David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Topoi 22 (1):15-28 (2003)
Hume's account of belief has been much reviled, especially considered as an account of what it is to assent to or judge a proposition to be true. In fact, given that he thinks that thoughts about existence can be composed of a single idea, and that relations are just complex ideas, it might be wondered whether he has an account of judgment at all. Nonetheless, Hume was extremely proud of his account of belief, discussing it at length in the Abstract, and developing it in the Appendix. Furthermore, he claimed several times that his account was new. It was not just a new answer to an old question, but an answer to a new question as well. Why did Hume think he was raising, and answering, a new question? Is his answer really so appalling? Why did he define belief in terms of a relationship with a present impression? In this paper, I propose answers to these questions. The answers emerge by contrasting Hume with Locke. Locke thought that belief was a pale imitation of knowledge, and that the assent we give to propositions is constituted in the very same act as forming those propositions. Hume saw the problems such a theory faced concerning existential beliefs. By ceasing to treat existence as a predicate, Hume was confronted with the issue of what it was to judge something to be true, or to assent to something. This issue had to be solved independently of the question of what it was to conceive something, or understand the content of a proposition. Hume thought this problem was new. He should be looked at, not as giving a bad answer to an important question, but rather as being the first in the early modern period to recognize that there was an important question here to be answered.
|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
Remy Debes (2012). Recasting Scottish Sentimentalism: The Peculiarity of Moral Approval. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 10 (1):91-115.
Maria van Der Schaar (2008). Locke and Arnauld on Judgment and Proposition. History and Philosophy of Logic 29 (4):327-341.
Similar books and articles
David Owen (1999). Hume's Reason. Oxford University Press.
Annemarie Butler (2010). Vulgar Habits and Hume's Double Vision Argument. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 8 (2):169-187.
Steven M. Bayne (2007). Hume on Miracles: Would It Take a Miracle to Believe in a Miracle? Southern Journal of Philosophy 45 (1):1-29.
Timothy Chan & Guy Kahane (2011). The Trouble with Being Sincere. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 41 (2):215-234.
P. J. E. Kail (2007). Understanding Hume's Natural History of Religion. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227):190–211.
Rico Vitz (2009). Doxastic Virtues in Hume's Epistemology. Hume Studies 35 (1/2):211-29.
Jennifer Smalligan Marušić (2010). Does Hume Hold a Dispositional Account of Belief? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40 (2):155-183.
D. Anthony LaRivière & Thomas M. Lennon (2002). The History and Significance of Hume's Burning Coal Example. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:511-526.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads59 ( #68,901 of 1,790,292 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #59,391 of 1,790,292 )
How can I increase my downloads?