Skip to main content

The Philosopher’s Reaction to the Vulgar: Imagined Causes Revisited

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Imagined Causes: Hume's Conception of Objects

Part of the book series: The New Synthese Historical Library ((SYNL,volume 71))

  • 541 Accesses

Abstract

In Part II of this book, we saw that Hume thinks that we always imagine ideas of objects that admit of perfect identity—by way of transcendental causation. However, while explaining the “philosopher’s” position in 1.4.2, Hume claims that we only imagine causes in reaction to the vulgar, where we do not employ transcendental causation. In this chapter, we examine the philosophical position in detail. In Sect. 1, I explain why vulgar perspective II falls apart—at the hands of the philosophers. In Sect. 2, I explain why the philosophers think that it is reasonable to think that mind-independent objects exist. In Sect. 3, I explain why Hume thought the philosophers were mistaken.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Recall that Hume’s entire four-part system concerns the imagined properties of invariability and uninterruptedness. However, why Hume makes the move back to the imagined properties of continuity and distinctness is never explained by Hume.

  2. 2.

    The formal version of the reductio that the philosophers appear to be employing here may be simply understood as: If p ⊢~p, then ⊢~p.

References

  • Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature (2nd ed.), (L.A. Selby-Bigge ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press; abbreviated as SBN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (2002). A treatise of human nature (D. F Norton & M. J. Norton ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press; abbreviated as T.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. K. (1941). The philosophy of David Hume; a critical study of its origins and central doctrines. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, B. (1977). Hume. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rocknak, S. (2013). The Philosopher’s Reaction to the Vulgar: Imagined Causes Revisited. In: Imagined Causes: Hume's Conception of Objects. The New Synthese Historical Library, vol 71. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2187-6_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics