Type distinctions of reason and Hume's Separability Principle

被引:3
作者
Qu, Hsueh [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Univ Singapore, Dept Philosophy, 3 Arts Link,Block AS3,05-22, Singapore 117570, Singapore
关键词
Hume; Concepts; Properties; Resemblance; Nominalism;
D O I
10.1080/09608788.2019.1591937
中图分类号
B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ;
摘要
Commentators have taken the distinctions of reason to pose either a counterexample to or a limitation of scope on the Separability Principle. This has been convincingly addressed by various accounts. However, I argue in this paper that there are two notions of 'distinction of reason', one between particular instantiations (token distinctions of reason) and one between general ideas (type distinctions of reason). Discussion of the distinctions of reason in the secondary literature has without fail focused on token distinctions of reason, but I will argue that type distinctions of reason prove problematic for Hume's Separability Principle. I find a way around this problem that is consonant with Hume's account of general ideas, but which can hardly be said to be an account which he explicitly or even implicitly endorsed.
引用
收藏
页码:90 / 111
页数:22
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   Hume, Distinctions of Reason, and Differential Resemblance [J].
Baxter, Donald L. M. .
PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2011, 82 (01) :156-182
[2]  
Brand Walter., 1992, Hume's Theory of Moral Judgment: A Study in the Unity of A Treatise of Human Nature
[3]  
Bricke John., 1980, HUMES PHILOS MIND
[4]   HUSSERLS CRITIQUE OF HUMES NOTION OF DISTINCTIONS OF REASON [J].
BUTTS, RE .
PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 1959, 20 (02) :213-221
[5]  
Cummins PhillipD., 1991, HUME STUD, VXVII, P61
[6]  
Cummins Robert., 1996, Hume Studies, V22, P49
[7]  
Garrett D., 2015, HUME
[8]  
Garrett Don., 1997, Cognition and Commitment in Hume's Philosophy
[9]   A Third Type of Distinction in the Treatise [J].
Hakkarainen, Jani .
HUME STUDIES, 2012, 38 (01) :55-78
[10]   HUME ON THE DISTINCTION OF REASON [J].
Hoffman, Paul .
BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, 2011, 19 (06) :1131-1141