Dissertation, University of Massachusetts - Amherst (1998)
David Hume has traditionally been regarded as a skeptic, perhaps the most formidable in the history of Western philosophy. Since the publication of Norman Kemp Smith's Philosophy of David Hume in 1941, however, there has been an increasing tendency to downplay the skeptical dimension of Hume's philosophy, in some cases to the point of denying that Hume is a serious skeptic, or even a skeptic at all. Much of the motivation for a nonskeptical reading of Hume comes from recognition of his endorsement of empirical science and his own project of founding a "science of man." Recent scholarship has, in my opinion correctly, recognized Hume as a constructive rather than a purely destructive thinker. Yet this recognition has, in my opinion incorrectly, gone hand in hand with a tendency to overlook or deny the skeptical side of Hume's thought. In this work, I address the issue of Hume's skepticism. I believe that though the issue of Hume's skepticism is more complicated than is suggested by some of those who interpret him as a skeptic, nevertheless the traditional view is more true to Hume's texts than is a nonskeptical interpretation. I argue, on the basis of a reading of the Treatise of Human Nature and Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, that Hume is a serious theoretical skeptic with regard to much of our alleged knowledge. In saying that Hume is a serious theoretical skeptic I mean that (i) Hume's skeptical pronouncements are in general sincere, not ironic, (ii) Hume's skepticism extends to a large part of our alleged knowledge, and (iii) Hume's skepticism is a result of his substantive philosophical views. In saying that Hume is a serious theoretical skeptic I mean that though Hume doesn't prescribe eschewal of beliefs that are not rationally justified, he thinks that much of our alleged knowledge essentially involves beliefs that cannot be rationally justified and that hence much of our alleged knowledge is not knowledge at all.
|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
Is Hume a Moral Skeptic?James Fieser - 1989 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (1):89-105.
Causation as a Philosophical Relation in Hume.Pierris Graciela De - 2002 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (3):499 - 545.
Two Puzzles in Hume's Epistemology.Mark Collier - 2008 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 25 (4):301 - 314.
Skeptical Tranquility and Hume's Manner of Death.Lívia Guimarães - 2008 - Journal of Scottish Philosophy 6 (2):115-134.
The Riddle of Hume's Treatise :Skepticism, Naturalism, and Irreligion. [REVIEW]Colin Heydt - 2010 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (3):401-402.
Reading Hume on Human Understanding: Essays on the First Enquiry.Peter Millican (ed.) - 2001 - Oxford University Press.
Hume on Testimony Revisited.Axel Gelfert - 2010 - Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 13:60-75.
The Force of Hume's Skepticism About Unobserved Matters of Fact.John Greco - 1998 - Journal of Philosophical Research 23:289-306.
'Naturalism' and 'Skepticism' in Hume's Treatise of Human Nature.Sean Greenberg - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (4):721-733.
Hume on “Popular” and “Philosophical” Skeptical Arguments.Ira M. Schnall - 2007 - Hume Studies 33 (1):41-66.
How to Be a Pragmatist: C. I. Lewis and Humean Skepticism.John Greco - 2006 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 42 (1):24-31.
Added to index2010-09-10
Total downloads31 ( #157,306 of 2,132,857 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #388,508 of 2,132,857 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.