Abstract

This essay provides a survey of the central role of various radically skeptical arguments in David Hume's philosophy. The discussion relies upon a distinction between theoretical skepticism and prescriptive skepticism. A theoretical skepticism calls into question the grounds or the warrant for some important class of beliefs, e.g., our inductive beliefs about the future and our beliefs about the external world. A prescriptive skepticism recommends the suspension of belief for some class of beliefs. This essay is an attempt to show that Hume was an unmitigated theoretical skeptic over a wide range of areas, but for the most part he was a moderate or mitigated prescriptive skeptic.