La crítica de Hume a las filosofías “antigua” y “moderna” y su respuesta metodológica

Manuel l Vásquez Villavicencio

doi:10.62876/lr.vi50.8093

Authors

Manuel l Vásquez Villavicencio Universidad McMaster https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6758-7371

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62876/lr.vi50.8093

Keywords:

Hume, empiricism, unintelligibility, philosophical methodology, modern philosophy, ancient philosophy

Abstract

This article discusses Hume’s critique of “ancient” and “modern” philosophies, as well as the way in which he attempts to overcome the problems raised by these approaches to philosophy. The text is divided into three parts. The first addresses the fictions of ancient philosophy as Hume presents them in T 1.4.3. The second reconstructs Hume’s view of the principles of modern philosophy as he introduces them in T 1.4.4. Finally, the third examines the methodological approach that Hume presents in the Introduction to the Treatise.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Manuel l Vásquez Villavicencio, Universidad McMaster

Department of Philosophy, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

References

Ainslie, Donald C. Hume’s True Scepticism. (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2015). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593866.001.0001

Baxter, Donald. “Hume on Substance: A Critique of Locke.” In Locke and Leibniz on Substance, edited by Paul Lodge and Tom Stoneham, 45–62. (New York: Routledge, 2015).

Cottrell, Jonathan. “Hume on Fiction: Space, Time, Number, and the Mind.” (PhD diss., New York University, 2012).

Cottrell, Jonathan. “A Puzzle About Fictions in the Treatise.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 54, no. 1 (2016): 47–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2016.0023

Daston, Lorraine. “The Empire of Observation, 1600–1800.” In Histories of Scientific Observation, edited by Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck, 81–114. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226136790.001.0001

Dear, Peter. “The Meanings of Experience.” In The Cambridge History of Science: Early Modern Science, edited by Katharine Park, David C. Lindberg and Lorraine Daston, 106–131. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

Demeter, Tamás. “Hume’s Experimental Method.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20, no. 3 (2012): 577–599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2012.670842

Feijoo, Benito Jerónimo. Theatro Critico Universal: O Discursos Varios En Todo Género De Materias, Para Desengaño De Errores Comunes. Tomo Segundo. (Madrid: Herederos de Francisco del Hierro, 1728).

Garrett, Don. Hume. (New York: Routledge, 2015). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203118351

Hume, David. Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary. Edited by Tom L. Beauchamp and Mark A. Box. 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00280224

Hume, David, and Tom L. Beauchamp. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: A Critical Edition. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006).

Hume, David, David Fate Norton, and Mary J. Norton. A Treatise of Human Nature: A Critical Edition. 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007).

Kail, P. J. E. “Is Hume a Realist or an Anti-Realist?”. In A Companion to Hume, edited by Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, 425–456. (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub., 2013).

Loeb, Louis E. Stability and Justification in Hume’s “Treatise.” (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0195146581.001.0001

Newton, Isaac, and Gabrielle Emilie Le Tonnelier de Breteuil Du Châtelet. Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle. 2 vols. Vol. 2. (Sceaux: J. Gabay, 1990).

Norton, David Fate. David Hume, Common-Sense Moralist, Sceptical Metaphysician. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982).

Noxon, James. Hume’s Philosophical Development: A Study of His Methods. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975).

Passmore, John. Hume’s Intentions. (London: Duckworth, 1952).

Perinetti, Dario. “Moral Pluralism and the Historical Point of View: Reading ‘a Dialogue’.” In Reading Hume on the Principles of Morals, edited by Jacqueline Anne Taylor. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2020).

Perinetti, Dario. “Ways to Certainty.” In The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy, edited by Aaron Garrett, 265–293. (New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014).

Qu, Hsueh. “Prescription Description and Hume's Experimental Method.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 24, no. 2 (2016): 279–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2015.1134438

Radcliffe, Elizabeth Schmidt. Hume, Passion, and Action. (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199573295.001.0001

Smith, Norman Kemp. The Philosophy of David Hume: A Critical Study of Its Origins and Central Doctrines. (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1949).

Stroud, Barry. “Naturalism and Skepticism in the Philosophy of Hume.” In The Oxford Handbook of Hume, edited by Paul Russell, 21–31. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

Taylor, Jacqueline Anne. Reflecting Subjects: Passion, Sympathy, and Society in Hume’s Philosophy. (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Traiger, Saul. “Experience and Testimony in Hume’s Philosophy.” Episteme 7, no. 1 (2010): 42–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/E174236000900080X

Vásquez Villavicencio, Manuel. “A Virtuous Way of Doing Philosophy: The Moderation of Curiosity and Hume’s Philosophical Method in ‘a Treatise of Human Nature’.” Hume Studies 49, no. 2 (2024): 231–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2024.a944570

Waxman, Wayne. “Hume’s Theory of Ideas.” In The Oxford Handbook of Hume, edited by Paul Russell, 141–157. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

Winkler, Kenneth. “Hume and the Sensible Qualities.” In Primary and Secondary Qualities: The Historical and Ongoing Debate, edited by Lawrence Nolan, 239–273. (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556151.003.0011

Winkler, Kenneth. “Hume’s Skeptical Logic of Induction.” In The Oxford Handbook of Hume, edited by Paul Russell, 191–227. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199742844.013.37