Hume: Naturalism

In that book I had two different, though not unrelated aims. The first chapter was concerned with traditional scepticisms about, e.g., the external world and induction. In common with Hume and Wittgenstein (and even Heidegger) I argued that the attempt to combat such doubts by rational argument was misguided: for we are dealing here with the presuppositions, the framework, of all human thought and enquiry. In the other chapters my target was different. It was that species of naturalism which tended (...) to discredit, or somehow to reduce to more scientifically acceptable, physicalistic terms, whole regions of ordinary human thought, language, and experience -- in particular the regions of moral discourse, of the subjectively mental and of the intensional. Here my reaction, as well as my target, was different. I did not merely stress the inescapability of the natural or common human standpoint from which we normally take for granted all that is called in question by scientistic naturalism. I also allowed the latter its own validity from its own limited standpoint.2 Philosophical scepticism and scientistic naturalism represent two types of challenge to ‘central features of our ordinary thought and talk’.3 The overall aim of Scepticism and Naturalism is to respond to these challenges and thereby to vindicate what Strawson refers to elsewhere as ‘our natural metaphysics’. (shrink)

Nosso objetivo central neste artigo é mostrar como as seções _of the reason of animals _sustentam a tese de uma naturalização da epistemologia de Hume. Para tal, ele será dividido em três grandes partes. Na primeira, mostraremos como Hume utilizou a analogia como fundamento para presupor uma continuidade entre as faculdades intelectivas dos animais humanos e não humanos. Na segunda, indicaremos as semelhanças que corroboram a analogia e, na última, apontaremos que as diferenças entre os humanos e demais animais são (...) apenas de grau e nunca de qualidade. (shrink)

Skepticism and naturalism bear important connections with one another. Do they conflict or are they different sides of the same coin? In this paper, by considering the ways in which Sextus and Hume have examined these issues, I offer a Pyrrhonian response to Penelope Maddy's attempt to reject skepticism within the form of naturalism that she calls “second philosophy” (Maddy, 2007, 2017) and to Timothy Williamson's attempt to avoid skepticism from emerging within his knowledge‐first approach (Williamson, 2000). Some lessons about (...) Pyrrhonism result. (shrink)

A plea for natural philosophy --On the question of realism --Hume and Reid --Moore's hands --Wittgenstein on hinges --A note on truth and reference --The philosophy of logic --A Second Philosophy of logic --Psychology and the a priori sciences --Do numbers exist? --Enhanced if-thenism.

Peter Fosl presents an engaging and historically rich account of Hume's skepticism. For those readers interested in deepening their knowledge and understanding of Pyrrhonian and Academic skepticism, both in regard to their origins and their legacy, I highly recommend it. But I also recommend it for those who would like to better understand Hume's skepticism, although I do think there is some tension in Fosl's reading. Before I discuss this tension, a brief summary of the book is in order. Fosl's (...) primary claim is that Hume's skepticism is a hybrid of Academic and Pyrrhonian skepticism. To show this, Fosl divides the book into two parts. In the first, Fosl presents a detailed account of the ancient and modern versions... (shrink)

