17th/18th Century Philosophy

From the perspective of digital ethics, this book chapter outlines a model for dealing with the challenges posed by digital media environments in a responsible and appropriate manner. This concept is based on preliminary considerations on “digital citizenship”. At a time when digital technologies - the “data-sphere” - are being increasingly implemented and intensified, the question of humans' roles and skills in using these digital technologies in a sensible and meaningful way is becoming more and more urgent. In the age (...) of European Enlightenment, Western societies had already assigned a central role to people's maturity, which was to be achieved fundamentally through literacy and education in order to create free individuals and, ultimately, citizens capable of making decisions. In contrast, in the current age of digitality, characterized by networking and immersion that has prevailed since the 1990s, many people experience and participate in such life-worlds primarily as consumers. In this role, they increasingly appear as economic objects that are constantly encouraged to produce data sets. Social networking sites and applications of generative artificial intelligence in particular exert a certain pull, the functioning of which many people are at best instrumentally proficient in, but not reflexively. Against this background, Zöllner's article outlines the contours of the concept of "digital citizenship" from an ethical perspective. This form of citizenship should enable people to lead a free life in digital and networked environments in which they are not merely subject to the exploitation interests of digital corporations. (shrink)

The philosophical tradition says that Immanuel Kant’s critique of the theoretical reason is an attempt to epistemological foundation. The model is based on the relationship between subject and object and aims to determine the limits of the possibility of knowledge. This would follow from the Kantian denial to the pure metaphysical intelligibility. Such ontology, however, would not focus on the naming of pure objects or pure intelligibility. It is then intended to debate the possibility of a transcendental ontology that is (...) based on the objectuality of empirical objects, which points to the Heideggerian interpretation of Kantian thought. Thus, this paper hopes to contribute to the theme of the possibility of a Kantian ontology with view to the objectuality of the objects. (shrink)

Definiensposition: Überbegriff für mehrere Verfahren zur Bildung und Bestätigung allgemeiner Aussagen über einen bestimmten, meist empirischen Gegenstandsbereich. Englische Definiensposition: hypernym for several methods of developing and proving general statements about a particular, usually empirical subject area.

In this paper it is argued that Grotius views on customary law are compatible with the concept of a ‘Grotian Moment’. However, the idea of accelerated customary international law is developed by Van Vollenhoven, who interpreted Grotius in a questionable way. Whereas Grotius qualifies as a thinker in the tradition of natural law, Van Vollenhoven should be seen as an interactionist. This is especially visible in his publications on adat law, in which he visibly belongs to a romantic, Germanist, and (...) rather pluralist tradition of law. The idea of a Grotian Moment also fits better with this starting point than with natural law. For this reason, the ‘Grotian Moment’ should be renamed ‘Van Vollenhoven’s Moment’. It is argued that this legal theoretical position explains some of Van Vollenhoven’s rather peculiar interpretations of Grotius. (shrink)

필자는 이 글에서 서양근대 경험주의 사유를 체계적으로 집성한 철학자로 평가받는 흄이 그의 철학 체계 내에 수용하는 이원주의 모델이 무엇인지 검토한다. 일단 논의는 첫째, 사실상 흄의 이원론적 사유가 전통적 구도를 취하지 않는다는 것을 보인다. 인간학의 기조에 들어맞게 곧 대안으로 오히려 구도가 취해지게 된다는 사실이 강조될 것이다. 다음으로, 둘째, 공간성을 바로 지각들의 내적-외적 이원화를 위한 척도로 흄이 제시하는 것이라고 주장한다. 지각들 중에서도 공간성을 규명하는 시도에 부합하는 것으로 시각과 촉각이 실제로 언급되는 상황에 필자는 무엇보다 주목할 것이다. 마지막 셋째 논의는, 지각들의 체계적 이원화에 이르는 (...) 가운데 표출되는 구조적 문제들을 살피는 작업에 거의 집중될 것이다. 이러한 논의의 단계를 거치면서 우리의 의식적 노력을 강조하는 흄의 통찰이 결국 시사하는 내용이 분명하게 드러날 것으로 기대된다. (shrink)

This chapter explores Cicero’s reception in the German Enlightenment, a topic that has garnered less scholarly attention compared to his influence in the Anglosphere. Focusing on Johann Joachim Spalding and Christian Garve as case studies, we highlight Cicero’s profound and often underappreciated impact on German intellectual thought, particularly in shaping ideas about the human vocation (Bestimmung des Menschen)—a legacy that extends even to the towering figure of the German Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant.

