Hume's Disavowal of the Treatise
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9328044 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Phillip D Cummins (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1973 |
| Volume | 82 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 371-371 |
| Publication date | 1973-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Philosophical Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0031-8108 • E-ISSN: 1558-1470 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2183902 |
| OpenAlex | W2313382649 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
IN A recent issue of this journal,' J. 0. Nelson defended what seems to be an original explanation of why Hume in 1775 publicly disowned his Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), but not his Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (1748).2 According to Nelson, Hume was careful to exclude from the latter the metaphysical theorizing he had come to see as blight on the former and to preserve in the latter what he took to be the fundamental psychological and epistemological insights of the former. This account, if true, makes it obvious why Hume insisted that the Treatise had been superseded by the Enquiry. Nelson fails to establish his case. He does not succeed in discrediting the widely held view that Hume's reasons for disavowing the Treatise were primarily literary. Moreover, Nelson's explanation is both philosophically unsound and historically suspect. Finally, his attempt to show that the two works differ on those points on which they must differ for his explanation to be correct seems forced and misleading. The chief argument employed against the literary explanation is based on the letter to his publisher which accompanied Hume's draft of the advertisement in which he disowned the Treatise. In it Hume states that the advertisement is a compleat Answer to Dr. Reid and to that bigotted silly Fellow, Beattie.3 Reid and Beattie had argued that the Treatise contains many erroneous and dangerous doctrines. Both attacked it as big with skepticism and metaphysical absurdities.4 Noting this, Nelson argues
Art · Contemporary philosophy · Epistemology · Literature · Psychoanalysis · Historical and Literary Studies · Philosophy · Psychology
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,2 |
| Citation span | 2006 - 2026 (21) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |