The ability of adolescents to access safe and effective new products for HIV prevention and treatment is optimised by adolescent licensure at the same time these products are approved and marketed for adults. Many adolescent product development programmes for HIV prevention or treatment products may proceed simultaneously with adult phase III development programmes. Appropriately implemented, this strategy is not expected to delay licensure as information regarding product efficacy can often be extrapolated from adults to adolescents, and pharmacokinetic properties of drugs (...) in adolescents are expected to be similar to those in adults. Finally, adolescents enrolled in therapeutic HIV prevention and treatment research can be considered adults, based on US Food and Drug Administration regulations and the appropriate application of state law. The FDA permits local jurisdictions to apply state and local HIV/sexually transmitted infection minor treatment laws so that adolescents who are HIV-positive or at risk of contracting HIV may be enrolled in therapeutic or prevention trials without obtaining parental permission. (shrink)

Despite appeals to Hume in debates over moralism in art criticism, we lack an adequate account of Hume’s moralist aesthetics, as presented in “Of the Standard of Taste.” I illuminate that aesthetics by pursuing a problem, the moral prejudice dilemma, that arises from a tension between the “freedom from prejudice” Hume requires of aesthetic judges and what he says about the relevance of moral considerations to art evaluation. I disarm the dilemma by investigating the taxonomy of prejudices (...) by which Hume justifies the true judge’s moralism. The result distinguishes Hume’s aesthetic and moral points of view while defending aesthetic moralism. (shrink)

I introduce a distinction between two divergent trends in the literature on Hume and practical reason. One trend, action-theoretic Humeanism, primarily concerns itself with defending a general account of reasons for acting. The other trend, virtue-theoretic Humeanism, concentrates on defending the case for being an agent of a particular practical character, one whose enduring dispositions of practical thought are virtuous. I discuss work exemplifying these two trends and warn against decoupling thought about Hume's and a Humean theory of (...) practical reason from Hume's and a Humean ethics. I conclude that the virtue-theoretic approach is a fruitful one for pursuing future work on Hume and Humeanism about practical reason. (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: References Further Reading.

Is it possible for someone to be a sceptic on their own deathbed? Such behaviour would be a paradox for philosophers and a scandal for common sense. Attacks came first from philosophers, mainly Beattie, which proved to be popular. But there was no change in Hume's mood. He was still joking with Adam Smith a few days before his death and died in a lucid and serene state of mind. After his death, it was proved by the friends of (...) religion that it was impossible to be both a sceptic and an honest man. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:130. LA NOTION DE CIRCONSTANCE DANS LAS PHILOSOPHIE DE HUME Hume fait un usage irrégulier, mais presque toujours remarquable de la notion de circonstance. Certes, la notion n'est pas nouvelle. Mais, d'une part, notre auteur la transpose de l'ordre de la loi morale ou civile qui, normative, a toujours à connaître les circonstances réelles au moment de son application, à l'ordre de la causalité naturelle qui règle (...) les opérations du monde et les actions des hommes. D'autre part, Hume étend de façon considérable l'emploi du mot, tirant avantage du caractère irréductiblement vague de sa signification. La circonstance qui, selon le sens commun, est ce qui s'ajoute de façon contingente à la loi, désignera, par extensions successives, l'articulation des plans de causalité, la détermination par laquelle la cause opère, la mesure de la nécessité rapportée à l'expérience passée, enfin les liaisons de l'esprit. Et, quoiqu'elle ne soit jamais elle-même l'objet d'une réflexion propre, la notion eh vient à exprimer la double exigence méthodique de la spécification et de la généralisation, la nature critique du jugement scientifique, la conséquence sceptiques de la science de la nature humaine. C'est cette triple valeur méthodique, critique et sceptique, que nous nous proposons de ressaisir, à la lumière d'une étude qui prend pour base l'analyse des occurences expresses du terme. Sans prétendre avoir procédé à un recueil strictement exhaustif, nous voudrions faire la preuve qce la notion de circonstance apparaît à tous les moments décisifs de l'analyse humienne de la connaissance. I. Le sens dont il faut partir est le sens le plus commun. La circonstance est tout élément, trait ou détail qui, de façon contingente, entoure ou 131. s'ajoute à un événement, à un caractère ou à la production d'un effet (T447; E90; 95,- 128...). Opposée à la nécessité (T476), elle est liée à une situation (T409; 537), à une occurence (E55). Tantôt, elle reste à préciser (T287: in certain circumstances; T539: in some circustances opposé à in all circumstances); tantôt, elle est distinguée par son caractère extraordinatire (T21). Ici, on marque l'identité des circonstances (E85); là, on insiste sur leur diversité (T563). Hume rend parfaitement ce premier sens, qui appartient à l'usage, lorsqu'il s'attache à définir le rôle de l'histoire. L'histoire a pour fonction de montrer au philosophe combien la nature humaine est constante. Its chief use is only to discover the contant and universal principle of human nature, by showing men in all varieties of circumstances and situations... (E83). Les circonstances font la trame menue et adventice de l'histoire, sur laquelle s'impriment les lois de la nature humaine. En dépit de leur variété et de leur écoulement irréductible, elles témoignent de la constance des principes et vérifient les effets du système causal que la science de l'homme se propose de dégager. Si, par elles-mêmes, elles peuvent retenir l'intérêt de l'annaliste, qui écrit l'histoire selon l'ordre de la succession et qui prend plaisir au détail des événements, elles sont négligées par le philosophe qui forme des raisonnements de causalité. Cependant, il convient d'observer que la circonstance ne se confond pas avec l'accident. Ce dernier, absorbé par sa contingence, est voué à l'oubli. Au contraire, la circonstance mérite d'être remarquée, car elle se rapporte toujours à une loi dont elle accompagne l'application. Bien plus, loin d'être une matière passive sur le fond de laquelle les principes de causalité viendraient inscrire leurs 132. effets, elle engendre elle-même un effet propre (T143; 151); elle est elle-même la source, d'une causalité qui porte sur l'opération des lois auxquelles elle s'ajoute. Elle est le principe· d' une effectivité qui, pour être seconde, n'en est pas moins déterminante. Cette influence peut prendre des formes diverses. Dans un cas... (shrink)

