Anscombe and “Hume and Julius Caesar”

Metaphilosophy 45 (4-5):668-674 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article analyzes Elizabeth Anscombe's short piece “Hume and Julius Caesar” from the standpoint of traditional foundationalist epistemic criteria, and concludes that while Anscombe may be right about finding a mistake in Hume, she has also failed to fill in her own arguments in the way that her overall aim requires. Special allusion is made to the work of J. L. Austin, especially insofar as that work has to do with reformulating sentences so that they appear to meet foundationalist criteria

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Hume and Julius Caesar.G. E. M. Anscombe - 1973 - Analysis 34 (1):1 - 7.
From Parmenides to Wittgenstein.Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe - 1981 - Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Julius Caesar and Basic Law V.Richard G. Heck - 2005 - Dialectica 59 (2):161–178.
Anscombe on justifying claims to know one's bodily position.Tommy L. Lott - 1989 - Philosophical Investigations 12 (October):293-307.
Foundationalism.Daniel Howard-Snyder - 2012 - In Andrew Cullison (ed.), The Continuum Companion to Epistemology. Continuum. pp. 37.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-10-09

Downloads
28 (#569,795)

6 months
6 (#520,934)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Sense and Sensibilia.John Langshaw Austin - 1962 - Oxford University Press. Edited by G. Warnock.
A Treatise of Human Nature.David Hume & A. D. Lindsay - 1958 - Philosophical Quarterly 8 (33):379-380.
From Parmenides to Wittgenstein.Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe - 1981 - Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Add more references