Hume criticizes Malebranche for endorsing an “abstract theory of morals” founded on reason that leaves no role for sentiment. One response in the literature argues that although Malebranche started by endorsing the kind of “abstract” morality Hume rejects, he increasingly replaced this with an incompatible “sensible” morality based on “physical motives” deriving from pleasure. However, I argue that a basis for both moralities is present in Malebranche from the start, and indeed that they are compatible parts of a single morality. (...) In developing this argument, I draw particularly on his contribution to the dispute in early modern France over a Quietist account of “pure love.” This contribution reveals that although he did accept the sort of theory of moral truth that Hume criticized, Malebranche at the same time endorsed a theory of moral motivation that is similar in important respects to what we find in Hume. (shrink)

This paper examines Hume’s views on the origin of religion, the priority of polytheism, and the difference between popular religion and philosophical theism in _The Natural History of Religion_ (NHR). Firstly, the paper presents Hume’s account of the origin of religion as a criticism of Christianity. For Hume, both polytheism and popular, institutional monotheism have the same origin: ignorance about natural causes and laws, an unreliable tendency to anthropomorphize, irrational hope, and fear about uncertain future events. Secondly, this paper criticizes (...) two rival interpretative strategies: the _psychological reading_ (proposed by, among others, Emily Kelahan, Keith E. Yandell, and Richard Serjeantson) and the _destabilizing reading_ (defended by Peter Kail). Both approaches interpret Hume’s positive remarks on philosophical theism and his contrast of popular with philosophical religion as either insincere or, at best, irrelevant and inconsequential to the understanding of his position. By contrast, this paper defends a _positive reading_ according to which: (1) Hume’s positive remarks on philosophical theism should be taken in an epistemic sense, which implies the incompatibility of philosophical theism with popular religion (including Christianity); (2) his explanation of the origin of religion explains the origin of superstition only, and thus does not apply to philosophical theism. Although both theses are compatible with an agnostic reading of Hume’s position on theism, the textual and contextual evidence supports the conclusion that, in NHR, Hume took philosophical theism to be a reasonable position based on an inference from the evidence of design. (shrink)

In this paper, I develop a neglected aspect of the value of hope in Kant’s philosophy. I do so by homing in on Section III of the 1793 essay “On the Common Saying.” In my interpretation, Kant argues that if one recognizes obligations to help future generations while also encountering people who violate these obligations, one is more likely to isolate oneself from society—what Kant calls the hatred of humanity or misanthropy. Thus, the paper argues that hope is valuable for (...) combating misanthropy, especially in the pursuit of intergenerational moral goals. (shrink)

This chapter situates Kant’s rejection of Stoic eudaimonism within his overarching anti-eudaimonist agenda. I begin by emphasizing the importance of the Stoic tradition for Kant’s critical reception of ancient ethical theory. I then reconstruct the central commitments of ancient Stoic eudaimonism and of Christian Garve’s quasi-Stoic eudaimonism. Turning to Kant’s anti-Stoic argument in the Dialectic of the Second Critique, I argue that the primary target of Kant’s error of subreption (vitium subreptionis) is the Stoic Seneca, specifically his account of joy (...) (gaudium) as an accompaniment of one’s consciousness of virtuous activity. After reconstructing Kant’s argument in detail, I offer a new way to understand its anti-eudaimonist implications: practical illusion leads the Stoic to rationalize, and, ultimately, to disfigure the moral law. Even in their moral ardor—or rather, propelled by it—the Stoic commits an error of self-love. (shrink)

Natural law as a discipline was definitively institutionalized at universities in the Habsburg monarchy during the reforms of Maria Theresia after 1752. The guiding principles of these reforms were set in the instruction for the chair of natural law in Vienna which was given to Carl Anton Martini. It was Catholic in conception, but it ordered the professor to draw on Grotius. Our article reconstructs the elementary structure of Martini’s theory of natural law with a focus on his conception of (...) state. The article proves that Martini did not adopt Wolff’s conception of deducing duties and obligations from the highest principle for that would conflict with the Catholic emphasis on freedom of will. Instead of that, Martini derived duties and rights from the three God-given ends. Martini perceived the state as based on social contract, after the model of Christian Wolff. However, it seems that Martini rejected the two-contract model and acknowledged only the contract of submission as binding. Martini sought to hold the middle ground between Machiavellians arguing that the subjects lose all rights after the social contract, and radical ‘monarchomachs’ who believe that the ‘populus’ retains the supreme power. Martini argues that the ruler is limited by natural laws; the subjects retain rights to life and to property, but they are denied any right to resistance. Since Martini derived the monarch’s powers from the unlimited duty to guarantee security, he admitted even encroachments on religious freedom. He admitted coercion in matters that would threaten salus civitatis, but respected the inner libertas conscientiae. He also acknowledged a peculiar division of powers differentiating between a legislative, an inspectorial and an executive power. Even though the aim of this division was not a system of checks and balances, a precise description of the scope of the executive power helped to delimit a sphere of individual freedom. (shrink)

Hume doubted that the immediate experience of order, goodness, or beauty in the world, on which religion depends—“the feeling of design,” as J. C. A. Gaskin put it—is anything other than the product of an overactive imagination. But what were his reasons for doing so? And were they sufficient? Since the _Dialogues_ are the _locus classicus_ of Hume’s critique of religion, I propose to read them carefully, if critically, with both of these questions in mind. I conclude that Hume’s critique (...) of religion, while powerful in its way, does not ultimately succeed. (shrink)

Few philosophers present themselves with as much complexity as Marcus Tullius Cicero. At once a philosopher, statesman, orator, and lawyer, Cicero consciously fashioned his own image for posterity and wrote philosophical texts as invitations for his readers to think for themselves. His philosophy has continued to unfold over the centuries, repeatedly inspiring new and independent philosophical positions. Since J.G.F. Powell’s pivotal contribution in 1995, we have witnessed countless translations and scholarly treatments of Cicero’s philosophy that emphasize his creativity and influence. (...) In this tradition, the present volume offers fresh and incisive contributions that advance the ongoing renaissance in Cicero scholarship. -/- Part One of the volume focuses on Cicero’s approaches to writing philosophy and on specific interpretive questions facing readers of his philosophical corpus. Part Two traces key moments in Cicero’s philosophical afterlife, from Augustine through the Scholastic period to the Renaissance, culminating in the rich and varied tradition of Ciceronian reception in the European Enlightenment. Throughout the volume, special attention is given to Cicero’s practical philosophy. (shrink)