A student guide that covers the full range of Hume's major works and ideas, including detailed examination of his influential contributions to epistemology and metaphysics.

We typically think of resentment as an unjustifiable and volatile emotion, responsible for fostering the worst political divisions. Recognizing Resentment argues instead that sympathy with the resentment of victims of injustice is vital for upholding justice in liberal societies, as it entails recognition of the equal moral and political status of those with whom we sympathize. Sympathizing with the resentment of others makes us alive to injustice in a way no rational recognition of wrongs alone can, and it motivates us (...) to demand justice on others' behalves. This book rehabilitates arguments for the moral and political worth of resentment developed by three influential thinkers in the early liberal tradition - Joseph Butler, David Hume, and Adam Smith - and uses these to advance a theory of spectatorial resentment, discussing why we should be indignant about the injustice others face, and how such a shared sentiment can actually bring liberal citizens closer together. (shrink)

De l'élimination des causes finales par la mathématisation de la physique à l'hypothèse de Kant-Laplace sur la formation du système solaire, puis au développement des sciences de la vie qui déterminent un nouveau champ de rationalité, le thème de la création au 18ème siècle est particulièrement apte à manifester l'évolution des rapports entre sciences, philosophie et métaphysique, jusqu'à son progressif effacement dans des philosophies aussi différentes que celles de Diderot, Hume et Kant.

La volonté prend sa source dans la raison et elle compose avec elle pour donner l'acte libre. Elle n'est ni la raison, ni sans la raison. Elle s'en distingue en tant que faculté affective, capacité d'aimer. Comme la raison, elle est capable de dominer sur les passions. Mais elle doit le faire avec tact, par une répétition patiente que l'on appelle vertu. Rousseau, Hume, Schopenhauer et Nietzsche ont écrit l'histoire moderne du détachement de la volonté par rapport à la (...) raison. Ils ont fait de la volonté une passion, sinon un instinct. Cette aventure débouche sur une crise de l'affectivité, caractérisée par l'irrationalisme. La position très équilibrée de Thomas d'Aquin permet de mieux comprendre la nature spirituelle de la volonté et d'éclairer les enjeux des ruptures produites par les philosophes modernes. (shrink)

