Analysis 39 (4):212--219 (1979)
|Abstract||Hume's maxim consists of two principles which are logically independent of each other: (1) whatever is conceivable is possible; and (2) whatever is inconceivable is impossible. Thomas Reid offered several arguments against the former principle, while John Stuart mill argued against the latter. The primary concern of this paper is to examine whether Reid and mill were successful in calling Hume's maxim into question.|
|Keywords||Conceivability, Language, Possibility|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael S. Pritchard (2008). Justice And Resentment In Hume, Reid, And Smith. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 6 (1):59-70.
Tibor R. Machan (1969). Note on Conceivability and Logical Possibility. Kinesis 2:39--42.
Tamar Szabó Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.) (2002). Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford University Press.
Karol Polcyn (2006). Conceivability, Possibility, and a Posteriori Necessity: On Chalmers' Argument for Dualism. Diametros 7 (March):37-55.
Roger S. Woolhouse (1972). From Conceivability to Possibility. Ratio 14:144--154.
Albert Casullo (1975). Conceivability and Possibility. Ratio 17:118-121.
Tamar Szabó Gendler & John Hawthorne (2002). Introduction: Conceivability and Possibility. In T. Genler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford University Press.
Peter Kail (2003). Conceivability and Modality in Hume: A Lemma in an Argument in Defense of Skeptical Realism. Hume Studies 29 (1):43--61.
René van Woudenberg (2006). Conceivability and Modal Knowledge. Metaphilosophy 37 (2):210–221.
Added to index2009-06-22
Total downloads13 ( #95,541 of 722,869 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,757 of 722,869 )
How can I increase my downloads?