I examine Hume’s and Mengzi’s reliance on aesthetic and moral taste in their sentiment-based theories of virtue. Their views on taste seem to conflict. In his essay “Of the Standard of Taste,” Hume observes that people’s taste sentiments appear to vary, but he seeks a standard that can reconcile them. In contrast, relying on the uniformity of aesthetic taste, Mengzi argues that humans, by nature, share a universal taste toward morality. I argue that the apparent contrast in the two philosophers’ (...) views originates from their attending to different aspects of taste and sentiments for their different theoretical goals. For an empirical account of aesthetic evaluation, Hume observes the ordinary phenomena of taste, people’s varied particular sentiments; he then investigates their initial causes in the mind to establish a reliable standard. Mengzi takes cases of uniform taste to imply the same mental cause of moral taste, which is the cornerstone of people’s moral self-cultivation. Relying on the sentiments for moral distinction and cultivation, both Hume and Mengzi reach similar conclusions: they recognize a practical standard, rather than empirical rules, in those who have achieved excellence in their aesthetic and moral taste, and suggest that the ultimate standard of taste is the natural constitution of the human mind. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Hume on the Nature of Morality by Elizabeth S. RadcliffeAvital Hazony LeviElizabeth S. Radcliffe. Hume on the Nature of Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. 80. Softback. ISBN: 978-1108706568, £16.99.As scholarship on Hume’s moral theory has proliferated in the last few decades, it has become a daunting challenge to write a book that introduces an unfamiliar reader to the key concepts and arguments in Hume’s writing on (...) morality while staking a position on the major scholarly arguments regarding it. Elizabeth Radcliffe succeeds in this dual task: her contribution to the Cambridge Elements in Ethics series familiarizes the reader with Hume’s key concepts and arguments while offering a systematic and well-argued position on many of the discussions in the secondary scholarship.As is suggested by the title, Radcliffe’s book is primarily focused on Hume’s meta-ethics. Most of the book (chapters 2–3 and 5) discusses Hume’s two arguments against rationalism, his sentimentalist view of moral judgment (with separate treatment of the accounts in the Treatise and the moral Enquiry), and the “is/ought” paragraph (T 3.1.1.27). Only chapters 4 and 6 are concerned with Hume’s normative moral theory. Chapter 4, dedicated to the natural and artificial virtues, is primarily interested in Hume’s additional insights into moral epistemology. Chapter 6, which discusses whether Hume has a normative theory, considers but does not take a stance on the role of utilitarianism and virtue theory in Hume’s moral theory. Thus, much of the book is dedicated to showing that Hume’s aim was to introduce an experimental, natural method into the study of morality, and to develop an account of moral judgment that has a sentimental source but can explain the consistency and coherence of our moral judgments. In the following, I will first consider Radcliffe’s treatment of Hume’s metaethics, and then her discussion of his normative moral theory.Radcliffe first introduces the reader to Hume’s two arguments against rationalism. In the motivation argument, which Radcliffe seems to prefer, and which I will discuss here, Hume argues that11. Morals influence actions and affections.2. Reason alone does not motivate (it is not active).3. An active principle is never derived from an inactive one. Conclusion: Morals are not derived from reason alone (5–6).Radcliffe understands Hume’s motivational argument to be directed towards the view that moral distinctions can come from reasoning or belief alone. Radcliffe opposes philosophers (such as Cohon, Kail, Stroud, and Owen) who understand the motivational argument as directed only towards the position that the process of reason can be the source of moral distinctions. These philosophers hold that, on Hume’s view, [End Page 381] beliefs, the product of reasoning, can motivate on their own (10). The disagreement comes from differing interpretations of passages such as: “’Tis from the prospect of pain or pleasure that the aversion or propensity arises towards any object” (T 2.3.3.3). For these scholars, Hume holds that the prospect of pain or pleasure is a belief, and that this belief motivates. The problem with this reading, Radcliffe argues, is that it assumes that the target of the motivational argument is not belief, while belief seems to be the main candidate that could play a role in motivating moral action.Radcliffe maintains that Hume’s motivational argument against the rationalists only works if he holds that beliefs, the product of reason, cannot motivate on their own. She draws on Hume’s discussion of motivation to show that, on Hume’s view, beliefs only motivate in conjunction with a past desire. If we have a belief regarding a prospect of pleasure, what motivates is the memory of pain or pleasure in the past, which gives rise to a present desire for the same pain or pleasure (7–8). This allows Radcliffe to read the motivational argument as saying that both the process of reasoning and its product, belief, cannot motivate on their own, and therefore cannot be the source of a morality which motivates. This reading also allows Radcliffe to explain how reason does have a role... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Hume on the Self and Personal Identity ed. by Dan O’BrienBridger EhliDan O’Brien, ed. Hume on the Self and Personal Identity. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. Pp. xxiv + 321. Softcover. ISBN: 9783031042751. $129.99This is an engaging collection of essays on a central topic in Hume’s philosophy. Perhaps Hume’s best-known contribution to the philosophy of the self is his denial, in section 1.4.6 of the Treatise, “Of personal identity,” (...) of the existence of a simple, enduring self that is accessible by reflection. But as his distinction between personal identity “as it regards our thought or imagination” and personal identity “as it regards our passions or the concern we take for ourselves” suggests, he has more to say about the self and personal identity than the skeptical doctrines presented in T 1.4.6 (T 1.4.6.5). One virtue of the collection is that it strives to capture the breadth and complexity of Hume’s thinking about the self.The collection, which focuses primarily on the Treatise, is divided into three parts. The essays in Part 1 consider Book 1 and the Appendix. Andrew Ward’s “How Sceptical is Hume’s Theory of Personal Identity?” argues for the provocative thesis that Hume’s intention in the Appendix is not to express dissatisfaction with either his metaphysics of the self or his psychological explanation of ascriptions of identity and simplicity to the self. According to Ward, Hume’s aim is rather to “clarify and strengthen his sceptical position” by reinforcing his rejection of realist accounts of personal identity (13). To my mind, Ward does not adequately address the textual evidence that has led other commentators to believe that the Appendix identifies a defect in T 1.4.6’s discussion of the self, such as Hume’s complaint that he does not “know how to correct [his] former opinions, nor how to render them consistent” (T App 10).Donald Ainslie’s “Hume’s Bundle” is also chiefly concerned with the interpretation of the Appendix. Ainslie has defended an influential reading according to which Hume’s problem in the Appendix concerns his psychological explanation of ascriptions of unity to the self. Here, he argues against interpretations according to which Hume’s problem concerns his metaphysical account of the self as a bundle of perceptions. According to Ainslie, Hume did not worry about how one’s perceptions come to be bundled together, because he treated the fact that perceptions come in distinct bundles as brute. This argument against the bundling interpretation seems less than decisive. At least some versions of that interpretation can be understood to hold that Hume’s problem in the Appendix arises from his being unable to answer a causal question: what is the cause of one’s perceptions’ being bundled together? In the “Letter from a Gentleman,” Hume suggests that the maxim according to which everything has a cause enjoys moral, albeit neither intuitive nor demonstrative, certainty [End Page 377] (LG 26). Insofar as he accepts this maxim, he would hold that the question of the cause of the bundling of one’s perceptions has an answer and, accordingly, that the bundling of one’s perceptions is not brute.The themes of Galen Strawson’s “What I Call Myself ” will be familiar to readers of his The Evident Connexion. Strawson argues against a traditional reading of Hume according to which he both holds that the self is nothing more than a bundle of perceptions and denies the existence of subjects of experience. Central to Straw-son’s case is what he calls the “Experience/Experiencer Thesis,” which says that the existence of an experience requires the existence of a subject of experience. Strawson takes Hume to endorse this “necessary truth” and, hence, to hold that no perception can exist without its being experienced by a subject (48). But there is a text that tells against Hume’s endorsing the Experience/Experiencer Thesis. In section 1.4.2, “Of scepticism with regard to the senses,” Hume argues that “the continu’d existence of... perceptions involves no contradiction” (T 1.4.2.40). Because what it is for perceptions... (shrink)