이 논문에서 나는 현대 메타윤리학에서 신감성주의가 흄의 자연주의의 어떠한 점을 전수 받았는지 보여주기 위해 흄의 철학에서 ‘자연’의 의미를 분석하고, 흄이 ‘개방적(liberal)자연주의’를 통해 도덕을 위한 공간을 어떻게 마련하는지 보여주고자 한다. 이를 위해, 둘째, 나는 흄의 자연주의의 주된 측면이 환원적 시각을 유지하는 과학적 자연주의라는 해석에 반대한다. 이를 보이기 위해 나는 그의 인간학의 주된 주제를 구성하는 것이 무엇인가에 주목한다. 내가 이 논문에서 주장하고자 하는 핵심은 흄의 인식론과 윤리학 둘 다가 ‘약한’ 자연주의 또는 ‘개방적 자연주의’로 특징져 질 수 있다는 것이다. 흄의 인식론과 윤리학을 ‘약한 (...) 자연주의’로 해석하는데 중요한 역할을 하는 부분이 『인성론』 제 2권 정념론이다. 정념이라는 본성을 중심으로 사회적·생물학적 존재로서의 인간에 초점을 맞춘 생활세계 인식론을 이해하면 흄의 『인성론』 제 1, 2, 3 권의 자연주의의 일관성을 이해할 수 있다. 흄에 따르면 우리가 세계에 대해 갖는 믿음은 습관이나 자연적 성향에 따라 인과적으로 결정되는 자연적 사실이기 때문에 그것은 다른 자연적 사실들처럼 정당화의 문제가 아니라 습관, 자연적 성향, 상상력과 같은 인간본성의 원리에 의해 설명된다. 이로써 극단적 회의주의는 인간본성의 원리에 호소하는 존재론적 자연주의에 의해 해소된다. 이에 더하여 정념을 통한 일상인들의 사회적 상호작용에 초점을 맞추는 그의 정념론 또한 자연주의이다. 윤리학에서 흄의 자연주의 전략은 허치슨의 도덕감 정론을 따르지만 허치슨의 선천적인 내재적 도덕감의 존재를 부정하고 도덕감의 발생기제를 자연적 윈리인 공감에 호소하는 것이다. 끝으로 나는 도덕의 자연화 전략에 관해 자세히 살펴보기 위해 도덕적 평가에 대한 흄의 입장을 살펴본다. 가치가 세계 그 자체에 있는 것이 아니라 우리 마음속에 존재한다는 흄의 입장을 우리는 투사주의(projectivism)라 부를 수 있다. 그러나 투사주의에서 말하는 것처럼 도덕판단이 그 자체로는 옳고·그름이라는 속성을 갖고 있지 않는 세계에 우리의 비인지적 느낌을 투사한 것이고, 그와 같은 비인지적 느낌의 옳고 그름은 그와 같은 느낌에 대해 행위자의 승인·불승인이라는 고차 태도(higher-order attitude)에 의존한다면 도덕의 보편성과 도덕판단의 규범성을 어떻게 말할 수 있는가? 이에 관한 답을 나는 최근에 흄의 도덕감정론을 발전시킨 프린츠의 입장을 검토해 보고 그 한계점을 보인 후, 흄의 관습적 규약론에서 찾고자 한다. (shrink)

Much has been written about Kemp Smith’s (1941) famous problem regarding the tension between Hume’s naturalism and his scepticism. However, most commentators have focused their attention on the Treatise; those who address Enquiry often take it to express essentially the same message as the Treatise. When Hume’s scepticism in the Enquiry has been investigated in its own right, commentators have tended to focus on Hume’s inductive scepticism in Sections 4 and 5. All in all, it seems that Section 12 has (...) been unduly neglected. This paper seeks to address Kemp Smith’s problem from the standpoint of Hume’s treatment of scepticism in EHU 12, and finds an interesting internalist account that makes sense both of Hume’s discussion in EHU 12 and his aims in the Enquiry as a whole, as well as one that is of philosophical interest, having intriguing parallels to contemporary epistemological accounts. (shrink)

De Pierris offers a reading that unites radical skepticism and normative naturalism as “two equally important and mutually complementary aspects of Hume’s philosophical position”. The “modern theory of ideas” shapes skepticism, and Newtonian methodology is the basis for naturalism. The “modern theory of ideas” holds that evidence for optimal human cognition is grounded in the “immediate acquaintance with ostensive presentations that are or have been given to the mind”. This is the “presentational-phenomenological model of apprehension”. Descartes introduces to the model (...) pure intellectual items, that is, clear and distinct ideas, which have “‘immutable and eternal’ essences or forms” as referents... (shrink)

I argue that acknowledging Hume as a doxastic naturalist about belief in a deity allows an elegant, holistic reading of his Dialogues. It supports a reading in which Hume's spokesperson is Philo throughout, and enlightens many of the interpretive difficulties of the work. In arguing this, I perform a comprehensive survey of evidence for and against Philo as Hume's voice, bringing new evidence to bear against the interpretation of Hume as Cleanthes and against the amalgamation view while correcting several standard (...) mistakes. I ultimately isolate the interpretation of Philo's Reversal at the end of the Dialogues as of paramount importance, and show how my naturalistic interpretation makes this, and other notoriously difficult passages, unproblematic. (shrink)

In The Riddle of Hume's Treatise: Skepticism, Naturalism, and Irreligion, Paul Russell makes a strong case for the claim that “The primary aim of Hume's series of skeptical arguments, as developed and distributed throughout the Treatise, is to discredit the doctrines and dogmas of Christian philosophy and theology with a view toward redirecting our philosophical investigations to areas of ‘common life,’ with the particular aim of advancing ‘the science of man’”. Understanding Hume in this way, according to Russell, sheds light (...) on the “ultimate riddle” of the Treatise: “is it possible to reconcile Hume's skeptical principles and conclusions with his aim to advance the ‘science of man’”? Or does Hume's skepticism undermine his “secular, scientific account of the foundations of moral life in human nature”? Russell's controversial thesis is that “the irreligious nature of Hume's fundamental intentions in the Treatise” is essential to solving the riddle. Russel.. (shrink)

Graciela De Pierris presents a novel interpretation of the relationship between skepticism and naturalism in Hume's epistemology, and a new appraisal of Hume's place within early modern thought. Contrary to dominant readings, she argues that Hume does offer skeptical arguments concerning causation and induction in Book I, Part III of the Treatise, and presents a detailed reading of the skeptical argument she finds there and how this argument initiates a train of skeptical reasoning that begins in Part III and culminates (...) in Part IV. She goes on to demonstrate that Hume was committed to the Newtonian inductive method while rejecting the place of the supernatural in our understanding of nature. (shrink)

This essay argues that the exploration of scepticism and its implications in the work of Stanley Cavell and David Hume bears more similarities than is commonly acknowledged, especially along the lines of what I wish to call “sceptical naturalism.” These lines of similarity are described through the way each philosopher relates the “natural” and “nature” to the universal, the necessary, and the conventional.

Was David Hume radically sceptical about our attempts to understand the world or was he merely approaching philosophical problems from a scientific perspective? Most philosophers today believe that Hume's outlook was more scientific than radically sceptical and that his scepticism was more limited than previously supposed. If these philosophers are correct, then Hume's approach to philosophy mirrors the approach of many contemporary philosophers. This similarity between Hume and many aspects of contemporary philosophy suggests that we should try to understand Hume (...) not as an historical relic but as a partner in a continuing philosophical dialogue. When we look closely at Hume's thoughts about human understanding, we find that Hume's scepticism emerges very insistently in the context of Hume's scientific approach. This book tries to come to terms with Hume's scepticism in a way that sheds light on contemporary philosophy and its relationship to science. (shrink)

Before the pioneering work of Norman Kemp Smith, most Hume scholars read him as a thoroughgoing skeptic. The dominant view today is that, for Hume, ‘natural beliefs’—paradigmatically, beliefs based on induction—are warranted in virtue of features of the psychological mechanisms that produce them; moreover, Hume would endorse a suitable naturalistic theory of warrant to sustain this position. I survey four naturalistic interpretations of Hume’s epistemology: Kemp Smith’s theory, proper-function theory, stability theory, and reliabilism. I do not argue for one of (...) these interpretations over the others; instead, I focus on what they have in common: Hume provides a naturalistic response to any generalized skepticism. From within this broad interpretive framework, some commentators argue that Hume would extend the class of ‘natural beliefs’ to religious belief. The bulk of the evidence supporting this position is derived from the Dialogues; in particular, commentators argue that, instead of being supported by the argument from design, there is a natural propensity that causes one to form the belief in an intelligent designer upon noticing the order and regularity in the world. I argue that the evidence is insufficient to support the claim that, according to Hume, religious belief is a ‘natural belief’. I examine Hume’s Natural History, where he provides an account of the origin of religious belief, in conjunction with his epistemological observations about various belief-forming mechanisms in the Treatise. I show that, no matter which theory of naturalistic epistemology best fits Hume’s own, religious belief is not warranted naturalistically. Furthermore, I argue that on Hume’s view, polytheism, while still unwarranted, is epistemically superior to monotheism. I conclude that, for Hume, the psychological explanation of religious belief, in conjunction with the fact that religious belief cannot be warranted on the basis of any evidence or a priori or a posteriori argument, provides grounds to reject all forms of religious belief. The Natural History is best read as an important piece of a larger destructive project which has as its goal showing that religious belief is not warranted by any means—through reason or experience, by revelation, or by its naturalistic explanation. (shrink)

