Advertisement

Can We Know Whether Scepticism Is Right or Wrong? Reid’s Criticism and Hume’s Answer

  • Claire Etchegaray
Chapter
Part of the International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées book series (ARCH, volume 210)

Abstract

In this article, our aim is to evaluate the relevance of Reid’s critique of scepticism and the defence of Hume’s arguments. As it was often noted, arguing that natural beliefs are not suppressed by philosophical distrust is not sufficient to refute scepticism. Conversely it is not enough to denounce that this distrust stems from the attack of the reason against itself, because this is a contradiction of the reason, not a contradiction of the scepticism. Therefore we might suspect that we cannot know if scepticism is right or wrong. This is the core of Cavell’s attack against scepticism and refutation of scepticism. Notwithstanding, we shall show that Reid’s strategy is not to demonstrate that scepticism is wrong, but only to suggest to the sceptic that he himself acknowledges the evidence that he claims to reject. Reid’s argumentation is altogether an exhortation and admonition. As for Hume, he develops a sceptical theory of understanding which is neither idealist neither realistic, and consequently accounts for our feeling of the presence of reality. We shall point out how it can resists to Reid’s consistent argument. In the conclusion we shall address Cavell’s problem in arguing that Hume and Reid offers helpful means to understand how we can acknowledge the presence of things, although we cannot know their existence, from an epistemological point of view.

Keywords

Sceptical Theory Practical Life Providentialist Evolutionism Epistemological Point Epistemic Circularity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Alston, William. 1985. Thomas Reid on epistemic principles. History of Philosophy Quarterly 2(4): 435–449.Google Scholar
  2. Bary, Philip de. 2002. Thomas Reid and scepticism. His reliabilist response. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Cavell, Stanley. 1969. Must we mean what we say? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dauer, F. Watanabe. 1999. Force and vivacity in the Treatise and the Enquiry. Hume Studies 25: 83–99.Google Scholar
  5. Garrett, Don. 1995. Cognition and commitment in Hume’s philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Helm, Paul. 2004. Reid and ‘Reformed’ epistemology. In Thomas Reid. Context, influence, significance, ed. J. Houston. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hume, David. 1932. The letters of David Hume, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hume, David. 2000. In An Enquiry concerning human understanding, 3rd ed, ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hume, David. 2004. A treatise of human nature. David F. Norton and Mary J. Norton, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (also: L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch, eds., Oxford: Clarendon Press, Second Edition, 1978).Google Scholar
  10. Jaffro, Laurent. 2010. La rétorsion du sens commun et la possibilité du scepticisme. Contre Reid. In Comment peut-on être sceptique ? Hommage à Didier Deleule, dir. M. Cohen-Halimi et H. L’Heuillet, 93–116. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
  11. Jaffro, Laurent. 2011. Le sceptique humien est-il modéré ? Le rôle du pyrrhonisme dans la genèse causale du scepticisme mitigé. Daimon. Rivista Internacional de Filosofia 52: 53–69.Google Scholar
  12. Laugier, Sandra. 2010. Ce que le scepticisme veut dire. Revue de métaphysique et de morale 1: 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marcile-Lacoste, Louise. 1982. Claude Buffier and Thomas Reid. Two common-sense philosophers. Kingston-Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Millican, Peter. 2002. The context, aim, and structure of Hume’s first Enquiry. In Reading Hume on human understanding, ed. P. Millican. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  15. Millican, Peter. 2004. Hume’s Compleat Answer to Dr. Reid online:http://www.davidhume.org/papers/millican.html.
  16. Norton, David F. 1994. How a sceptic may live scepticism. In Faith, scepticism and personal identity, ed. J.J. Macintosh and H.A. Meynell, 119–139. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
  17. Perelman, Chaïm. 1977. L’empire rhétorique. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  18. Perelman, Chaïm. 1985. Self-refutation. A formal analysis. In Logic and knowledge, ed. J.L. Mackie and P. Mackie, 54–67. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  19. Reid, Thomas. 1997. An inquiry into the human mind on the principles of common sense. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Reid, Thomas. 2002. Essays on the intellectual powers of man. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rysiew, Patrick. 2003. Reid and epistemic naturalism. In The philosophy of Thomas Reid. A collection of essays, ed. John Haldane and Stephen Read. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Schulthess, Daniel. 1983. Philosophie et sens commun chez Thomas Reid (1710–1796). Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  23. Somerville, James. 1995. The enigmatic parting shot. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  24. Strawson, Galen. 2002. David Hume: Object and power. In Reading Hume on human understanding, ed. Peter Millican. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  25. Winters, Barbara. 1981. Hume’s argument for the superiority of natural instinct. Dialogue 20: 635–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1961. Notebooks 1914–1916. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1987. Hume and Reid. The Monist 70: 398–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2001. Thomas Reid and the story of epistmeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wood, Paul. 1986. David Hume on Thomas Reid’s Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense: A new letter to Hugh Blair from July 1762. Mind 95(380): 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversité de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense (Paris 10)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations