There is an essential tension in Hume's account of explanation in the moral sciences. He holds the familiar (though problematic) view that explanations of action are causal explanations backed by the laws of human nature. But he also tenders a rational and historical model of explanation which has been neglected in Hume studies. Developed primarily in the Essays and put into practice in the History of England, this model holds that explanations in the moral sciences cite agents? reasons for acting (...) in definite historical situations. Such explanations are context?dependent, social (not psychological) in content, essentially post hoc, and provide insufficient grounds for prediction. The tension between Hume's two models is considerable, not to say inconsistent. We would best understand him as trying to reconcile the two. Each provides different and equally important kinds of intelligibility. Until this is appreciated, the one?sided interpretation of Hume as a psychological reductionist and a covering?law theorist will continue. (shrink)

Are philosophers of history—or, are some philosophers of history—sufficiently interested in questions of the details of historical research? This is intended as a real as well as a rhetorical question. I may simply have failed to find discussions that are available; but in the material I have been able to consider there is little treatment of matters of preliminary detail, and this seems to me a neglect that needs to be remedied.

Following Schleiermacher, who was unable to account for several oddities in the dialogue, some scholars consider the Hipparchus a spurious Platonic work. This essay, by means of a dramatic re-enactment of the dialogue, accounts for those oddities. It demonstrates that the comrade is a recent immigrant to Athens who, having been deceived by a moneychanger in the agora, accuses ‘lovers of gain’ of being ‘profiteers’. Socrates exposes the comrade as fearful of risk-taking and then defends the reputation of Hipparchus, the (...) Athenian King who encouraged commercial development. By further correcting the democratic account of his assassination, Socrates exposes the comrade’s envy, which hides his own profiteering ambitions. The discussion points to a series of dualities regarding commerce and philosophy, including both the generating and non-generating qualities of the philosophic life. It also reveals the rural origins of Socrates’ ‘new’ accusers, and the notion of justice held by them. (shrink)