In “The Constraints of Hume’s Naturalism” Barry Stroud takes on the task of looking at Hume’s negative and positive accounts of induction in conjunction. Stroud goes about doing this so that we might walk away with “a more general lesson about naturalism, at least when it is indulged in for philosophical purposes”. Given the boldness of Stroud’s quote from above there should be some explicit talk of this general lesson about naturalism outside of Hume’s, but there is none that is (...) readily apparent. If a more general and philosophically motivated lesson about naturalism is to be gleaned from Stroud’s investigation of Hume, then we should take this to be a lesson implicit in Stroud and not Hume. Hence I shall argue that Stroud tacitly endorses the skeptical conclusions of David Hume about naturalism in general when indulged for philosophical purposes. (shrink)

This paper rereads David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion as dramatising a distinctive, naturalistic account of toleration. I have two purposes in mind: first, to complete and ground Hume's fragmentary explicit discussion of toleration; second, to unearth a potentially attractive alternative to more recent, Rawlsian approaches to toleration. To make my case, I connect Dialogues and the problem of toleration to the wider themes of naturalism, scepticism and their relation in Hume's thought, before developing a new interpretation of Dialogues part (...) 12 as political drama. Finally, I develop the Humean theory of toleration I have discovered by comparison between Rawls's and Hume's strategies for justification of a tolerant political regime. (shrink)

This paper rereads David Hume'sDialogues Concerning Natural Religionas dramatising a distinctive, naturalistic account of toleration. I have two purposes in mind: first, to complete and ground Hume's fragmentary explicit discussion of toleration; second, to unearth a potentially attractive alternative to more recent, Rawlsian approaches to toleration. To make my case, I connectDialoguesand the problem of toleration to the wider themes of naturalism, scepticism and their relation in Hume's thought, before developing a new interpretation ofDialoguespart 12 as political drama. Finally, I (...) develop the Humean theory of toleration I have discovered by comparison between Rawls's and Hume's strategies for justification of a tolerant political regime. (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: Introduction Hume's Naturalism Hume's Skepticism The Relation between Hume's Naturalism and His Skepticism Skepticism and Naturalism after the Treatise References Further Reading.

This chapter contains section titled: The Problem of Induction: Hume's Problem The Regularity Theory of Causation Hume and Cognitive Science Hume and Naturalized Epistemology Hume as anti‐Metaphysician References Further Reading.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Hume Studies Volume 27, Number 1, April 2001, pp. 3-83 Moral Skepticism and Moral Naturalism in Hume's Treatise NICHOLAS L. STURGEON Section I I believe that David Hume's well-known remarks on is and ought in his Treatise of Human Nature (T 469-70)1 have been widely misunderstood, and that in consequence so has their relation to his apparent ethical naturalism and to his skepticism about the role of reason in (...) morality. My aim in this paper is to display their connection with these larger issues in Hume's work by placing them in a more illuminating light. Readers may wonder whether there is anything left to say about the passage containing these remarks; they may also share Barry Stroud's suspicion that the vast literature focused on this one paragraph has "given it an importance and point out of all proportion to its actual role in the text of the Treatise."2 But I have some new things to say. I agree, moreover, that many recent discussions, in projecting twentieth-century assumptions onto Hume's text, have accorded this passage the wrong sort of importance: that is part of what I want to correct. But getting clear about what Hume is saying here is, I shall argue, a way of moving familiar and obviously central questions about his views on morality into an unfamiliar but revealing focus. Hume's is-ought thesis is commonly, and I believe correctly, seen as an application of his more general skepticism about the capacity of reason to discover "moral distinctions." But that general skepticism is usually taken, in turn, to conflict with those many passages in which Hume Nicholas L. Sturgeon is Professor of Philosophy, Sage School of Philosophy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-3201, USA. e-mail: [email protected] 4 Nicholas L. Sturgeon appears to say, in a reductive and naturalistic vein, that ascriptions of moral virtue and vice simply state certain empirical facts, facts about our own sentiments. My central thesis, however, is that Hume's view that there is a logical gap between is and ought is not merely consistent with his reductive naturalism, but actually depends on it. It is precisely because moral ascriptions state the facts that they do about our sentiments that no ought can be derived from an is and, a bit more generally, that reason is unable to discover moral distinctions. Hume's skepticism about reason in ethics depends, I shall argue, on his reductive ethical naturalism. This is not the usual understanding of Hume's views, and it will require careful explanation and defense. I shall proceed in several stages. My first step, in Section II, will be to argue that Hume's naturalism is at least consistent with his skepticism about reason, and in particular with his remarks about is and ought. I shall show this by focusing on a difficulty often taken to epitomize the conflict between these two strains in his thought: namely, that the paragraph containing these remarks (T 469-70: henceforth, the is-ought paragraph) and the one immediately preceding it (which I shall call the matter -of-fact paragraph (T 468-9)) appear, on their most natural readings, flatly to contradict one another.3 On the most common reading of the is-ought paragraph, it assumes the existence of two classes of statements, «-statements and oM^hr-statements, and declares that no member of the latter class can be derived entirely from members of the former. In the preceding paragraph, however, Hume appears in the guise of an ethical naturalist and subjectivist, and, if we take him at his word, simply equates a moral judgment with one asserting what he himself calls a "matter of fact," albeit a psychological fact about oneself: So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it. (T 469) But, one supposes, if a moral assessment of an action or character is equivalent in meaning to a description of one's sentiments, then it can be derived from that description, and there... (shrink)

1. Readers of Hume, even those who call attention to the depth and variety of his skeptical excursions, now happily admit that Hume is, in crucial respects, a “naturalist.” A naturalist is, broadly, someone who emphasizes the natural sources of our beliefs, attitudes, and practices; and Hume surely is at least this kind of naturalist. But understanding Hume’s naturalism to include only this general explanatory commitment obscures as much as it reveals, I will argue, about the text of Treatise I (...) iv, where Hume examines various skeptical “systems of philosophy.” To understand that part of the Treatise, we must, I will argue, understand Hume’s shifting allegiances to different kinds of naturalism. (shrink)

This work presents a conception of Hume's overall philosophical stance which is derived from a focus on his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and The Natural History of Religion. A broad context is provided by frequent references to A Treatise of Human Nature and to An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding as well as to other relevant essays and letters written by Hume. Religious Naturalism is a complex tapestry woven of aesthetic, ethical, epistemological and metaphysical elements. The religious element in Hume's writings, (...) which some commentators see as a transcendent position, is interpreted as an immanentist religiosity akin to that of Spinoza and Einstein. Hume's three "strong natural beliefs" in "self", objects and causality, come together as a metaphysical faith in the ultimate reality of a shared cosmos. Hume's aesthetic response is expressed as a sense of the sublimity of the cosmos even in the midst of skeptical doubt. In Hume's religious naturalism his epistemological skepticism casts doubt on and tempers his metaphysical faith. It is shown that Hume's overriding ethical concern was to further the happiness of humanity by replacing the "pernicious superstition" of supernaturalism with an immanentist position which affirms the inexplicable presence of an eternal cosmos. This position is what is here termed Religious Naturalism. (shrink)

This dissertation examines the so-called 'natural beliefs' discussed by Hume. These include the beliefs in the validity of induction, the existence of objective necessary connections, the existence of external objects, and the existence of a continuing self. Hume holds our natural beliefs to be non-rational, instinctive and without epistemological justification. However, I argue that Hume's naturalist account of human understanding involves a non-epistemological notion of justification on which our natural beliefs are justified because they are natural and instinctive, and "on (...) account of their suitableness and conformity to the mind." This naturalist notion of justification is applied by Hume side by side with his empiricist notion, which he uses to argue that none of our natural beliefs is epistemically justified. Chapter Three argues against the 'New Hume' positions offered by John P. Wright, Galen Strawson and Edward Craig, which purport to show that Hume held our natural beliefs to be true and epistemically justified, but inconsistent with his empiricism. ;The final two chapters concern Hume's naturalist method. Chapter Five argues against the traditional reading of Hume's naturalism as offering an analog in the realm of 'moral' subjects of the system of laws in Newtonian mechanics. Contrary to what a Newtonian science demands, the principles of Hume's science of human nature have exceptions that Hume himself acknowledges. These exceptions, along with the normative attitude Hume exhibits in embracing our natural beliefs, indicate that we should take more seriously the implications of Hume's claim to be an anatomist of the mind. In fact, the method of the science of anatomy closely approximates the method of Hume's science of the mind. The final chapter compares Hume's naturalist account of belief to some twentieth century naturalist accounts. (shrink)

