Locke vs. Hume
Dialogue 46 (3):481-500 (2007)
| Abstract | ABSTRACT: According to the received view, Hume is a much more rigorous and consistent concept-empiricist than Locke. Hume is supposed to have taken as a starting point Locke’s meaning-empiricism, and worked out its full radical implicalions. Locke, by way of contrast, cowered from drawing his theory’s strange consequences. The received view about Locke’s and Hume’s concept-empiricism is mistaken, I shall argue. Hume may be more uncompromising (although he too falters), but he is not more rigorous than Locke. It is not because of (intellectual) timidity that Locke does not draw Hume’s conclusions from his empiricism. It is, rather, because of his much sounder method.RÉSUMÉ: Selon l’opinion génerale, Hume est un empiriciste conceptuel beaucoup plus rigoureux et consistent que Locke. On croit que Hume a pris l’empiricisme des significations de Locke comme son point de depart et puis élabore toutes ses implifications radicales -- et que Locke, au contraire, se retire et évite de tirer les etranges conséquences de sa théorie. Je veux soutenir que l’opinion acceptée sur l’empiricisme conceptuel de Locke et Hume est en erreur. Hume est peut-être plus décidé (quoique lui, aussi, hésite) mais il n’est pas plus rigoureux que Locke. Si Locke ne tire pas les conclusions d’Hume de son empiricisme ce n’est pas a cause de sa timidite (intellectuelle). Plutôt, il le fait grace a sa methode beaucoup mieux fondée | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRuth Weintraub (2007). Locke Vs. Hume: Who is the Better Concept-Empiricist? Dialogue 46 (3):481-500.
Graciela de Pierris (2006). Hume and Locke on Scientific Methodology. Hume Studies 32 (2):277-329.
Timothy M. Costelloe (2007). So Forward to Imagine. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 10:117-122.
George C. Caffentzis (2010). Locke, Berkeley, and Hume as Philosophers of Money. In Silvia Parigi (ed.), George Berkeley: Religion and Science in the Age of Enlightenment. Springer.
D. Anthony LaRivière & Thomas M. Lennon (2002). The History and Significance of Hume's Burning Coal Example. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:511-526.
Angela Coventry (2003). Locke, Hume and the Idea of Causal Power. Locke Studies 33 (2):93-112.
Donald L. M. Baxter (1997). Abstraction, Inseparability, and Identity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (2):307-330.
Nicholas Wolterstorff (1996). John Locke and the Ethics of Belief. Cambridge University Press.
Ruth Weintraub (2007). Separability and Concept-Empiricism: Hume Vs. Locke. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15 (4):729 – 743.
Lloyd F. Bitzer (1998). The "Indian Prince" in Miracle Arguments of Hume and His Predecessors and Early Critics. Philosophy and Rhetoric 31 (3):175 - 230.
I. C. Tipton (ed.) (1977). Locke on Human Understanding: Selected Essays. Oxford University Press.
J. W. Tate (2013). Dividing Locke From God: The Limits of Theology in Locke's Political Philosophy. Philosophy and Social Criticism 39 (2):133-164.
Fred Ablondi (2012). Hutcheson, Perception, and the Sceptic's Challenge. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (2):269-281.
Graham Faiella (2006). John Locke: Champion of Modern Democracy. Rosen Pub. Group.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2012-03-18Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
