The push and pull of philosophy

One of the reasons I applied to Columbia was the appeal of the Core. The philosophies are part of the canon for a reason, and even if proven incorrect over the centuries, there's some dialogue to be pulled from that way of thinking. I'm constantly being pulled into the field, but without any prior exposure, I lack to confidence to approach the texts without guidance. Yet the guidance is what pushes me away. Some professors, not to name names, refuse to step away from the time of the philosopher and apply the concepts to contemporary society. What's the point of studying the theories if we're going to ignore it's applications?

I'll give an example that I'm still struggling with. If I understand correctly (which I probably am not), Hume argues that without any senses not only would we be unaware of our existence, but completely lack that ability to conjure any thought, rendering us “blank slates.” This raises some interesting questions regarding our personal ideologies that guide us through life. Since all thoughts and ideas are a result of an amalgamation of all the sensory “data” we have accumulated throughout our lives, everything we believe religiously, politically, ideologically–our way of reconciling the world around us–is a secondhand reconstruction of the ideologies of other human beings. It is our surroundings and experiences–whether explicit or nuanced–that condition us to believe and do the things we do. This suggests a deterministic worldview, but Hume rules this out by stating that it is our free will in the construction and conjoining of ideas that allows us to act freely. But is this truly the case? Are the limitations or exceptions? Assuming I understood his philosophy correctly, where does he stand between the medical model and the social model of disability, or gender/sexual identity, even race?