Descartes' First Meditation presents a serious challenge to the theoretical enterprise of science by raising doubts about our belief that we know truths. The various strategies for refuting the challenge, represented by Descartes, Putnam and Austin, have proven unsuccessful, leaving theoretical knowledge without foundations. If we are to provide a secure basis for the scientific enterprise, we must provide an alternative to Descartes' conception of theoretical knowledge. ;Naturalists attempt to establish such an alternative by appealing to the continuity between the (...) beliefs of other animals and our theoretical beliefs. Thus Hume urges that our beliefs owe to instinct and conditioning. The pragmatic naturalists--Peirce, Dewey, and Quine--may be seen as extending Hume's account to include the use of language and a fortiori, our beliefs that we know truths. However, these efforts fall short because they neglect the reflective character of theoretical knowledge. ;I argue for a more classical conception of naturalism, according to which theoretical activity as part of our natural history. This account provides an alternative to Descartes' conception of theoretical knowledge, without neglecting the reflective character of such knowledge. (shrink)

While appeals both to nature and to sceptical tendencies are widely acknowledged as determining factors in Hume's thought, there is considerable divergence of opinion regarding the degree of importance that Hume attaches to each notion. In an attempt to resolve this traditional controversy, this dissertation explores the meaning of Hume's philosophy as a whole in the light of its naturalistic and sceptical character. ;Instead of maintaining their opposition, the argument of the dissertation is that these two sides are complementary--with nature (...) both originating and, afterwards, mitigating the scepticism and scepticism in its turn both reinforcing and subsequently mitigating the naturalism in Hume's thinking. Their symbiotic relationship thus appears as the unifying element of the Humean philosophy. ;The first chapter addresses the problem of the unity of the three parts of Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature. Hume's references to nature and scepticism in his treatment of epistemological and moral problems are singled out and discriminated. ;The second chapter is devised as an interval in which the scholarly response to the problem of a unity to Hume's philosophy is examined in detail. What is typical of that response is a tendency to locate the unity in the scepticism or the naturalism of Hume's epistemological or moral conclusions. As a result of the examination of the views of leading scholars of Hume's thought, our findings can be set against a horizon within which his philosophy is traditionally interpreted. Focus then turns to the meaning and significance of scepticism and naturalism for ethics and epistemology in Hume's mature philosophy. The third chapter is devoted to An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and the fourth to An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. In these chapters the dissertation's definitive view of Hume's solution to the philosophical problems of knowledge and morality is shaped. The thesis is advanced and defended that a dynamic relation obtains between Hume's notion of nature and his scepticism. Finally, in the conclusion this view is weighed against the preliminary findings of the Treatise and contrasted with the leading traditions of scholarly interpretation of Hume's philosophy as a whole. (shrink)

This study examines Hume's attempt, in the Treatise and the Second Enquiry, to treat moral philosophy as a branch of the science of human nature. Hume's effect to naturalize moral philosophy includes more than a causal inquiry into the workings of the human mind. He takes moral practices to originate both in psychological sources and in social conventions . His naturalism thus includes a 'natural history' of morality; a causal inquiry into the likely origins of the complex social practices which (...) we call morality. He considers some moral practices--those which he calls 'artificial'--to be more dependent than others upon the development of social conventions; however, even the 'natural' elements of morality are inextricably bound up with social conventions. ;The artificial virtues require special explanation, since they embody forms of social cooperation that are not 'natural'. Yet Hume rejects the contract view: conventional regularites in behavior bound up with the artificial virtues could not have arisen from explicit promise alone. He also rejects the contractarian claim that there is a standpoint independent of our practices from which we can assess their rational acceptability. He would reject, on similar grounds, any utilitarianism on which the standard of utility provides a tool for social reform. ;Hume's natural history of morality, and the 'science of man' of which it is a part, are consistent with his scepticism because he is not a radical inductive sceptic. He accepts a 'mitigated scepticism' on which knowledge of nature is comprised of probable claims about experience. His mitigated scepticism might have led to an 'epistemology naturalized' analogous in important ways to moral philosophy naturalized. However, as a mitigated sceptic, Hume is prepared to treat inductive practices as revisable, whereas mitigated scepticism in morality leads him to view moral practices as too fragile to withstand revision. This view raises doubts about the capacity of moral philosophy naturalized to provide an adequate understanding of moral practices. (shrink)

