David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy 35 (133):151 - 153 (1960)
In his article entitled “Moore and Philosophical Analysis”, Professor Morris Lazerowitz selects Hume's analysis of causality as an example of the way in which philosophers have in the past misleadingly stated what they were trying to do. Professor Lazerowitz asserts at least three things of Hume's analysis. (1)Since Hume insisted that there was no impression of necessary connection, it follows that Hume could not have been examining sequences of events. (2)Therefore, Hume must have been doing something else; namely, misleadingly calling attention to the fact that it always makes literal sense to say of any two supposedly causal events that they are only accidentally connected. Hume, in other words, deprived causal verbs of their use “by linguistic fiat” so that he could more pointedly illustrate the likeness between causal and accidental-occurrence statements.
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
A. C. Ewing (1948). Moral Subjectivism: Reply to Professor Acton. Analysis 9 (2):17 - 23.
Wolfgang Yourgrau (1960). Philosophy of Science and Analysis: A Reply to M. Lazerowitz. Philosophy 35 (133):147 - 151.
John Greco (2006). How to Be a Pragmatist: C. I. Lewis and Humean Skepticism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 42 (1):24-31.
Henry Leonard (1961). A Reply to Professor Wheatley's Note on Professor Leonard's Analysis of Interrogatives, Etc. Philosophy of Science 28 (January):55-64.
Morris Lazerowitz (1958). Moore and Philosophical Analysis. Philosophy 33 (126):193 - 220.
P. Iyer (2004). Liability in the Care of the Elderly. Hume Studies 33 (1):124-131.
Michael Levine (1997). Bayesian Analyses of Hume's Argument Concerning Miracles. Philosophy and Theology 10 (1):101-106.
C. J. F. Williams (1961). Comment on Professor Mackay's Reply. Analysis 21 (4):84 - 85.
J. W. N. Watkins (1957). A Reply to Professor Flew's Comment. Analysis 18 (2):41 - 42.
Fred Westphal (1972). Utilitarianism and "Conjunctive Acts": A Reply to Professor Castañeda. Analysis 32 (3):82 - 85.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads10 ( #332,164 of 1,796,321 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #467,624 of 1,796,321 )
How can I increase my downloads?