This collection of thirteen essays and editor’s introduction is part of a “Re-reading the Canon” series that includes already published volumes of feminist interpretation of philosophers ranging from Plato and Aristotle to de Beauvoir and Derrida. The essays in this volume on David Hume cover the breadth of his work and aim to engage it with the concerns and challenges characteristic of feminist scholarship. No doubt many of us would welcome an essay collection of uniformly high quality to provide (...) feminist perspectives on Hume and the philosophical questions he addresses; such would be useful, for example, to supplement standard reading in courses on Hume or early modern philosophy. Although I hesitate to recommend the volume as a whole in such a capacity, a number of the essays warrant the attention of scholars and students of Hume’s writing. (shrink)

Professor Russell’s book is a nice and rewarding book, well written, philosophically and historically instructive. It provides the reader with new and refreshing insights into Hume’s Treatise, some of which are quite illuminating. The main argument is as follows: How can we escape the skepticism/naturalism divide into which most commentaries get trapped? This riddle, this impossible conciliation, has become the test for any new book on the Treatise. But it might be the effect of not considering the true intention (...) of Hume’s book. It is a fact, if we carefully study the reactions to the book which followed after its publication, that the earliest critics believed that there was a close connection between Hume’s skepticism and his more or less secret atheistic intentions..... -/- ..... At first, the reader is a little startled by the novelty of the thesis. But Russell’s erudition is monumental. And there is great coherence in his study. If you disagree on something, you have to match his scrupulous inquiry and discuss his point in detail. See, for instance, his discussion about the authorship of the Specimen (Russell suggests that Wishart did not write it but Andrew Baxter, an eminent follower of Clarke). There is something from Hercule Poirot in Russell’s practice. Russell is able very artfully to pick up indices, even the smallest, to give them importance and significance, to link them together, to reconstruct the whole story by addition and composition. The result is impressive. (shrink)

Y a-t-il une seule et unique morale dont on puisse se prévaloir aujourd'hui? Les réflexions philosophiques sur la morale se sont toujours combattues, remplacées, démenties au fil du temps, tout en étant chacune valable. Le stoïcisme, la morale de la vertu, le recours à la loi morale, l'utilitarisme sont autant de courants qui irriguent encore notre façon de penser. Mais laquelle de ces "visions" choisir? Et pourquoi choisir celle-là plutôt qu'une autre? Michel Meyer opère ici un retournement de la pensée (...) traditionnelle sur l'éthique. C'est parce que l'homme est un problème pour l'homme qu'il y a des réponses qu'on appelle la morale. Michel Meyer ne part plus des sujets éthiques (Moi, l'Autre) comme référents moraux, mais de la distance, plus ou moins grande, entre les individus. C'est la variation de cette distance qui influence nos choix quant au bien et au mal, à ce que l'on recherche ou à ce que l'on veut fuir ou éviter, et qui fera qu'on sera tantôt stoïcien, tantôt utilitariste ou kantien. Le positionnement des sujets les uns par rapport aux autres conduit à agir de telle ou telle manière, donc à adopter tel ou tel type de conduite morale et à juger ce qui est bien ou mal de façon différente. Le problème moral, c'est l'Autre comme problème, auquel il convient de répondre selon la distance qui nous sépare, nous divise ou nous rapproche, et auquel on répond toujours d'ailleurs, parce qu'il constitue une menace, un appel à l'aide, ou encore la nécessité de coopérer. Sans chercher à édicter de nouvelles règles ou de nouveaux préceptes, Michel Meyer replace les grandes théories morales, comme celles d'Aristote, de Kant, de Mill ou encore de Hume, dans un espace philosophique virtuel qui est leur espace de validité. Avec le concept de distance entre les êtres, il nous offre ainsi une approche nouvelle et synthétique de la morale. (shrink)

