Analysis 39 (4):212--219 (1979)

Albert Casullo
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Hume's maxim consists of two principles which are logically independent of each other: (1) whatever is conceivable is possible; and (2) whatever is inconceivable is impossible. Thomas Reid offered several arguments against the former principle, while John Stuart mill argued against the latter. The primary concern of this paper is to examine whether Reid and mill were successful in calling Hume's maxim into question.
Keywords Conceivability, Language, Possibility
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/analys/39.4.212
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,242
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
133 ( #74,259 of 2,419,521 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #152,159 of 2,419,521 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes