Hume's analysis of causation doesn't say that we cannot know causality or that the sun will rise again. He merely states that we cannot _infer_ that the sun will rise again, etc.
The result of his analysis is that our knowledge of causality steams from habit rather than thinking. He opened the door to more sophisticat theories about logic and learning psychology.

>I read Laozi, Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius, or Shankara, and I think: "damn, that's pretty wise."

Shankara? Never heared of him.
I observe that all the thinkers you citate as good seems to deal with some kind of metaphysics or spirituality. I would make a excusion for Aristoteles, the others tell something.
Let me bet, you're a believer?

If you really believe that Hume etc. are the rootcause of our destruction, maybe you should read:
David Stove, Against the Idols of the Age

While I came to dislike Popper, today I think Stove is a bad philosopher. You, however, should give him a try.