Comparisons have been drawn between certain aspects of Hume’s philosophy and Buddhist philosophy, particularly concerning their views on the self. While it is intriguing to discover affinities between two philosophical systems that are separated far apart by both time and space, comparison would become superficial if similarities are found merely in their general, overall claims or doctrines. Although engaging in a comparative exploration between Hume and Buddhist philosophers on the self can reveal remarkable similarities in their accounts, it can also (...) provide valuable insights into their differences. The differences between Hume’s and Buddhist philosophers’ views become evident when considering the debates about the self among Buddhist philosophers, which have resulted in diverse accounts within the Buddhist tradition. Indeed, it is those differences that prove to be more illuminating for recognizing and understanding subtle aspects and various components of Hume’s account, which may not be adequately described or distinguished by Hume himself. These aspects are particularly revealed in Hume’s brief description of dissatisfaction with his own account in the Appendix. The primary objective of this paper is to uncover the system of reality underlying Hume’s account of the self, which creates a labyrinth for him, by drawing upon Buddhist ideas and debates regarding the self. (shrink)

In this paper, I analyze the relationship between Hume’s moral philosophy and a key aspect of classical Confucianism—namely, the concept of _lĭ_ (禮), which refers both to the virtue of ritual propriety and to rituals themselves. I argue not only that Hume employs conceptual correlates to each of these two aspects of _lĭ_ (禮), but also that he employs them in ways that have a similar, distinctively normative role in the process of moral formation. I illustrate these points by elucidating (...) Hume’s use of two pairs of concepts. The first is his presentation of decency and decorum. The second is his explanation of customs and manners. In so doing, I develop a line of inquiry that is important, novel, and promising both for Hume scholarship _per se_ and for comparative philosophical work on the relationship between Hume’s moral philosophy and that of classical Confucianism, especially as it is expressed in the works of Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi. (shrink)

In _A Treatise of Human Nature_, Hume proposes a new philosophical method. This method results from integrating an empirically founded skepticism with an innovative study of the epistemic role of emotions. This combination of skepticism, empiricism, and moral psychology aims to establish a virtuous way of doing philosophy based on the regulation of our epistemic emotions. In this paper, I present the operating principles of this virtuous way of doing philosophy. The paper has three parts. I firstly claim that four (...) principles compose Hume’s philosophical methodology. I contend that the moderation of curiosity plays the central role among them. Secondly, I claim that that is the case because of the pernicious effects resulting when this passion becomes excessive and misplaced. Finally, I show the role of curiosity’s moderation in the Conclusion of Book 1 of the _Treatise_, to substantiate the claim that the crisis Hume there depicts illustrates his virtuous way of doing philosophy. (shrink)

This paper offers a critical evaluation of the arguments that Kleingeld and Bernasconi used to support their claims regarding the idea that Immanuel Kant held racist beliefs. Firstly, we will criticize the views on which they agree, aiming to emphasize our understanding of Kant’s thoughts on race. Secondly, we will assess the significance of Kant’s draft for Towards Perpetual Peace when considering the debate over Kant’s racism, and show that Bernasconi’s interpretation — according to which Kant presented racist views in (...) the third Critique and in his writings on history — is problematic. Although we will not systematically present our understanding of Kant’s thoughts on race, our critique of Kleingeld’s and Bernasconi’s claims will reflect our basic views: Kant was not a racist, and he never advocated for slavery and colonization. Kleingeld is right to insist that we must interpret Kant’s thoughts on race diachronically, as it is clear that his views evolved over the course of his life, but did not fundamentally change. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Everlasting Check: Hume on Miracles by Alexander GeorgeAlasdair RichmondAlexander George. The Everlasting Check: Hume on Miracles. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016. Pp. xiii + 98. Hardback ISBN 978-0-674-289246. $41.00.According to its inside front flap, Alexander George’s The Everlasting Check “provides fresh insights” into Hume’s “Of Miracles” and demonstrates “that Hume misconstrues the nature of religious belief and its relationship to evidence and confirmation.” Although often commendable, (...) this book may not achieve all those aims. The book is divided into six chapters: “1. Hume’s Miracles,” “2. Hume’s Theorem,” “3. Hume and Self-Undermining,” “4. Hume and Testimony,” “5. Objections to Hume” and “6. Too Big for A Blunder?” All the chapters make interesting reading but some reprise well-rehearsed debates and introduce odd asides. Also, while no book can possibly be comprehensive about a hardy perennial like “Of Miracles,” some omissions are surprising. In particular, more on Bayesian and other probabilistic approaches, the “independent witnesses” problem, etc., might have been helpful.1 (A bibliography might have been helpful too.)George’s Chapter 1 discusses how Hume defines a miracle. Critics often seek easy victories over Hume via idiosyncratic miracle definitions.2 Commendably, George (8) rejects suggestions that Hume stacked the deck by dismissing miracles a priori. However, Hume’s allowance that miracles (even testimonially compelling ones) could occur is well-known.3 Attempts to dismiss this allowance as insincere or merely tactical must reckon with Hume’s “eight days of darkness” example4 and indeed, all of Part II of “Of Miracles.”As George notes, Hume mainly defines miracles as violations of natural laws, but at one point invokes supernatural agency (5). (See EHU 10.12, 10.12n23.) [End Page 371] Humean natural laws, in turn, are highly well-confirmed, hitherto unbroken, observed uniformities. The law-breaking definition looms larger in “Of Miracles,” but some of George’s remarks seem better suited to the “agent” definition, i.e. the one that assumes that genuine miracles require extra-mundane agential causes. The law-breaking definition perhaps prevails in “Of Miracles,” not least because it lets us determine empirically whether or not an event breaks an established regularity (and is thus miraculous), without any (supernatural or other) cause being invoked. Invoking putative causes, especially supernatural ones, is inevitably more conjectural, especially if the alleged cause is necessarily imperceptible. The “eight days of darkness” are Hume-miraculous, because they fail to reflect a hitherto-unbroken, and very widely supported, regularity, namely that the Sun is always seen to rise in (what clocks say is) the morning. Hume explicitly allows that such failures can occur and can be “of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony” (EHU 10.36).Hume allowed that miracles can theoretically be identified, and even compellingly supported, independently of any question of what may have caused them. Presumably when Hume said there is an unbroken uniformity against the occurrence of miracles, he meant “unbroken up to now” or “unbroken apart from the specific instant testified to,” i.e., not the question-begging “unbroken for all time.” Stipulating hitherto-unbroken or otherwise-unbroken uniformities seems reasonable. Presumably those occasions when the Sun stood still at Joshua’s command or Lazarus rose from the dead were at least highly unusual, if not unprecedented, occurrences. If Sun-stoppages or resurrections occurred regularly, claims that any particular stoppage or resurrection was miraculous would be harder to sustain.Commendably, George (7) insists that when talking of a “proof” against miracles, “by ‘proof ’ Hume does not mean a demonstrative argument,” and that a Hume-proof “consists of empirical evidence of a very high order” (8).5 Unfortunately, George also glosses miracles as “events that violate a lawlike claim that our observations leave beyond doubt” (8). This last needs qualifications like “for all practical purposes.” Humean doubt is always possible but prior to experience, may not have any purchase. Likewise unfortunate is George’s: “What is analytic, if you will, is that a miracle claim confronts experiences that ‘leave no room’ to accept its truth” (8). Contrast Howson:Hume is speaking in descriptive mode, in which a law of nature... (shrink)

