David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Scottish Philosophy 10 (2):237-253 (2012)
Recent work on Hume's Theory of Perception has shown that Hume takes the appearance of impressions to vary according to the ideas under which they are subsumed. In this paper, I argue that the vulgar position in the section where he discusses the Inference from Constancy is characterised by an ideal primordial state of mind where impressions are directly encountered without being subsumed under any idea. In particular, impressions which are not subsumed under the idea of a perception do not appear to the mind as impressions. Read in this light, Hume's Inference from Constancy is immune to the difficulties which have commonly been raised against it
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Donald L. M. Baxter (2001). Hume on Steadfast Objects and Time. Hume Studies 27 (1):129-148.
Mark Collier (1999). Filling the Gaps: Hume and Connectionism on the Continued Existence of Unperceived Objects&Quot;. Hume Studies 25 (1 and 2):155-170.
Don Garrett (1997). Cognition and Commitment in Hume's Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
David Hume (1739/2000). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press.
H. H. Price (1981). Hume's Theory of the External World. Greenwood Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Stefanie Rocknak (2007). The Vulgar Conception of Objects in 'Of Skepticism with Regard to the Senses. Hume Studies 33 (1):67-90.
David Owen (2009). Hume and the Mechanics of Mind : Impressions, Ideas, and Association. In David Fate Norton & Jacqueline Anne Taylor (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Hume. Cambridge University Press.
Mark Collier (2005). A New Look at Hume's Theory of Probabilistic Inference. Hume Studies 31 (1):21-36.
Fred Wilson (1988). Was Hume a Subjectivist? Philosophy Research Archives 14:247-282.
David Landy (2006). Hume's Impression/Idea Distinction. Hume Studies 32 (1):119-139.
Annemarie Butler (2010). Vulgar Habits and Hume's Double Vision Argument. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 8 (2):169-187.
Stephen Hetherington (2001). Why There Need Not Be Any Grue Problem About Inductive Inference as Such. Philosophy 76 (1):127-136.
Georges Dicker (2007). Three Questions About Treatise 1.4.2. Hume Studies 33 (1):115-153.
Graciela De Pierris (2002). Causation as a Philosophical Relation in Hume. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (3):499 - 545.
Martin Bell (2005). Transcendental Empiricism? : Deleuze's Reading of Hume. In Marina Frasca-Spada & P. J. E. Kail (eds.), Impressions of Hume. Oxford University Press.
Jay F. Rosenberg (2000). Identity and Substance in Hume and Kant. Topoi 19 (2):137-145.
Ruth Weintraub (2005). A Humean Conundrum. Hume Studies 31 (2):211-224.
Angela Coventry & Tom Seppalainen (2012). Hume’s Empiricist Inner Epistemology: A Reassessment of The Copy Principle. In Alan Bailey & Dan O'Brien (eds.), The Continuum Companion to Hume. Continuum. 38--56.
Added to index2012-08-24
Total downloads7 ( #195,080 of 1,102,044 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #192,049 of 1,102,044 )
How can I increase my downloads?