Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:18:47.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Locke vs. Hume: Who Is the Better Concept-Empiricist?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Ruth Weintraub
Ruth Weintraub
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the received view, Hume is a much more rigorous and consistent concept-empiricist than Locke. Hume is supposed to have taken as a starting point Locke's meaning-empiricism, and worked out its full radical implications. Locke, by way of contrast, cowered from drawing his theory's strange consequences. The received view about Locke's and Hume's concept-empiricism is mistaken, I shall argue. Hume may be more uncompromising (although he too falters), but he is not more rigorous than Locke. It is not because of (intellectual) timidity that Locke does not draw Hume's conclusions from his empiricism. It is, rather, because of his much sounder method.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , Summer 2007 , pp. 481 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaron, R. I. A. 1971 John Locke. 3rd ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, P. 1977 “Boyle and Locke on Primary and Secondary Qualities.” In Locke on Human Understanding. Edited by Tipton, I. C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, P. 1980 “Locke on Substance-in-General: Part 1.” Ratio, 22: 91–105.Google Scholar
Alexander, P. 1985 Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ayers, M. R. 1991 Locke. Vol. 1. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Basson, A. H. 1958 Hume. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. L., and Rosenberg, A. 1981 Hume and the Problem of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1971 Locke, Berkeley, Hume. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1998 “Substratum.” In Locke. Edited by Chappell, V.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 2001 Learning from Six Philosophers. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. 1985 Philosophical Works of Descartes. Translated by Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dicker, G. 1998 Hume's Epistemology and Metaphysics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ducasse, C. J. 1966 “Critique of Hume's Conception of Causality.” Journal of Philosophy, 63: 141–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flage, D. E. 1990 David Hume's Theory of Mind. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flage, D. E. 1991 “Relative Ideas and Notions.” In Minds, Ideas, and Objects. Edited by Cummins, P. D. and Zoeller, G.. Atascadero, CA: Ridge-view.Google Scholar
Flew, A. 1986 David Hume: Philosopher of Moral Science. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Garrett, D. 1997 Cognition and Commitment in Hume's Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. 1917 Locke's Theory of Knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hausman, A. 1975 “Some Counsel on Humean Relations.” Hume Studies, 1: 48–65.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1975 Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Selby-Bigge, L. A.. 3rd ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1978 A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by Selby-Bigge, L. A.. 2nd ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1990 Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Smith, Norman Kemp. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. 1996 New Essays on Human Understanding. Translated and edited by Remnant, P. and Bennett, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 1975 An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Nidditch, P. H.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, M. 1964 “Locke's Realism.” In Philosophy, Science and Sense Perception. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, E. 1994 “Locke's Philosophy of Body.” In The Cambridge Companion to Locke. Edited by Chappell, V.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O'Connor, D. J. 1952 John Locke. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Passmore, J. 1952 Hume's Intentions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, T. 1846 An Inquiry into the Human Mind. In The Works of Thomas Reid. Edited by SirHamilton, William. 5th ed.Edinburgh: McLachlan and Stewart.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1961 History of Western Philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Smith, Norman Kemp 1949 The Philosophy of David Hume. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Strawson, G. 1989 The Secret Connexion: Causation, Realism, and David Hume. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Waxman, W. 1994 Hume's Theory of Consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yolton, J. A. 1980 “Hume's Ideas.” Hume Studies, 6: 1–25.Google Scholar