Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:52:51.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hume’s nominalism and the Copy Principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Ruth Weintraub
Ruth Weintraub*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv69978, Tel-Aviv, Israel
*
*Email: weintrar@post.tau.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I consider some ways in which the Copy Principle (CP) and Hume's nominalism impinge on one another, arguing for the following claims. First, Hume's argument against indeterminate ideas isn't cogent even if the CP is accepted. But this does not vindicate Locke: the imagistic conception of ideas, presupposed by the CP, will force Locke to accept something like Hume's view of the way general terms function, the availability of abstract ideas notwithstanding. Second, Hume's discussion of nominalism provides support for the “old Hume” interpretation, that which takes the CP to be a criterion of meaningfulness, as against the “new Hume” reading, according to which it constrains what we can know. Finally, nominalism forces Hume to adopt a more complicated theory of ideas.

Keywords

HumeLockenominalismCopy Principleseparability
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 42 , Issue S1: Hume in Alberta: Selected Papers from the 2012 Hume Conference in Calgary , February 2012 , pp. 45 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, M. 2007. “Sceptical Doubts Concerning Hume's Causal Realism.” In The New Hume Debate, edited by Read, R. and Richman, K. A. 2nd ed., 122–137. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1971. Locke, Berkeley, Hume. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berkeley, G. 1710. “Principles of Human Knowledge.” In The Works of George Berkeley, edited by Luce, A. A. and Jessop, T. E. Vol. II, 20–113. London: Nelson, 1948–1957.Google Scholar
Broughton, J. 2007. “Our Aim in All Our Studies.” In The New Hume Debate, edited by Read, R. and Richman, K. A. 2nd ed., 198–210. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flage, D. E. 2007. “Relative Ideas Re-Viewed.” In The New Hume Debate, edited by Read, R. and Richman, K. A. 2nd ed., 138–155. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fogelin, R. J. 1985. Hume's Scepticism in the Treatise of Human Nature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Garrett, D. 1997. Cognition and Commitment in Hume's Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grene, M. 1994. “The Objects of Hume's Treatise.” Hume Studies 20: 163–177.Google Scholar
Kail, P. 2007. Projection and Realism in Hume's Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John 1975. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Nidditch, P. H. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. 1976. Problems from Locke. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacNabb, D. G. C. 1951. David Hume. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Millican, P. 2007. “Against the New Hume.” In The New Hume Debate, edited by Read, R. and Richman, K. A. 2nd ed., 211–252. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Noonan, H. 1999. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Hume on Knowledge. London: Routldege.Google Scholar
Pappas, G. 1977. “Hume and Abstract General Terms.” Hume Studies 3: 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappas, G. 1989. “Abstract General Ideas in Hume.” Hume Studies 15: 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitcher, G. 1977. Berkeley. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Price, H. H. 1940. Hume's Theory of the External World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, G. 1989. The Secret Connexion: Causation, Realism, and David Hume. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, G. 2007. “David Hume: Objects and Power.” In The New Hume Debate, edited by Read, R. and Richman, K. A. 2nd ed., 31–51. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stroud, B. 2007. ““Gilding or Staining” the World with “Sentiments” and “phantasms”.” In The New Hume Debate, edited by Read, R. and Richman, K. A. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Warnock, G. J. 1953. Berkeley. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. D. 1998. “‘On Garrett's Hume’.” Hume Studies 24: 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. 2008. The External World and Our Knowledge of It: Hume's Critical Realism, an Exposition and a Defence. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, K. 1989. Berkeley: An Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Winkler, K. 2007. “The New Hume.” In The New Hume Debate, edited by Read, R. and Richman, K. A. 2nd ed., 52–87. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wright, J. P. 1983. The Sceptical Realism of David Hume. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Wright, J. P. 2007. “Hume's Causal Realism: Recovering a Traditional Interpretation.” In The New Hume Debate, edited by Read, R. and Richman, K. A. 2nd ed., 88–99. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar