Skip to main content

Hume and Philosophical Analysis

  • Richard Wasserstrom (a1)

In his article entitled “Moore and Philosophical Analysis”, Professor Morris Lazerowitz selects Hume's analysis of causality as an example of the way in which philosophers have in the past misleadingly stated what they were trying to do. Professor Lazerowitz asserts at least three things of Hume's analysis. (1)Since Hume insisted that there was no impression of necessary connection, it follows that Hume could not have been examining sequences of events. (2)Therefore, Hume must have been doing something else; namely, misleadingly calling attention to the fact that it always makes literal sense to say of any two supposedly causal events that they are only accidentally connected. Hume, in other words, deprived causal verbs of their use “by linguistic fiat” so that he could more pointedly illustrate the likeness between causal and accidental-occurrence statements.

Hide All

page 151 note 1 Lazerowitz Morris, “Moore and Philosophical Analysis”, Philosophy, XXXIII, No. 126 (July 1960).

page 152 note 1 Morris Lazerowitz, “Moore and Philosophical Analysis”, etc., p. 217.

page 152 note 2 Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Part III, Sec. XIV. Cf. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sec. VII, Part II.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 0031-8191
  • EISSN: 1469-817X
  • URL: /core/journals/philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 4 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 63 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.