Comment procede la science? Comment se constitue-t-elle et comment progresse-t-elle? Telles sont les questions fondamentales que traite l'auteur dans cet ouvrage qui est original tant par ses aspects historiques que par ses analyses thematiques. Pour la premiere fois dans les pays de langue francaise, l'interpretation neo-positiviste de la science est etudiee en detail au travers de ses representants contemporains : Carnap, Hempel, Popper. L'auteur remonte aux racines kantiennes du neo-positivisme. En se situant au-dela du logicisme reducteur et du psychologisme irrationaliste, (...) Decouverte et justification en science s'attache a mettre en evidence l'activite questionnante du processus de recherche scientifique, et a demontrer le mecanisme logique qui engendre les decouvertes. A cote de la logique traditionnelle qui est celle de la justification, il existe une autre logique, irreductible au calcul mathematique, qui est la metaphorisation. Celle-ci, en tant qu'elle est la demarche de tout esprit createur de resultats, se differencie des processus de recherche tels qu'ils ont ete analyses jusqu'ici : les conceptions de Popper et de Kuhn, ainsi que la theorie de l'induction de Hume, de l'abduction de Peirce, de la retroduction de Hanson, sans oublier l'associationnisme et l'intuitionnisme chers aux psychologistes, font l'objet d'un examen approfondi. L'auteur envisage egalement le langage de la science en termes de questionnement. Le savant, comme tout locuteur, parle de ce qui fait question pour lui, meme si le probleme pose dont il est question dans son discours demeure implicite a titre de presuppose. Les theories de Frege, de Russell et de Wittgenstein sur la formalisation des langages se trouvent integrees dans une vision unitaire de l'activite discursive, pour laquelle le contexte d'interrogation et de reponse situe toute intelligibilite possible. (shrink)

The Humean Mind aims to be the most comprehensive anthology available on Hume’s thought with essays spanning the full scope of Hume’s philosophy, as well as placing Hume in his own time and tracing his impact on the field from the 18th century up until today. Our goal is to represent the Humean mind’s place in the philosophical tradition and in contemporary philosophy. It covers all of the major topics on Hume, showcases the latest trends in (...) Hume scholarship, and reflects how current research continues to take inspiration from Hume. (shrink)

After his mental crisis in 1826 J. S. Mill set out to revise Benthamite Utilitarianism. The nature of that revision and its relation to Mill's mature philosophy is central to Mill scholarship. This study suggests that in order to understand the development of Mill's thought it is necessary to understand the central role he assigned to sympathy. ;Benthamism, to Mill, was based upon the assumptions that mankind was predominately motivated by self-interest, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number (...) would be achieved by an artificial identity of interests. During his crisis Mill discovered that enlightened self-interest and an education based upon associationist psychology could not provide an abiding link between an individual's happiness and the happiness of others. The possibility of establishing such a bond, Mill came to believe, lay in each individual's capacity to sympathize with others. Mill's recovery from his crisis was sparked by the discovery of his ability to identify sympathetically with others and by his recognition of the possibility of nurturing the capacity for sympathy. This dissertation argues that these experiences became the foundation for Mill's revision of Benthamism and the core of his moral and social philosophy. Analysis of Mill's early essays , newspaper articles and letters establishes the extent of Mill's belief in the necessity of developing sympathy, and his insistence that sympathy be incorporated into Utilitarianism. ;Mill's appeal to sympathy is best understood in its intellectual context. This work interprets Mill's emphasis on sympathy within the context of the discourse on the relation of sympathy and self-interest to social morality articulated in the moral philosophies of Adam Smith and David Hume, the Romantic poetics of Wordsworth, Coleridge and Shelley, the moral philosophies of the critics of Benthamism and the social criticism of the Saint-Simonians. ;The role of sympathy in Mill's thought has yet to be fully examined. While this dissertation focusses on Mill's revision of Benthamism, sympathy is also a major theme in his mature moral and social philosophy. This study further suggests the need for re-examining Victorian liberalism in the light of the central role of sympathy. (shrink)

What can I Know? introduces and assesses what many consider to be the most important of all Kant’s great questions, set out in his Critique of Pure Reason , and one of the most important in philosophy itself: what are the bounds of knowledge? Michelle Grier begins with a helpful survey of the question prior to Kant, in particular the arguments of the rationalists Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz and the empiricists, above all Hume. She describes, in a clear (...) and engaging style, how Kant attempted to find a middle path between the two and what led to the famous "Copernican turn" in his philosophy. She explains the fundamental theories at the heart of Kant’s epistemology: the distinction between appearances and ‘things in themselves’; the transcendental unity of apperception; and Kant’s arguments concerning space and time. In the second part of the book, Grier introduces the main criticisms of Kant’s philosophy, including those of Hegel and Nietzsche. The final part situates Kant’s epistemology in the context of contemporary philosophical debates including those in cognitive science. These include a priori knowledge, correspondence versus coherentist theories of knowledge, ‘naturalized’ epistemology and perception. Including helpful chapter summaries and guides to further reading, What Can I Know? Is an outstanding introduction to Kant's epistemology and the legacy of Kant's question itself. (shrink)

Comme le suggère Jean-Pierre Dupuy dans son introduction générale, la recherche des cinquante dernières années a peut-être fait voler en éclats le concept d’une rationalité purement instrumentale qui n’aurait rien à voir avec le choix des fins. C’est la nature de l’interaction entre la dimension épistémique et les contraintes formelles du choix rationnel qui interdirait une séparation bien tranchée entre les moyens et les fins telle qu’on la trouve chez Hume ou Weber. Ainsi, nous dit Dupuy, «il n’est pas (...) de définition de l’adéquation des moyens aux fins qui n’engage toute une conception de la rationalité des fins elles-mêmes». Dans son essai qui ouvre le recueil et la section sur les paradoxes de la rationalité, Dupuy défend le raisonnement évidentialiste pour les problèmes de Newcomb avec cause commune contre ceux qui y trouvent l’octroi d’un pouvoir indu sur le passé. Pour ce faire, il met à l’œuvre une distinction entre deux types de temporalité, le temps de l’histoire et le temps du projet. Le premier type de temporalité est fixe et fermé par rapport à l’action libre. Mais ce qu’il appelle le temps du projet permet de penser une forme de «pouvoir contrefactuel sur le passé», un concept qu’il emprunte à Alvin Plantinga. Cette approche lui permet de formuler une position intermédiaire éclectique dans le débat principal qui oppose Michael Bratman et David Gauthier. (shrink)

RésuméDe l'delimination des causes finales par la mathématisation de la physique à l'hypothèse de Kant‐Laplace sur la formation du système solaire, puis au développement des sciences de la vie qui déterminent un nouveau champ de rationalité, le théme de la création au 18ème siècle est parti‐culièrement apte a manifester l'évolution des rapports entre sciences, philosophie et métaphysique, jusqu'à son progressif effacement dans des philosophies aussi differentes que celles de Diderot, Hume et Kant.

This study advances the claim that Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which drew its inspiration and guidelines from Cicero's De Natura Deorum, fulfills four basic elements of Michel Meyer's theory of problematology. In doing so, it is argued, the Dialogues contribute importantly to our understanding of the question-answer pair, and to the notion of rhetoric as a way of knowing.

Brian C. Ribeiro’s _Sextus, Montaigne, Hume: Pyrrhonizers_ invites us to view the Pyrrhonist tradition as involving all those who share a commitment to the activity of Pyrrhonizing and develops fresh, provocative readings of Sextus, Montaigne, and Hume as radical Pyrrhonizing skeptics.

