Abstract:Since its relatively recent publication (1995), Hume's Fragment on Evil has received little sustained analysis. References to the Fragment tend to be scarce, and at best, only parts of the Fragment are cited at any time. This essay presents an interpretation of the Fragment that considers the text in its entirety, emphasizing its overall argumentative features and structure. This essay begins by providing an introduction to the background of the Fragment, arguing that Hume was likely responding, in part, to Butler's Analogy. It then examines the aims and methodology of the Fragment. In this, it considers Hume's naturalistic and experimental epistemology, and his mitigated skepticism. The Fragment is presented as a discussion about our ability to know the moral attributes of God. The rest of the essay discusses the three strategies Hume employs to answer this question. Further, it considers Hume's own distinction between a philosophical response to the question (its foundation in reason) and a psychological one (its origin in human nature). Throughout the essay, I provide an evaluation of Hume's key arguments and point out several connections the Fragment has with other texts in Hume's corpus. I conclude by suggesting that these connections indicate that the Fragment represent Hume's own views.
{"title":"Hume's Fragment on Evil","authors":"Daryl Ooi","doi":"10.1353/hms.2022.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2022.0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Since its relatively recent publication (1995), Hume's Fragment on Evil has received little sustained analysis. References to the Fragment tend to be scarce, and at best, only parts of the Fragment are cited at any time. This essay presents an interpretation of the Fragment that considers the text in its entirety, emphasizing its overall argumentative features and structure. This essay begins by providing an introduction to the background of the Fragment, arguing that Hume was likely responding, in part, to Butler's Analogy. It then examines the aims and methodology of the Fragment. In this, it considers Hume's naturalistic and experimental epistemology, and his mitigated skepticism. The Fragment is presented as a discussion about our ability to know the moral attributes of God. The rest of the essay discusses the three strategies Hume employs to answer this question. Further, it considers Hume's own distinction between a philosophical response to the question (its foundation in reason) and a psychological one (its origin in human nature). Throughout the essay, I provide an evaluation of Hume's key arguments and point out several connections the Fragment has with other texts in Hume's corpus. I conclude by suggesting that these connections indicate that the Fragment represent Hume's own views.","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"47 1","pages":"39 - 53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46927498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:In this paper, I examine the epistemological positions of Philo and Cleanthes in the Dialogues. I find that Philo's attitude towards skepticism mirrors that of the first Enquiry, most notably in its endorsement of mitigated skepticism, and its treatment of religious reasoning as distinctly discontinuous with science and philosophy. Meanwhile, Cleanthes's epistemological framework corresponds to that of the Treatise, most notably in its adoption of something like the Title Principle, and its treatment of some forms of religious reasoning as broadly continuous with science and philosophy. It is not merely that the epistemological systems of the Treatise and Enquiry are echoed in Cleanthes's and Philo's positions respectively; these frameworks seem to clarify, provide a substantive basis for, and render more complete their somewhat piecemeal statements on this topic in the Dialogues. Thus, Philo's and Cleanthes's dispute is not limited to the theological, but extends to the epistemological.
{"title":"Skepticism in Hume's Dialogues","authors":"Hsueh Qu","doi":"10.1353/hms.2022.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2022.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In this paper, I examine the epistemological positions of Philo and Cleanthes in the Dialogues. I find that Philo's attitude towards skepticism mirrors that of the first Enquiry, most notably in its endorsement of mitigated skepticism, and its treatment of religious reasoning as distinctly discontinuous with science and philosophy. Meanwhile, Cleanthes's epistemological framework corresponds to that of the Treatise, most notably in its adoption of something like the Title Principle, and its treatment of some forms of religious reasoning as broadly continuous with science and philosophy. It is not merely that the epistemological systems of the Treatise and Enquiry are echoed in Cleanthes's and Philo's positions respectively; these frameworks seem to clarify, provide a substantive basis for, and render more complete their somewhat piecemeal statements on this topic in the Dialogues. Thus, Philo's and Cleanthes's dispute is not limited to the theological, but extends to the epistemological.","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"47 1","pages":"38 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46484064","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Hume is an avowed critic of contractarianism. He opposes the idea that a legitimate government is based on an "original contract" or on the consent of those who are governed. Most scholars assume, though, that his criticisms apply only to a limited range of contractarian theories, namely to theories according to which actual contractors reach an actual agreement. Theories on which the agreement in question is understood in hypothetical or counterfactual terms, however, are oftentimes seen as being compatible with Hume's views. Against such interpretations, this paper shows that Hume rejects all contractarian theories, including hypothetical ones. It argues, first, that Hume employs a so far unacknowledged empiricist debunking strategy against contractarianism; if successful, this strategy undermines all variants of contractarianism. Second, it shows that the Humean conception of the state of nature (a topic that has received virtually no scholarly attention) is incompatible with hypothetical contractarianism. Finally, it argues that Hume rejects contractarianism in part because he anticipates a line of criticism which nowadays is often leveled against so-called ideal theory. On Hume's view, the agreements reached by highly idealized contractors are of little relevance to the non-ideal individuals in the actual world.
