Although David Hume is no match for Immanuel Kant in terms of opaque writing, his overall philosophy is not without interpretive difficulties. Earlier this century, many philosophers read Hume as the precursor to logical positivism. Of course, the concluding words of his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding added fuel to these flames; but with the downfall of positivism, this reading of Hume has virtually disappeared. Today, interpretations of Hume fall into two main camps: the naturalistic camp and the sceptical camp. Roughly (...) speaking, naturalistic interpreters of Hume see him as attempting to employ the methods of the natural sciences in studying human subjects while sceptical interpreters read Hume as denying that we have any knowledge. In this article I want to shed some light on this controversy in an indirect way: namely, by trying to classify Hume’s epistemology as internalist or externalist. Although this internalism/externalism debate has erupted only recently in epistemology, it should be constructive in carving up the logical space of certain epistemological positions. With this background in place, we can not only see how to categorize Hume, but also discern some of the ramifications for Hume’s epistemology when he affirms theses that place him in these categories. To anticipate a bit, I will argue that the internalist aspects of Hume’s epistemology lend great credence to the sceptical interpretation. (shrink)

There is a controversy concerning whether to give Section 1.4.1 of Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature a skeptical or naturalistic reading. I divide the overall interpretation of this section into seven smaller interpretative theses, none of which alone determine either a skeptical or naturalistic reading, but which together better support what has been called the naturalistic interpretation.

At the beginning of his section “Of Miracles,” Hume mentions an argument of Dr. Tillotson. The doctrine of “the real presence” seems contradicted by our senses. We see a piece of bread, but are asked to believe it consists in the substance of the body of Christ.

How is it possible for David Hume to be both withering skeptic and constructive theorist? I recommend an answer like the Pyrrhonian answer to the question how it is possible to suspend all judgment yet engage in active daily life. Sextus Empiricus distinguishes two kinds of assent: one suspended across the board and one involved with daily living. The first is an act of will based on appreciation of reasons; the second is a causal effect of appearances. Hume makes the (...) same distinction, only he extends the sort of assent involved in daily life to theoretical matters as well. He is a skeptic both in finding no reason to grant the first sort of assent and in being subject to the second. (shrink)

This paper contends that the first argument of Hume's "Of scepticism with regard to reason" entails that humans have no knowledge as Hume understands knowledge. In defending this claim, we also see how Hume's argument anticipates an important aspect of an extremely influential 20th century development: the collapse of the analytic/synthetic distinction.

In A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume presents an argument according to which all knowledge reduces to probability, and all probability reduces to nothing. Many have criticized this argument, while others find nothing wrong with it. In this paper we explain that the argument is invalid as it stands, but for different reasons than have been hitherto acknowledged. Once the argument is repaired, it becomes clear that there is indeed something that reduces to nothing, but it is something other (...) than what, according to many, Hume had in mind. Thus two views emerge of what exactly it is that reduces. We surmise that Hume failed to distinguish the two, because he lacked the formal means to differentiate between a rendering of his argument that is in accordance with the probability calculus, and one that is not. (shrink)

Louis Loeb has argued that Hume is pessimistic while Peirce is optimistic about the attainment of fully stable beliefs. In contrast, we argue that Hume was optimistic about such attainment but only if the scope of philosophical investigation is limited to first-order explanatory questions. Further, we argue that Peirce, after reformulating the pragmatic maxim to accommodate the reality of counterfactuals, was pessimistic about such attainment. Finally, we articulate and respond to Peirce's objection that Hume's skeptical arguments in T 1.4.1 and (...) his commitment to common sense indicate that Hume was confused about whether we could have stable beliefs at all. (shrink)