, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 441–454 | Cite as

Meaning(fullness) Without Metaphysics: Another Look at Hume’s “Meaning Empiricism”

  • William Edward MorrisEmail author


Although Hume has no developed semantic theory, in the heyday of analytic philosophy he was criticized for his “meaning empiricism,” which supposedly committed him to a private world of ideas, led him to champion a genetic account of meaning instead of an analytic one, and confused “impressions” with “perceptions of an objective realm.” But another look at Hume’s “meaning empiricism” reveals that his criterion for cognitive content, the cornerstone both of his resolutely anti-metaphysical stance and his naturalistic “science of human nature,” provides the basis for a successful response to his critics. Central to his program for reforming philosophy, Hume’s use of the criterion has two distinct aspects: a critical or negative aspect, which assesses the content of the central notions of metaphysical theories to demonstrate their unintelligibility; and a constructive or positive aspect, which accurately determines the cognitive content of terms and ideas.


Hume Meaning empiricism Bennett Cognitive content Abstract ideas Intelligibility 


  1. Ardal, P. (1977). Convention and value. In G. P. Morice (Ed.), David Hume: bicentenary papers (pp. 51–68). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, J. (2000). Learning from six philosophers. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, J. (2001). Empiricism about meanings. In P. Millican (Ed.), Reading Hume on human understanding (pp. 97–106). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  4. Broughton, J. (1992). What does the scientist of man observe. Human Studies, 18(2), 155–168.Google Scholar
  5. Greig, J. Y. T. (Ed.) (1932). The letters of David Hume. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  6. Hume, D. (1975). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  7. Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature. Edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  8. Mackie, J. L. (1980). Hume’s moral theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyIllinois Wesleyan UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations