Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 16 (3):331-340 (1955)
An analysis of effectiveness of some of hume's arguments in a framework developed by the author. The author states his position that arguments attacking positions attempt to show that, Given the assumptions of a position, Certain consequences are incompatible with it--A valid species of "argumentum ad hominem". Although this species does not work for constructive philosophical "proofs," it will work inversely in arguments (defending such proofs) which cite possible objections. These charge "petitio": the objection assumes what the position denies or "vice versa". Eight arguments are judged as "ad hominem" or as charging "petitio" and as effective or ineffective in either case. The analyses elaborate the author's position, And the mode of analysis is suggested as an adjunct to considering a philosopher's conclusions
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Necessity of “Necessity”: Hume's Psychology of Sophisticated Causal Inference.Abraham Sesshu Roth - 2011 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 41 (2):263-287.
Hume on Causal Necessity: A Study From the Perspective of Hume's Theory of Passions.Berent Enç - 1985 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 2 (3):235 - 256.
Proof and Demonstration: Hume's Account of the Causal Relation.Andrew Ward - 2008 - International Philosophical Quarterly 48 (1):23-37.
Hume on Induction: A Genuine Problem or Theology's Trojan Horse?Stephen J. Boulter - 2002 - Philosophy 77 (1):67-86.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads36 ( #144,657 of 2,177,978 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #317,206 of 2,177,978 )
How can I increase my downloads?