[hist-analytic] Hume Is Where The Heart Is

Jlsperanza at aol.com Jlsperanza at aol.com
Tue Feb 9 15:12:01 EST 2010

In a message dated 2/9/2010 10:08:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rbj at rbjones.com writes:

They say  that Hume (even if that's were
> your heart is) is wrong: 'cause' is not  as Hume thought it wasn't.

So he was right?
(all he said after all,  was that causal connections are not necessary, and 
that he clearly(!)  meant, logically necessary)
I'm thinking of Gricean-type objections to the very idea of 'cause'. And  
that's pretty Humean of Grice, and rightly so, too!
He is considering utterances like:
  i. Decapitation was the _cause_ of Charles I's death.
as meaning, originally, or literally, or metaphysically, or  anti-Humeanly:
ii. Charles I's decapitation _willed_ his death.
While the phenomenalism (empiricist) thing concerned Hume, he was possibly  
thinking that 'cause' -- qua _term_ is misleading in that it infuses our 
talk  with an animistic ring to it, which is _NOT_ what a physicist is 
thinking when  he uses 'cause'. But then Heisenberg and his indeterminacy destroyed 
the last  hope?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20100209/3ef64e27/attachment.html>

More information about the hist-analytic mailing list