{"title":"Hume's Deep Anti-Contractarianism","authors":"Sebastian Bender","doi":"10.1353/hms.2022.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2022.0006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Hume is an avowed critic of contractarianism. He opposes the idea that a legitimate government is based on an \"original contract\" or on the consent of those who are governed. Most scholars assume, though, that his criticisms apply only to a limited range of contractarian theories, namely to theories according to which actual contractors reach an actual agreement. Theories on which the agreement in question is understood in hypothetical or counterfactual terms, however, are oftentimes seen as being compatible with Hume's views. Against such interpretations, this paper shows that Hume rejects all contractarian theories, including hypothetical ones. It argues, first, that Hume employs a so far unacknowledged empiricist debunking strategy against contractarianism; if successful, this strategy undermines all variants of contractarianism. Second, it shows that the Humean conception of the state of nature (a topic that has received virtually no scholarly attention) is incompatible with hypothetical contractarianism. Finally, it argues that Hume rejects contractarianism in part because he anticipates a line of criticism which nowadays is often leveled against so-called ideal theory. On Hume's view, the agreements reached by highly idealized contractors are of little relevance to the non-ideal individuals in the actual world.","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"47 1","pages":"103 - 129"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49080204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editors' Introduction","authors":"Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Mark G. Spencer","doi":"10.1353/hms.2022.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2022.0001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"47 1","pages":"7 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49546243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:In this paper, I reconstruct Hume's account of decency, the virtue associated with a limited display of pride, and show how it presents a significant challenge to standard virtue ethical interpretations of Hume. In section I, I explore his ambivalent conception of pride as both virtuous (because useful and agreeable to oneself) and vicious (when excessive and disagreeable to others). In section II, I show how the virtue of decency provides a practical solution to these two clashing aspects of pride. In doing so, I demonstrate that decency is a merely behavioural virtue that requires no virtuous motive and consists of nothing more than "a fair outside." I argue that this account of decency represents a serious and underexplored challenge to standard interpretations of Hume as a virtue ethicist committed to the idea that actions derive their moral value from underlying motives. In section III, I reply to some objections.
{"title":"Secret Sentiments: Hume on Pride, Decency, and Virtue","authors":"Enrico Galvagni","doi":"10.1353/hms.2022.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2022.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In this paper, I reconstruct Hume's account of decency, the virtue associated with a limited display of pride, and show how it presents a significant challenge to standard virtue ethical interpretations of Hume. In section I, I explore his ambivalent conception of pride as both virtuous (because useful and agreeable to oneself) and vicious (when excessive and disagreeable to others). In section II, I show how the virtue of decency provides a practical solution to these two clashing aspects of pride. In doing so, I demonstrate that decency is a merely behavioural virtue that requires no virtuous motive and consists of nothing more than \"a fair outside.\" I argue that this account of decency represents a serious and underexplored challenge to standard interpretations of Hume as a virtue ethicist committed to the idea that actions derive their moral value from underlying motives. In section III, I reply to some objections.","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"47 1","pages":"131 - 155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44916352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:I argue for a thorough reinterpretation of Hume's "common point of view" thesis, at least within his moral Enquiry. Hume is typically understood to argue that we correct for sympathetically produced variations in our moral sentiments, by undertaking an imaginative exercise. I argue that Hume cannot consistently claim this, because he argues that we automatically experience the same degree of the same moral sentiment towards all tokens of any one type of character trait. I then argue that, in his Enquiry at least, Hume only believes that we correct for variations in our non-moral sentiments. When he claims that we sometimes choose a "common point of view," he just means that we sometimes choose to verbally express our calm, moral sentiments, and no other passions, when we publicly evaluate people's characters.
{"title":"Hume on Calm Passions, Moral Sentiments, and the \"Common Point of View\"","authors":"James Chamberlain","doi":"10.1353/hms.2022.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2022.0005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:I argue for a thorough reinterpretation of Hume's \"common point of view\" thesis, at least within his moral Enquiry. Hume is typically understood to argue that we correct for sympathetically produced variations in our moral sentiments, by undertaking an imaginative exercise. I argue that Hume cannot consistently claim this, because he argues that we automatically experience the same degree of the same moral sentiment towards all tokens of any one type of character trait. I then argue that, in his Enquiry at least, Hume only believes that we correct for variations in our non-moral sentiments. When he claims that we sometimes choose a \"common point of view,\" he just means that we sometimes choose to verbally express our calm, moral sentiments, and no other passions, when we publicly evaluate people's characters.","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"47 1","pages":"101 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43196128","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Philosopher's Economist: Hume and the Rise of Capitalism by Margaret Schabas and Carl Wennerlind (review)","authors":"Erik W. Matson","doi":"10.1353/hms.2022.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2022.0009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"47 1","pages":"161 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42092676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Hume's account of the scope of justice, many think, is implausibly narrow, applying almost exclusively to respect for property rights. Such a view would indeed be highly objectionable because it would leave out of the scope of justice altogether requirements to keep our promises, obey the law, and refrain from threats and violence (among many others). I argue that Hume's theory of justice, properly understood, avoids this objection. And seeing how is instructive because once we understand his account correctly, we can appreciate its resources for offering attractive explanations of why a number of diverse phenomena fall within the scope of justice. Overcoming this challenge is a major stepping stone on the way to seeing Hume's theory of justice as a genuine competitor with the other dominant theories of justice in the philosophical literature.
{"title":"Hume's Account of the Scope of Justice","authors":"Ian Cruise","doi":"10.1353/hms.2020.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2020.0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Hume's account of the scope of justice, many think, is implausibly narrow, applying almost exclusively to respect for property rights. Such a view would indeed be highly objectionable because it would leave out of the scope of justice altogether requirements to keep our promises, obey the law, and refrain from threats and violence (among many others). I argue that Hume's theory of justice, properly understood, avoids this objection. And seeing how is instructive because once we understand his account correctly, we can appreciate its resources for offering attractive explanations of why a number of diverse phenomena fall within the scope of justice. Overcoming this challenge is a major stepping stone on the way to seeing Hume's theory of justice as a genuine competitor with the other dominant theories of justice in the philosophical literature.","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"101 - 119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45917926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Hume's Scepticism: Pyrrhonian and Academic by Peter S. Fosl (review)","authors":"C. Goldhaber","doi":"10.1353/hms.2020.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2020.0007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"171 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45360451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:In Part XI of the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, Philo enumerates "four circumstances" which he claims are the principal sources of pain and suffering in human life. In this paper, I focus on Philo's second circumstance in which he develops a critique of what I call the 'general laws theodicy.' This theodicy, according to which natural evils arise as a result of God's government of the universe by simple and general laws of nature, is most closely associated with Nicolas Malebranche. However, I argue that Philo's criticisms badly misfire against Malebranche's version of the theodicy. I then show how the general laws theodicy was radically reinterpreted by a succession of British philosophers—among them Berkeley, Hutcheson and Butler—and that it is against this reconceived version of the theodicy that Philo's objections are aimed.
{"title":"Philo's Second Circumstance: Malebranche and the General Laws Theodicy in Hume's Dialogues","authors":"Todd Ryan","doi":"10.1353/hms.2020.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2020.0005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In Part XI of the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, Philo enumerates \"four circumstances\" which he claims are the principal sources of pain and suffering in human life. In this paper, I focus on Philo's second circumstance in which he develops a critique of what I call the 'general laws theodicy.' This theodicy, according to which natural evils arise as a result of God's government of the universe by simple and general laws of nature, is most closely associated with Nicolas Malebranche. However, I argue that Philo's criticisms badly misfire against Malebranche's version of the theodicy. I then show how the general laws theodicy was radically reinterpreted by a succession of British philosophers—among them Berkeley, Hutcheson and Butler—and that it is against this reconceived version of the theodicy that Philo's objections are aimed.","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"145 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47986497","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：