Affiliation:
1. School of Philosophy , University College Dublin, Dublin , Ireland
Abstract
AbstractHsueh M. Qu has recently argued that Hume’s famed ‘Separability Principle’ from the Treatise entangles him in a contradiction. Qu offers a modified principle as a solution but also argues that the mature Hume would not have needed to avail himself of it, given that Hume’s arguments in the first Enquiry do not depend on this principle in any form. To the contrary, I show that arguments in the first Enquiry depend on this principle, but I agree with Qu that Qu’s solution to Hume’s quandary frees him of the contradiction. Next, I compare Qu’s solution to Hume’s original position. By analysing the divergent forms of 'Hume’s Dictum’ that follow from them, I show that Qu’s solution and Hume’s original position have significantly different consequences in a range of domains, including Hume’s modality. Generally, Qu’s solution fits better with Hume’s other commitments—even though Hume often fails to recognize it—thereby increasing its plausibility.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference15 articles.
1. Hume, Distinctions of Reason, and Differential Resemblance;Baxter;Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,2011
2. Cognition and Commibnent in Hume’s Philosophy
3. Some Counsel on Humean Relations;Hausman;Hume Studies,1975
4. Hume’s Absolute Necessity;Holden;Mind,2014