Kant refers to analytic cognition in several prominent places. The prevailing wisdom, however, denies the possibility of analytic cognition within his theory of cognition. I shall argue that this is mistaken. I show that we can account for analytic cognition’s possibility by appealing to variants of the more familiar conditions on the cognition of objects. I also highlight analytic cognition’s connection to insight and analytic knowledge. In the process, I provide a fuller account of Kant’s view of our mental lives (...) than has been typically acknowledged. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Editors’ IntroductionElizabeth S. Radcliffe and Mark G. SpencerA special feature of this issue of Hume Studies is the publication of a panel on Hume and Asian Philosophy, which was originally organized for the 49th International Hume Society Conference, held at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, July 2023. We thank the organizers (Gordy Mower, Katharina Paxman, Hsueh Qu, and Amy M. Schmitter) for assembling this stimulating panel and the (...) authors (Dobin Choi, Yumiko Inukai, and Rico Vitz) for allowing us to publish updated versions of their presentations here.We now invite submissions for the Fifth Hume Studies Essay Prize (see the Call for Papers in the back of this issue). The competition for the Fourth Hume Studies Essay Prize closed on August 1, 2024. Papers submitted before that date are undergoing the usual refereeing process at the journal. The latest version of those papers in hand by December 31 will be passed to the Prize Selection Committee, a subset of the Hume Studies Editorial Board. The winner will be announced in early Spring 2025. Also see our website for more information: https://www.humesociety.org/ojs/index.php/hs/announcement.We will be celebrating 50 years of Hume Studies with the publication of our next issue in April of 2025. Readers can look forward to an issue with some unique features. Finally, we bring to your attention our Call for Papers, in the back of this issue, for a special panel on “David Hume and the Enlightenment: New Perspectives,” to be published in Hume Studies 51:2 (November 2026). We welcome your contributions. [End Page 191]Copyright © 2024 Hume Studies... (shrink)

By interpreting the basic concepts of Kant’s definition of enlightenment, as well as pointing out the importance of discussion for the development of understanding and explaining the role of state power in educating citizens, the author argues that enlightenment ought to be understood as an imperfect duty of every human being. This duty belongs to the duty of virtue according to which we are obligated, among other things, to advance our own perfection. In order to better understand the responsibility for (...) one’s own minority and meaning of the independent use of one’s own understanding, she explains the cultivation of character as an educational phase in the moral development of an autonomous person. The last chapter responds to a critique of Kant’s theory and offers an interpretation of his „motto of enlightenment.”. (shrink)

This dissertation provides a comprehensive interpretation of Kant’s views on the conditions of possibility of moral progress and moralization, understood as the achievement of the final purpose of nature. Although education of people and nations is the condition that contributes the most to the achievement of moralization, its only necessary condition of possibility is transcendentally grounded public right. This form of law meets the conditions of universality and necessity, because it is based solely on freedom. In this sense, moral progress (...) of humanity requires strict restrictions on every person’s freedom of choice in accordance with a priori juridical principles and a more frequent determination of their will merely by the representation of the moral law. The main thesis of this dissertation is that juridical freedom of humanity could only be fully guaranteed if the world federal republic is established, while the ethical freedom of humanity could be attained only through constant struggle against the radical evil, which is more likely to succeed if people establish the ethical community; thus, the achievement of the final purpose of nature is conceivable only under the presumption of the constitution of the legal world state and the ethical world state. Additionally, this dissertation provides a detailed analysis of the most important ideas of Kant's philosophy of public right, both its transcendental and empirical side. The role of the empirical legal and political theory is to explain how metaphysical principles of right could be realized to the greatest possible extent, while Kant's anthropological theories and his reflections on the historical development of humanity should show the way human nature works in favour of the implementation of the pure principles of public right, sometimes even against people's intentions. These theories, together with his philosophy of education, show what guidelines people should follow on the way towards transcendental public right, so that humanity’s moral (legal and ethical) progress would be more efficient and less difficult. (shrink)

Ontological dualism of human rights, their ideal and real aspect, is what makes them paradoxical. Having this dual nature, do human rights serve to "moralize" or "civilize" people? Analyzing the basic concepts of Kant's philosophy of public law and history, the author concludes that the term "moral rights" is contradictory , that one cannot talk about them in both senses simultaneously and avoid the paradox. If we regard them as juridical law, human rights play a constitutive role in the legislation (...) of a particular country and what analytically follows is the law as coercion. However, if we understand them as moral laws, they will not be regarded as coercion and their function will be strictly regulative. (shrink)

In this paper, I propose a Kantian framework for moral trust—trust in another person to only act with us in morally permissible ways. First, I derive an understanding of trustworthiness from Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative. I argue that trustworthiness embodies a moral imperative, guiding us to act in ways that are reliable and recognizable as conducive to engaging in trusting relations. However, this alone is not enough, as it doesn't provide a means to assess whether someone is (...) truly committed to the moral law and thus morally trustworthy. Therefore, in the second part, I explore a basis for assessing their moral conduct found in a local version of the Kingdom of Ends: given an ideal or archetype of a morally perfect interpersonal relationship, an archetype of the morally trustworthy agent allows us to comparatively assess the moral disposition of fellow agents. (shrink)

Spinoza is often described as an ethical perfectionist—one who accepts an account of the good centered on the development of our natural capacities. Perfectionists typically accept a perfectionist theory of value, in which the properties of good and evil are grounded in a normative property of perfection. Yet I argue that Spinoza rejects a perfectionist theory of value because he believes it conflicts with the doctrine of necessitarianism. This leads him to conclude that attributions of perfection in ethical contexts must (...) be regarded as fictions. If Spinoza is indeed an ethical perfectionist, his perfectionism must be grounded in a theory of value that is not itself perfectionist. (shrink)

A widely accepted principle in the literature on self-verifying knowledge holds that thinking ‘I think’, or a thought of the form ‘I think that p,’ makes it true. However, thinking ‘I think’ is an analytically complex act that could be made true either by the act of first-personal reference, the act of predication, or the composite referential and predicative act. I argue that Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, holds the unusual first kind of view, according to which ‘I (...) think’ is fundamentally made true, and first-personally justified, by the act of first-personal reference. The result is twofold: first, Kant’s view yields a novel way of thinking about the justification of ‘I think’—it need not appeal to a complex second-order thought to the effect of “I am thinking ‘I think’”—and second, it yields a solution to an interpretive puzzle about the relationship between Kant’s puzzling remarks about ‘I think’ in the Paralogisms and in the Deduction. If Kant is right, then ‘I think’ has a unique epistemology derived from the mere act of self-reference. (shrink)

Among the politics of belief that we encounter in Early Modern Philosophy, Hume's concept of natural belief is known as a problematic area to understand. Although Hume develops a concept of belief based on sensation and sensation, the fact that it is controversial to consider it as an empiricist method when considered together with his scepticism is related to the fact that he sees the method he develops as a natural tendency and habit rather than an inferential method. Whether Hume's (...) natural belief has an epistemic basis or not is one of the main goals of this article, while determining whether he considers religious belief as natural belief or not is among the secondary goals of this article. Our argument is that Hume treats natural belief as a non-epistemic form of belief based on emotion, and religious belief as natural belief. In our study, how the concepts of natural belief and religious belief are understood according to Hume is presented, discussions about these concepts are included, and a conclusion is reached that religious belief is natural belief according to him. (shrink)

Of the three forms of reflective judgment analyzed in Kant’s third Critique, the pleasant has received the least attention because it is seen in part as purely subjective, in part as a mere foil for his theory of judgments of beauty. This paper makes a case for the philosophical consideration of this kind of judgment by focusing on its converse: the unpleasant is a form of aesthetic response that is initially negative but has great motivating power. More modest and common (...) than judgments of the purely beautiful or ugly and more rational than our visceral responses to the disgusting, the unpleasant can capture the aesthetic tenor of our daily lives and concerns. (shrink)

Kant repeatedly stresses that moral philosophy shall find completion in the shape of a system. The present chapter focuses on three main aspects that characterise his view of the need of a system of ethics, suggesting that Kant's view should be construed in contrast with the current assumptions on the role of a system in moral philosophy. First, I argue that, in Kant’s view, the system of ethics does not pursue the coherentist project of systematising moral beliefs. Systematicity in ethics (...) is, for him, about unfolding the obligations that are justified by the fundamental principle, according to a Pufendorfian paradigm widespread in the eighteenth century. Second, I show that, in contrast not only to current assumptions, but also to the Pufendorfian paradigm, Kant’s systematic treatment of ethics is neither a logically consistent arrangement of demands, nor a complete collection of ethical duties, but a system of ends that yields an open-ended system of duty types. Third, I suggest that in Kant’s view a systematic treatment of ethics is supposed to provide orientation to moral thinking through a broader perspective from which perplexing cases should be considered by emphasizing the holistic character of ethical demands and clarifying their connections. (shrink)

In this paper, we examine the authorship of the first review of Hume’s _Treatise of Human Nature_ (1739–40), published anonymously in the _History of the Works of the Learned_ in late 1739. We believe that William Warburton is the author of the review, as attested by various clues, partly dependent on the testimony of the editor of the _History of the Works of the Learned_, Jacob Robinson. Robinson states in 1742 that the author of Hume’s review is the same as (...) the one who sent him the review of Morgan’s _Physico-Theology_, and he describes this author in words similar to those he had already used to describe another anonymous writing by Warburton. Many other pieces of evidence, philosophical, phraseological, literary, and stylistic, amply support the attribution. (shrink)

At the time of the French Revolution, Olympe de Gouges (1748-1793) campaigned for the rights of women, enslaved people and other politically marginalised and underprivileged groups. Conceptually, her reflection is located within the tradition of the social contract. However, she made a theoretical and practical break with this by abolishing the separation between the political and private spheres and universally expanding political participation and belonging.

In the opening pages of the Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, Arendt links history to both judgment and action. She finds any idea of progress in history to be “against human dignity.” Against this background, Arendt outlines a stark choice between a Hegelian philosophy of history which she finds deeply distasteful and a Kantian option with which “we can maintain [...] the autonomy of the minds of men.” This article explores both sides of this fork by detailing exactly what it (...) is that Arendt finds objectionable in Hegel and just how it is that she sees herself aligning with Kant. This article then indicates ways in which Arendt departs from both these philosophers in order to develop her own robust theorization of the concept of history in relation to her ongoing concerns with judgment and with action. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that, contrary to what one might think, early modern rationalism displays an increasing and well-grounded sensitivity to certain metaphysical questions substantial form was designed to answer—despite the fact that the notion itself was in such disrepute, and emphatically banished from natural philosophy. This main thesis is established by examining the thought of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz through the framework constituted by what have been designated as the two aspects, metaphysical and physical, of substantial form. This (...) examination shows that Descartes ends up assigning to soul a notable metaphysical task formerly assigned to substantial form, whereas Spinoza advances a theory of essences motivated by the philosophical concerns behind the two aspects of substantial form. Leibniz finally makes a sharp distinction between natural philosophy and metaphysics as he develops a dynamistic theory that deliberately aims at understanding substantial form in a new fashion. This line of development is designated as one major factor contributing to the separation of philosophy and natural science. (shrink)

This article delves into the mature philosophy of Leibniz, exploring his concepts of life and organism. It aims to establish links between the scientific discoveries of the 17th century and Leibnizian metaphysical assumptions. The paper also highlights how reflections on the Cudworthian system helped the Leipzig philosopher develop his «metaphysics of the organics». The article begins with a brief overview of the querelle sur les natures plastiques to deepen some Leibnizian positions on these topics. It emphasizes Leibniz’s focus on the (...) concept of organism and its fundamental relation and difference with the concept of life. The article also addresses the notion of «nested individuality» and plural individuality in the philosopher’s writings, attempting to determine if such concepts exist. The solution to the coexistence of plural organisms within an organism provided here is mereological. Lastly, the article gathers current research results to demonstrate how the «organism» in the Leibnizian system of maturity is like a fold, leading readers toward different aspects of his metaphysics. (shrink)

In this paper I discuss in what sense physics, chemistry, and the life sciences constitute a systematic unity according to Kant. I start by discussing Christian Wolff’s views on the hierarchy of sciences. I then argue that in one specific sense physics, chemistry and several life sciences constitute a unity: physics and chemistry provide statements that can be used to provide proofs in the life sciences. However, the unity of physics, chemistry, and the life sciences is limited in scope, since (...) Kant claims that the purposeful unity of organisms is mechanically inexplicable. I finally discuss whether there are laws within the life sciences according to Kant. I argue that the fact that Kant acknowledged that physics and chemistry ground the life sciences does not imply that there are laws of life. The reason is that life sciences of Kant’s time were concerned with explaining the purposeful unity of organisms, which is mechanically inexplicable according to Kant, and the regularities discussed by life scientists in Kant’s time lack a priori grounding. (shrink)

Antoine-Chrysostome Quatremère de Quincy was widely regarded as the pre-eminent art theorist of his day and exerted tremendous influence over the development of the arts in nineteenth-century France, publishing over twenty books over his career. Translated into English for the first time by Michel-Antoine Xhignesse, this 1837 treatise on imitation in the arts represents one of his major theoretical works. Quatremère de Quincy argues, against the prevailing opinion of the day, that artistic imitation aims at communicating the essence of the (...) thing represented (ideal imitation), rather than merely faithfully reproducing its life appearance (real imitation). In order to communicate the essence, he argues, the artist must prioritize the contributions of her imagination over the choice and appearance of her model. This represented a significant departure from other accounts of ideal imitation, such as Batteux’s or Winckelmann’s, which instead advocated combining the best features of several different models. (shrink)

Grotius’s discussion on slavery exhibits a dual character, as it is based on natural law on the one hand, and on ius gentium on the other. This article focuses on the sources used by Grotius in his search for the rules of ius gentium on war slavery, and compares Grotius’s insights with the works of some of his contemporaries. After briefly discussing Grotius’s introduction to ius gentium and its sources, his references to three themes concerning war slavery are analyzed. The (...) research shows that, if need be, Grotius works according to his own rules even though it seems difficult for him to leave Greco-Roman antiquity and Europe behind; it also shows that he is content with flimsy evidence. In addition, analyzing his sources informs us about Grotius’s personal input regarding the legitimacy of war and slavery. It turns out that with regard to one of the most far-reaching principles concerning war slavery, Grotius’s insight is consistent with what seems to have been generally accepted among (European) scholars from antiquity to his own time. Another lesson learned: natural rights are not safe with Grotius, since ius gentium as presented by him is a serious threat to such rights. (shrink)

This book provides the first comprehensive discussion regarding the role that Kant ascribes to systematicity in the sciences. It considers not only what Kant has to say on systematicity in general, but also how the systematicity requirement for science is specified in different fields of knowledge. -/- The chapters are divided into three thematic sections. Part 1 is devoted to historical context. The chapters explore precursors of Kant’s account of the systematicity of the sciences. Part 2 addresses the application of (...) systematicity to the special sciences—cosmology, physics, chemistry, logic, mathematics, the life sciences and history. Finally, Part 3 explores the systematicity of philosophy. -/- Kant and the Systematicity of the Sciences will be of interest to scholars and advanced students working on Kant and the history and philosophy of science. (shrink)