In his note 'Paul Russell on Hume's "Reconciling Project"' {Mind, 1984, pp. 587-8) Professor Flew makes two criticisms of my note 'On the Naturalism of Hume's "Reconciling Project"' {Mind, 1983, pp. 593-600). They are: (1) that 'nowhere does Russell take note of the fact that Hume left us two treatments "Of Liberty and Necessity", two treatments which are at least in emphases andtone of presentation very different'; and (2) that I must be 'prepared to offer and to defend some alternative (...) reading' of the first three paragraphs of the first Enquiry discussion 'Of Liberty and Necessity' where Hume suggests that 'the wholecontroversy has hitherto turned merely upon words' {EHU, p. 81—my emphasis: this and later page references are to the Selby-Bigge editions). As regards the first criticism, I refer the reader to my second footnote where I do in fact, quite explicitly, note that Hume left us two treatments 'Of Liberty and Necessity'. In this footnote I point out that my description of Hume's arguments as compattbtltst arguments 'accords somewhat more with the "reconciling" spirit of the Enquiry than with that of the Treatise where Hume tends to identify liberty with liberty of indifference' (p. 593). Obviously in any discussion note there is limited space, and therefore I could not discuss at length complexities which were not of immediate relevance to my alternative interpretation. However, contrary to what Flew claims, I do mention that there are two treatments and that they differ in emphases and tone. (shrink)

By the time of his death in 2006, Sir Peter Strawson was regarded as one of the world's most distinguished philosophers. Unavailable for many years,_ Scepticism and Naturalism_ is a profound reflection on two classic philosophical problems by a philosopher at the pinnacle of his career. Based on his acclaimed Woodbridge lectures delivered at Columbia University in 1983, Strawson begins with a discussion of scepticism, which he defines as questioning the adequacy of our grounds for holding various beliefs. He then (...) draws deftly on Hume and Wittgenstein to argue that we must distinguish between 'hard', scientific naturalism; or 'soft', humanistic naturalism. In the remaining chapters the author takes up several issues in which sceptical doubts play an important role, in particular the nature of transcendental arguments and including the objectivity of moral philosophy, the mental and the physical, and the existence of abstract entities. _Scepticism and Naturalism_ is essential reading for those seeking an introduction to the work of one of the twentieth century’s most important and original philosophers. This reissue includes a substantial new foreword by Quassim Cassam and a fascinating intellectual autobiography by Strawson, which together form an excellent introduction to his life and work. (shrink)

By the time of his death in 2006, Sir Peter Strawson was regarded as one of the world's most distinguished philosophers. Unavailable for many years,_ Scepticism and Naturalism_ is a profound reflection on two classic philosophical problems by a philosopher at the pinnacle of his career. Based on his acclaimed Woodbridge lectures delivered at Columbia University in 1983, Strawson begins with a discussion of scepticism, which he defines as questioning the adequacy of our grounds for holding various beliefs. He then (...) draws deftly on Hume and Wittgenstein to argue that we must distinguish between 'hard', scientific naturalism; or 'soft', humanistic naturalism. In the remaining chapters the author takes up several issues in which sceptical doubts play an important role, in particular the nature of transcendental arguments and including the objectivity of moral philosophy, the mental and the physical, and the existence of abstract entities. _Scepticism and Naturalism_ is essential reading for those seeking an introduction to the work of one of the twentieth century’s most important and original philosophers. This reissue includes a substantial new foreword by Quassim Cassam and a fascinating intellectual autobiography by Strawson, which together form an excellent introduction to his life and work. (shrink)

First published in 1987. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

THE OBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO SHOW THAT SCEPTICISM IS NOT ALWAYS USED TO CHALLENGE BELIEFS: IT IS SOMETIMES USED TO "FOSTER" CERTAIN BELIEFS. GLANVILL’S SCEPTICISM REGARDING OUR KNOWLEDGE OF NATURAL CAUSES IS BASED ON THE WEAKNESS AND LIMITATIONS OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. BUT THIS ALLOWS HIM TO ARGUE FOR THE EQUAL POSSIBILITY OF BOTH NATURAL AND NON-NATURAL CAUSES, AND THUS OPENS THE DOOR TO BELIEF IN THE SUPERNATURAL. HUME, HOWEVER, WHOSE SCEPTICISM IS ALSO BASED ON THE LIMITATIONS OF THE (...) UNDERSTANDING, REJECTS ANY EXPLANATION WHICH IS OVER AND ABOVE OUR UNDERSTANDING, THAT IS, EXPLANATIONS IN TERMS OF NON-NATURAL CAUSES. (shrink)