Oxford Philosophical Texts Series Editor: John Cottingham The Oxford Philosophical Texts series consists of authoritative teaching editions of canonical texts in the history of philosophy from the ancient world down to modern times. Each volume provides a clear, well laid out text together with a comprehensive introduction by a leading specialist, giving the student detailed critical guidance on the intellectual context of the work and the structure and philosophical importance of the main arguments. Endnotes are supplied which provide further commentary (...) on the arguments and explain unfamiliar references and terminology, and a full bibliography and index are also included. The series aims to build up a definitive corpus of key texts in the Western philosophical tradition, which will form a reliable and enduring resource for students and teachers alike. David Hume's aim in writing An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding was to introduce his philosophy to a European culture in which many educated people read original works of philosophy. He gives an elegant and accessible presentation of strikingly original and challenging views about the limited powers of human understanding, the attractions of scepticism, the compatibility of free will and determinism, and weaknesses in the foundations of religion. Hume's philosophy was highly controversial in the eighteenth century and remains so today. The text printed in this edition is that of the Clarendon critical edition of Hume's works. A substantial introduction by the editor explains the intellectual background to the work and surveys its main themes. The volume also includes detailed explanatory notes on the text, a glossary of terms, a full list of references, and a section of supplementary readings. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Michel de Montaigne: Accidental PhilosopherZahi ZallouaMichel de Montaigne: Accidental Philosopher, by Ann Hartle ; 303 pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. $60.00.Ann Hartle's new book is arguably the clearest and most compelling interpretation of Montaigne as a genuine philosopher since Hugo Friedrich's masterful Montaigne (1949). Her study is indeed an emphatic response to Friedrich's call to read Montaigne philosophically. Hartle derives her almost oxymoronic title from Montaigne's own (...) self-description as "a new figure: an unpremeditated and accidental philosopher." Taking Montaigne's moment of self-discovery à la lettre, Hartle systematically proceeds to elucidate the full meaning of Montaigne's observation. What emerges from her reading is a radical thinker who breaks with ancient philosophy and medieval theology. Her Montaigne, however, does not disavow the past but ultimately enriches it, building upon prior models. In this respect, the essayist practices the Renaissance art of imitation—creative imitation that repeats but also alters its exemplary model in a move to rival it. While Hartle exhibits an outstanding knowledge of the history of philosophy—from Plato to Heidegger, passing through Machiavelli, Hume, and Rousseau—her book is not itself a historical study nor a work in the history of ideas: she insists that her interpretation is conceptual rather than historical.What is accidental philosophy? It is foremost a non-authoritative, thoroughly human philosophy, one which takes as a sine qua non the recognition of the world's contingency—an awareness that things might have been radically different. Accidental philosophy thus represents nothing short of a displacement and transformation of reason, a calling into question of its traditional sovereign and divine-like status. (One thinks here of Aristotle's notion of the active intellect [nous poetikos], which he considers to be divine in man in Book X of the Nicomachean Ethics.) Rejecting the belief in an autonomous reason, Montaigne renders problematic the possibility of "deliberative philosophy" (accidental philosophy's counterpart): "the exercise of reason as rule within the soul, a place and function that reason claims for itself on the basis of its superiority with the hierarchy of nature." In his critique of reason—most eloquently displayed in the "Apology for Raymond Sebond," chapter 12 of [End Page 441] Book II of the Essays—Montaigne might be seen as proto-postmodernist, occupying a similar position as Nietzsche in a history of counter-Enlightenment thought. But such an interpretation, argues Hartle, is on the whole inaccurate, given Montaigne's commitment to truth.As would be expected in a book about Montaigne's philosophy, skepticism plays a major role in Hartle's positive assessment of the essayist. Skepticism has traditionally been interpreted in Montaigne scholarship either as a stage in the evolution of the essayist's thought, or as an expression of his fideism. The evolutionary reading was first championed by Pierre Villey in Les Sources et l'évolution des "Essais" de Montaigne (1933), in which he argued that Montaigne's thought evolved through three stages: Stoicism, Skepticism, and Naturalism (or Epicureanism). This now unpopular view was nevertheless recently reaffirmed by David Quint in his well-received Montaigne and the Quality of Mercy (1998). The essayist's fideism, on the other hand, is more readily accepted in Montaigne circles. It is commonly accepted that Montaigne's skepticism functions in a way that undermines reason's authority while leaving room for faith in religious matters. Hartle's understanding of Montaigne's skepticism differs in a major way from both of these accounts. She asks: "Does skepticism provide us with a complete and adequate understanding of Montaigne's philosophical activity?" Hartle offers a seemingly definitive answer: "Montaigne is not a skeptic" (p. 15). Yet, she makes her response more nuanced in several passage of her study, arguing again not for a clean break with ancient skep-ticism but with a profound transformation of this dominant philosophical school.What we have, then, is a "skeptical moment" rather than a full-fledged skeptical suspension of judgment. And it is in this moment that an openness to the possible—such as the discovery of the strange in the familiar—is made manifest. Hartle rightly points to Montaigne's discovery of his own... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Hume and Hume’s Connexions ed. by M. A. Stewart, John P. WrightIra SingerM. A. Stewart and John P. Wright, eds. Hume and Hume’s Connexions. University Park, PA: Penn State Press, 1995. Pp. xvi + 266. Cloth, $40.00. Paper, $18.95.This collection is organized around the theme of Hume’s connections with his philosophical predecessors, contemporaries, and successors.In a historical prelude, Roger Emerson meticulously describes the (...) factions that supported and opposed Hume’s efforts to gain a professorship. Emerson attributes Hume’s failure not only to the charges of impiety leveled against him, but also to the intricate workings of a political patronage system.Four essays about moral theory follow. James Moore attacks the conventional view that Hume’s moral theory is deeply similar to Hutcheson’s. In fact, Moore argues, surface similarities here mask systematic disagreements about justice, self-interest, teleology, theology, reason’s role within a sentimentalist framework, and about whether morality is, fundamentally, justified approbation for benevolence (Hutcheson) or sympathy’s merely natural tendency to generate feelings of approbation (Hume). These differences make sense, Moore notes, in light of Hutcheson’s debts to Stoicism, and Hume’s debts to Epicureanism. Stephen Darwall argues that, by parting company with Hutcheson on one crucial point, Hume opens up a logical space for Bentham’s Utilitarianism. Hutcheson explains the goodness of natural [End Page 141] goods, such as happiness, in terms of our distinctively moral approval of benevolence: happiness is good because a benevolent person wills general happiness. Hume instead explains our moral approval of qualities of character in terms of natural goods and the psychological mechanism of sympathy: a benevolent person receives moral approval because she produces happiness for herself and others, including sympathetic spectators. Darwall claims that Hume thus foreshadows Bentham’s efforts to set our moral judgments on an uncontroversial nonmoral foundation. Pauline C. Westerman discusses the relation between Hume and the natural lawyers. Hume shares some of their characteristic concerns, such as accounting for the origin of private property, and employs some of their terminology. Still, Westerman argues, while Grotius and Pufendorff wanted to justify morality, Hume wants only to explain it. Finally, John P. Wright invokes Butler’s account of habit to illuminate Hume’s notion of a calm passion. Butler argues that, as a habit develops, repetition weakens feelings while strengthening the tendency to act: distress will seldom shock someone habituated into generosity, who will reliably act to relieve that distress. Citing this psychological dynamic, Wright argues, helps to explain what a calm passion is, and how it can prevail over a violent passion.Two essays concern philosophy of mind and epistemology. P. B. Wood uses Thomas Kuhn’s concept of texts that are “exemplars” for working scientists to illuminate the “science of mind” as Hume and Reid practiced it. David Owen puts “inductive skepticism” into historical context, arguing that in that context, Hume appears as neither the victim nor the opponent of deductivism about rationality. Instead, Hume’s focus is Locke’s account of probable reasoning, according to which such reasoning involves a chain of associated ideas (not a formal structure of propositions). Hume’s argument is that our causal thinking proceeds differently than Locke requires, because in it we do not follow an unbroken series of associated perceptions, but rather leap over the gap between our impressions up to now and the general causal idea.The book’s centerpiece is a fragmentary Hume manuscript, discovered in 1993, about the problem of evil. The manuscript appears in both facsimile and transcription. In introducing the manuscript, M. A. Stewart argues plausibly that it is one of the “nobler parts” that Hume cut from the Treatise to avoid offending Bishop Butler.Four essays discuss philosophy of religion. Reflecting on miracles, Stewart traces a tradition of critically examining religious testimony back to the Port-Royal Logic and to Locke; moreover, Stewart emphasizes that Hume’s method in “Of Miracles” is similar to his method in debunking the Ossian poems. Michel Malherbe, taking as his point of departure those remarks by “Pamphilus” that preface the Dialogues, and reviewing in detail Shaftesbury’s pronouncements about the art of philosophical dialogue, discusses... (shrink)

