Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- R. F. Atkinson (1961). Hume on "is" and "Ought": A Reply to Mr. Macintyre. Philosophical Review 70 (2):231-238.
Similar books and articles
No categories
No categories
No categories
Murray G. Murphey’s masterful treatment of C. I. Lewis’s philosophy leaves two things amply clear: first, that Lewis struggled with skeptical arguments from Hume throughout his career; and second, that Lewis never adequately resolved the problems raised by those arguments. In this paper I will consider Lewis’s approach to Hume’s skepticism in Mind and the World Order (MWO) and in An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation (AKV), and
I will argue that Lewis’s reply to Hume in these works did not change as dramatically as Murphey claims. Nevertheless, I agree with Murphey that there are two quite different lines of reply discernable in Lewis, and that neither adequately answers Hume. In the final part of the paper I argue that Lewis’s pragmatism gives us resources for an adequate reply to Hume’s skeptical arguments, although it is not the reply that Lewis himself gives.
Discussion of R. F. Atkinson, Hume on "is" and "ought": A reply to mr. Macintyre
|
|
There are no threads in this forum |
Nothing in this forum yet.

