Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:14:07.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hume’s Causal Reconstruction of the Perceptual Relativity Argument in Treatise 1.4.4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Annemarie Butler
Annemarie Butler*
Affiliation:
Iowa State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

ABSTRACT: In Treatise 1.4.4, on behalf of modern philosophers, Hume described a causal argument that shows that our impressions of secondary qualities do not resemble qualities of objects themselves. However, in their respective arguments, Hume’s philosophical predecessors did not argue causally, but appealed to contrary qualities. I argue that Hume’s presentation was not simply a “gratuitous” stylistic difference, but an important correction of his predecessors in light of his own philosophical discoveries.

RÉSUMÉ : Dans le Traité 1.4.4, Hume a présenté au nom des philosophes modernes un argument causal qui démontre que nos impressions des qualités secondaires ne ressemblent pas aux qualités des objets eux-mêmes. Les prédécesseurs de Hume n’ont pourtant pas employé d’argument causal, mais l’argument des qualités contraires. Je soutiens que la présentation qu’en a fait Hume n’est pas simplement à mettre au compte d’une différence stylistique «gratuite» mais est une correction importante dans la foulée de ses propres découvertes philosophiques.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 77 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2009

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bayle, Pierre 1991 “Zeno of Elea.” In Pierre Bayle: Historical and Critical Dictionary Selections. Translated and edited by Popkin, Richard H.. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, pp. 350-388.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George 1949a Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. In The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, vol. 2. Edited by Luce, A. A. and Jessop, T. E.. London: Nelson, pp. 163-263.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George 1949b A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. In The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, vol. 2. Edited by Luce, A. A. and Jessop, T. E.. London: Nelson, pp. 19-113.Google Scholar
Black, Tim 2007 “The Distinction between Coherence and Constancy in Hume’s Treatise I.iv.2.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 15, 1: 1-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bricke, John 1980 Hume’s Philosophy of Mind. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Annemarie Forthcoming “On Hume’s Supposed Rejection of Resemblance between Objects and Impressions.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Cummins, Phillip D. 1963 “Perceptual Relativity and Ideas in the Mind.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 24, 2: 202-214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, Rene 1985 The Principles of Philosophy. In The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. 1. Translated and edited by Cottingham, John, Stoothoff, Robert, and Murdoch, Dugald. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 179-291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galileo, 1989 Assayer. In The Scientific Background to Modern Philosophy. Edited by Matthews, Michael R.. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, pp. 56-61.Google Scholar
Garrett, Don 1997 Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Benjamin 2004 “ ‘Resemblance’ and Locke’s Primary-Secondary Quality Distinction.” Locke Studies, 4: 89-122.Google Scholar
Hume, David 1978 A Treatise of Human Nature. 2nd Edition. Edited by Selby-Bigge, L. A.. Revised by Nidditch, P. H. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David 2000 A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by Fate Norton, David and Norton, Mary J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacovides, Michael 1999 “Locke’s Resemblance Theses.” Philosophical Review, 108, 4: 461-496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John 1975 An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Nidditch, P. H.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Loeb, Louis E. 2002 Stability and Justification in Hume’s Treatise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, Edwin 1994 “Locke’s Philosophy of Body.” In The Cambridge Companion to Locke. Edited by Chappell, Vere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muehlmann, Robert 1991 “The Role of Perceptual Relativity in Berkeley’s Philosophy.” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 29, 3: 397-425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavković, Aleksandar 1985 “Hume’s Arguments from the Relativity of Sense-Perception.” International Philosophical Quarterly, 25, 3: 261-270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H. H. 1940 Hume’s Theory of the External World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stroud, Barry 1980 “Berkeley v. Locke on Primary Qualities.” Philosophy, 55, 212: 149-166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Kenneth P. 1989 Berkeley: An Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar