David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy (Special Issue edited by Helen Beebee and Markus Schrenk) 13 (2010)
This paper sets up and then solves a puzzle for the sceptical realist interpretation of Hume. The puzzle takes off when the sceptical realist attributes to Hume the following metaphysical theses: (NH1) Causal powers grounding necessary connections in nature exist. (NH2) Causal powers grounding necessary connections in nature are what make things happen. It then attributes an epistemological thesis to him: (NH3) We have no knowledge of causal powers in nature nor of the necessary connections in nature which these powers ground. But putting these three theses together seems to yield a problematic result. The epistemological thesis seems to have two corollaries as its upshot. (C1) We cannot know that causal powers grounding necessary connections in nature exist. (C2) We cannot know that causal powers grounding necessary connections in nature are what make things happen. That is, we cannot know (NH1) and (NH2). New Hume’s position, the sceptical realist interpretation, seems to make Hume out to be arguing for a view that is self-undermining or dialectically unstable by his own empiricist lights. I argue that there is an overlooked externalist dimension to Hume’s epistemology and draw on this to solve the puzzle.
|Keywords||david hume humility causal powers necessary connections sceptical realism New Hume epistemological externalism skeptical realism justification helen beebee|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Toby Handfield (2008). Humean Dispositionalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (1):113-126.
Peter Millican (2009). Hume, Causal Realism, and Causal Science. Mind 118 (471):647-712.
Jani Hakkarainen (2012). Why Hume Cannot Be A Realist. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 10 (2):143-161.
Stephen Mumford & Rani Lill Anjum (2010). A Powerful Theory of Causation. In Anna Marmodoro (ed.), The Metaphysics of Powers: Their Grounding and Their Manifestations. Routledge. 143--159.
Peter Kail (2003). Conceivability and Modality in Hume: A Lemma in an Argument in Defense of Skeptical Realism. Hume Studies 29 (1):43--61.
Eric Watkins (2004). Kant's Model of Causality: Causal Powers, Laws, and Kant's Reply to Hume. Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (4):449-488.
Justin Broackes (1993). Did Hume Hold a Regularity Theory of Causation? British Journal for the History of Philosophy 1 (1):99 – 114.
Jani Hakkarainen (2012). Hume's Scepticism and Realism. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (2):283-309.
Louis deRosset (2009). Production and Necessity. Philosophical Review 118 (2):153-181.
Daniel Stoljar (2007). Distinctions in Distinction. In Jesper Kallestrup & Jakob Hohwy (eds.), Being Reduced: New Essays on Causation and Explanation in the Special Sciences. Oxford University Press.
Robert A. Wilson (1992). Individualism, Causal Powers, and Explanation. Philosophical Studies 68 (2):103-39.
Jessica M. Wilson (2010). From Constitutional Necessities to Causal Necessities. In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge.
John P. Wright (2012). Scepticism, Causal Science and 'The Old Hume'. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 10 (2):123-142.
Added to index2010-10-26
Total downloads22 ( #84,972 of 1,140,344 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #60,710 of 1,140,344 )
How can I increase my downloads?