the only thing. Our brittle perceptions then lend a hand in deciding what is the proper course in which we seek pleasure and avoid negative emotions.

In this way(well, perhaps not precisely word for word) Hume claims the title of saviour of the metaphysical world, as he explains how philosophy now can say something useful about the world for a change. Others would argue that unfortunately, now the world has become quite useless in return.

But, what is it Hume actually says? That we're automatons indiscriminately seeking to please ourselves, in whatever manner a subjective notion would suggest? It is not necessarily so. Perhaps there is in fact a very carefully thought out philosophy underneath the words that do undoubtedly defy any sense. For instance, to take one single example, free will. Hume says that we can in fact choose what we wish, but at the same time he submits that the world is determined. But is what he is trying to say perhaps that we cannot make moral choices without knowing the consequences and what happened earlier? It is perhaps his idea, then, that with careful analysis, and with the notion of cause and consequence, it might be possible to make responsible, and then ultimately moral decisions? Also, what he at the same time is doing is to insist, contrary to every other theory so far, that morality is not given by a sense of reason, or duty, or some incredible deductive power, or any other power for that matter. It is therefore a view that Hume is making a point that there is nothing but the actions and consequences which make a choice moral or not. Free will, to Hume, would therefore be evil because it is action without concern. In other words, there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong, but then, we do have absolute responsibility for our own actions...

Hume apparently had a lot of trouble because of allegations of atheism. Today most resort to condemning him for sacreliege, that is, referring to how he is using generally known terms.
Excellent. Took me years to figure that one out, that it is what I believe that matters. Always remember: the old philosophers are dead, we are not.