Annette Baier's aim is to make sense of David Hume's Treatise as a whole. Hume's family motto, which appears on his bookplate, was True to the End. Baier argues that it is not until the end of the Treatise that we get his full story about truth and falsehood, reason and folly. By the end, we can see the cause to which Hume has been true throughout the work. Baier finds Hume's Treatise of Human Nature to (...) be a carefully crafted literary and philosophical work which itself displays a philosophical progress of sentiments. His starting place is an overly abstract intellectualism that deliberately thrusts passions and social concerns into the background. In the three interrelated books of the Treatise, his self-understander proceeds through partial successes and dramatic failures to emerge with new-found optimism, expecting that the exact knowledge the morally self-conscious anatomist of human nature can acquire will itself improve and correct our vision of morality. Baier describes how, by turning philosophy toward human nature instead of toward God and the universe, Hume initiated a new philosophy, a broader discipline of reflection that can embrace Charles Darwin and Michel Foucault as well as William James and Sigmund Freud. Hume belongs both to our present and to our past. (shrink)

In his writings on non-human animals, David Hume draws comparisons between non-human animals' cognitive capacities and the cognitive capacities of humans. That Hume draws such comparisons might seem to be evidence that Hume was influenced on this issue by epistemologically skeptical thinkers such as Sextus Empiricus, Michel de Montaigne, and Pierre Bayle. This is enticing, as Hume was influenced by them on other issues and they too make comparisons between human and non-human animal reasoning. Comparing (...) class='Hi'>Hume's arguments in the sections on animal reasoning to these skeptics' arguments shows that there is scant evidence for such an attribution of direct, positive influence on those arguments by these... (shrink)

This volume is a wonderful introduction to Foucault and a testimony to the deep humanity of the man himself.

