-
Studies in the Philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment (review)
- Journal of the History of Philosophy
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- Volume 30, Number 4, October 1992
- pp. 617-618
- 10.1353/hph.1992.0064
- Review
- Additional Information
- Purchase/rental options available:
~OOK REVtEWS 6X7 Pears demonstrates an unfailingly astute logical sensibility in his masterful exposition of Hume's theory; this is a first-rate work in every respect, and would be difficult to criticize on its own ground. One can raise certain questions, however, about some fundamental presuppositions at work in Pears's critique. Pears Sees in Hume's naturalism a solution to scepticism--so that Pears's Hume is not a sceptic at all. But one can ask whether Hume's naturalism and his scepticism are not in fact mutually implicated, given the polemical context of Hume's work. "Knowledge" in Hume's day carried with it the suggestion of a purely rational grounding, so that to place the foundations of science in human nature is already to give to science a "sceptical" basis. When Pears denies that Hume is a sceptic because we do find it natural to go on in such a way, with regard to causal inference, he accepts the criteriological turn which rests in part, historically, upon Hume's undercutting of purely rational foundations for the scientific enterprise--in other words, upon Hume's scepticism. KELLY MINI~ Marquette University M.A. Stewart, ed. Studies in the Philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment. Oxford Studies in the History of Philosophy, Volume a. Oxford: Oxford University Press, a99o. Pp. viii + 3~8. Cloth, NP. Although it might appear to be merely a collection of papers on Scottish thought and life during the eighteenth century--the period of the "Scottish Enlightenment"-which represent the peculiar scholarly interests of their authors, in fact this volume of nine essays and two book reviews is unified by a conception of the study of the history of philosophy shared by the volume's editor and most, if not all, of its contributors. This conception holds, contrary to a typical practice in the contemporary study of the history of philosophy, that insight into a philosopher's views requires more than a textual analysis of that individual's writings, namely, a recognition of "historical context " in a broad sense of the expression. The position is manifested in this volume in at least two ways: first, in the traditional manner of seeking to understand a philosopher's position by relating it to those of his or her predecessors or contemporaries, and, second, in the bolder attempt to trace the role of cultural, particularly academic institutional , factors in shaping philosophical writings. In this volume expressions of the first approach include Knud Haakonssen's paper on the connection of Hutcheson's moral philosophy with Pufendorf's thought; David Wootton's essay, which argues for the role of French sources, especially The Art of Thinking, in Hume's discussion of the credibility of testimony for miracles; and David Raynor's article, which contributes to the postPopkin debate on the influence of Berkeley on Hume by claiming not only that Hume was influenced by the Three Dialogues but, moreover, in the Treatise rejected one of its main arguments for immaterialism. Instances of the second approach include James Moore's essay, which seeks to account for differences, even seeming inconsistencies, in Hutcheson's writings by distinguishing Hutcheson the philosopher from Hutcheson the educator, and two different audiences for his works; P. B. Wood's article, with its emphasis on the effect of aca- 618 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 30:4 OCTOBER 1992 demic structure and organization on Aberdeen philosophers' competing views concerning the unity of moral and natural philosophy; and Michael Barfoot's essay, which discusses the nature of Hume's early scientific education and its impact on his discussion of space and time in the Treatise. It should be apparent from the essays mentioned that Hutcheson and Hume are the dominant figures in this volume. Five essays are directly concerned with their respective philosophies, and these thinkers, particularly the latter, are prefigured throughout the book. Somewhat surprisingly, the work of the third major figure in Scottish philosophy of the period, Thomas Reid, is not discussed explicitly at all. It is an understatement to say that without exception the papers in this volume are evidence of extensive scholarship and are carefully argued. In fact most seem to be at the...