A lo largo de este libro se ofrece una interpretación novedosa y sugerente del pensamiento de David Hume y del Quijote, leído y citado por aquél, siendo una obra muy influyente en la Inglaterra de su tiempo. El autor pretende mostrar que la influencia del Quijote en el pensamiento de Hume es posible, probable y plausible, para lo cual ofrece diversos argumentos. Desarrolla su interpretación mostrando que un fragmento extraído del Quijote es indispensable para la postulación del criterio del gusto (...) en la teoría estética de Hume. Asimismo, muestra cómo a partir de los elementos de la Ciencia de la naturaleza humana y en especial del concepto de imaginación es posible realizar una interpretación coherente del Quijote, en donde se sugiere que la relación entre Cervantes y Hume va más allá del ámbito de la estética. (shrink)

The paper claims that Hume ’s philosophy contains an ontology, i.e. an abstract exhaustive classification of what there is. It is argued that Hume believes in the existence of a mind-independent world, and that he has a classification of mind-related entities that contains four top genera: perception, faculty, principle and relation. His ontology is meant to be in conformity with his philosophy of language and epistemology, and vice versa. Therefore, crucial to Hume ’s ontology of mind-independent entities is his notion (...) of ‘supposing relative ideas ’. Entities that are referred to by means of ordinary ideas can be truly classified, whereas entities that are referred to by means of relative ideas can only be hinted at. When Hume ’s ontology is highlighted and systematised, his notion ‘the faculty of imagination’ becomes highly problematic. However, the exposition also makes it clear that Hume deserves the honorary title: the first cognitive scientist. (shrink)

In the “Appendix” to the Treatise, Hume claims that he has discovered a “very considerable” mistake in his earlier discussion of the self. Hume's expression of the problem is notoriously opaque, leading to a vast scholarly debate as to exactly what problem he identified in his earlier account of the self. I propose a new solution to this interpretive puzzle. I argue that a tension generated by Hume's conceptual skepticism about real “principles of union” and his account of fictions of (...) the imagination is the defect identified in the “Appendix.”. (shrink)