Originally published: Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932.

"Next to Sartre's Search for a Method and in direct opposition to it, Foucault's work is the most noteworthy effort at a theory of history in the last 50 years." -- Library Journal.

Whether the prefrontal cortex is part of the neural substrates of consciousness is currently debated. Against prefrontal theories of consciousness, many have argued that neural activity in the prefrontal cortex does not correlate with consciousness but with subjective reports. We defend prefrontal theories of consciousness against this argument. We surmise that the requirement for reports is not a satisfying explanation of the difference in neural activity between conscious and unconscious trials, and that prefrontal theories of consciousness come out of this (...) debate unscathed. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

One of Hume's most well-known works and a masterpiece of philosophy, A Treatise of Human Nature is indubitably worth taking the time to read.

Brian Ribeiro’s slim volume presents a comparative study of three of the most important figures in the history of skepticism: Sextus Empiricus, Michel de Montaigne, and David Hume. Ribeiro’s rich text, like most of his work, is written in a colloquial, easy style that nearly masks the considerable erudition informing his thought. This text, in fact, gathers, synthesizes, and expands on the substantial work with which Ribeiro has been engaged for decades. Drawing from that precedent research, Ribeiro’s focus here (...) is the possible scope of skepticism, the implications of that scope for rationality, and the value skeptical philosophy promises. (Ribeiro makes clear that his objective is not to establish his reading as... (shrink)

One of Hume's most well-known works and a masterpiece of philosophy, A Treatise of Human Nature is indubitably worth taking the time to read.

In his influential article ‘Essence and Modality’, Fine proposes a definition of necessity in terms of the primitive essentialist notion ‘true in virtue of the nature of’. Fine’s proposal is suggestive, but it admits of different interpretations, leaving it unsettled what the precise formulation of an Essentialist definition of necessity should be. In this paper, four different versions of the definition are discussed: a singular, a plural reading, and an existential variant of Fine’s original suggestion and an alternative version proposed (...) by Correia which is not based on Fine’s primitive essentialist notion. The first main point of the paper is that the singular reading is untenable. The second that given plausible background assumptions, the remaining three definitions are extensionally equivalent. The third is that, this equivalence notwithstanding, Essentialists should adopt Correia’s version of the definition, since both the existential variant, which has de facto been adopted as the standard version of the definition in the literature, and the plural reading suffer from problems connected to Fine’s primitive essentialist notion. (shrink)

It is widely agreed that fiction is necessarily incomplete, but some recent work postulates the existence of universal fictions—stories according to which everything is true. Building such a story is supposedly straightforward: authors can either assert that everything is true in their story, define a complement function that does the assertoric work for them, or, most compellingly, write a story combining a contradiction with the principle of explosion. The case for universal fictions thus turns on the intuitive priority we assign (...) to the law of non-contradiction. My goal in this paper is to show that our critical and reflective literary practices set constraints on story-telling which preclude universal fictions. I will raise four stumbling blocks for universal fictionalists: the gap between saying and making true, our actual interpretive reactions to story-level contradictions, the criteria we accept for what counts as a story in our literary practices, and the undesirability of the universal fictionalist’s closure principles. (shrink)

The premise that every work belongs to an art-kind has recently inspired a kind-centred approach to theories of art. Kind-centred analyses posit that we should abandon the project of giving a general theory of art and focus instead on giving theories of the arts. The main difficulty, however, is to explain what makes a given kind an art-kind in the first place. Kind-centred theorists have passed this buck on to appreciative practices, but this move proves unsatisfactory. I argue that the (...) root of this dissatisfaction stems not from the act of kicking the can down the road, but from not kicking it far enough. The missing ingredient, I argue, is a notion of convention which does the work of marking the difference between art and non-art for a given physical medium. (shrink)