DOCSLIB.ORG

Hume's Treatise and the Theory of Ideas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hume's Treatise and the Theory of Ideas HUME’S TREATISE AND THE THEORY OF IDEAS Emily Kelahan A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy. Chapel Hill 2011 Approved by: Alan Nelson (chair) Robert M. Adams C.D.C. Reeve Ram Neta Geoffrey Sayre-McCord © 2011 Emily Kelahan ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Emily Kelahan Hume’s Treatise and the Theory of Ideas (Under the direction of Alan Nelson) Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature has long been evaluated in terms of the skepticism-naturalism interpretive dichotomy. According to this interpretation, there are two distinct and often diametrically opposed Humes: a skeptic concerned to eradicate dubious metaphysical views and a naturalist concerned to develop a science of human nature. The skeptical Hume applies the theory of ideas developed in Book I of the Treatise to the phenomena he seeks to explain and nearly obliterates them. That leaves the science of human nature weak and without phenomena to explain in Books II and III. The naturalistic Hume, in contrast, is able to develop a robust science of human nature in Books II and III of the Treatise, but does so at the expense of completely abandoning the theory of ideas developed in Book I. In short, the familiar skepticism-naturalism interpretive dichotomy has it that Hume either successfully developed a science of human nature without the theory of ideas or else stubbornly held on to his theory of ideas at the cost of a robust science of human nature. This is a false dichotomy. There is one Hume, not two, who both adheres to the theory of ideas throughout the Treatise and develops a robust science of human nature. Hume accomplished much with little in his Treatise. Most importantly, he demolished extravagant metaphysical theories of various types and developed a robust science of human nature. Both feats were accomplished via his oft criticized, but little understood theory of iii ideas. Contrary to the prevailing opinion, the theory of ideas stands not in opposition to Hume’s naturalistic project of developing a science of human nature, but rather is the foundation of that very project. I develop and defend an interpretation of Hume’s theory of ideas according to which it succeeds in eradicating dubious metaphysical views, but also supports, rather than undermines his science of human nature. iv For my family, the very best parents, brother, and husband I could hope to have v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to all of the wonderful teachers, colleagues, friends, and family members who contributed so much to my development and well-being over the past six years at UNC and who made it possible for me to complete this dissertation. First, I would like to thank Alan Nelson, my tireless advisor and dissertation director, who beyond being brilliant was always extraordinarily patient and extremely generous with his time. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude. I am also grateful to the other members of my dissertation advisory committee: Bob Adams, David Reeve, Ram Neta, and Geoff Sayre- McCord. They were always willing to read my work and supplied a huge amount of valuable feedback. I have footnoted many of their specific contributions to my work throughout this dissertation, but I know I could not possibly have captured all of their suggestions, guidance, and encouragement. I feel incredibly fortunate to have teamed up with five such spectacular advisors. I would also like to express my gratitude to the entire UNC Department of Philosophy. Chapel Hill is truly the best community in which to do philosophy in the world. Thank you to all of my teachers. Thank you to Jan Boxill, who has always been an advocate for graduate students in the Department and University. Thank you to Susan Wolf, who, in addition to being a great boss, gave me valuable feedback on my work, tremendous support on the job market, and inspired me in moments of low confidence. Thank you to Ram Neta, who was an outstanding placement director and who, in that role, read many drafts of many documents that now compose large portions of this dissertation. I am also especially grateful vi to Matt Kotzen and Geoff Sayre-McCord for the fantastic job they did leading the Dissertation Completion Seminars. Without those seminars and their valuable feedback, I could not have completed this dissertation. Finally, I am grateful to Theresa Stone, Kelly Finn, and Jennie Dickson for their administrative support. In addition to the faculty at UNC, my fellow graduate students make it a fantastic place to do philosophy. They have shaped my philosophical and personal development in ways I never anticipated. I am proud to consider many of them very good friends. Thank you especially to my classmates: Jamin Asay, Katie Elliot, Emily Given, Adam Cureton, and Felipe De Brigard. From Proto-seminar to the job market, they have challenged and supported me. Thank you also to the extraordinary women in my graduate student work group: Katie Elliot, Emily Given, Clair Morrissey, Elanor Taylor, and Kristen Bell. Their feedback, perspectives, and friendship have been absolutely vital to my success. I owe a special debt of gratitude to the early modern crew: Seth Bordner, Patrick Connelly, Cathay Liu, and Matt Priselac. Finally, thank you to all of the “big kids” who made UNC such a welcoming environment: Elizabeth Foreman, Bryce Huebner, Justin Jeffrey, Dave Landy, Clair Morrissey, Eric Mandlebaum, Mark Phelan, Francisca Reines, Dylan Sabo, Piers Turner, Meg Wallace (who was also a great neighbor and workout buddy), and Anabella Zagura. My journey to this point begins and ends at the same place: Illinois Wesleyan University. I am extraordinarily grateful to the philosophy faculty there: Ted Morris, Charlotte Brown, Mark Criley, and Lenny Clapp. As an undergraduate student there, they introduced me to the wonderful world of philosophy, nurtured my talent, and encouraged me to go to graduate school in philosophy. Now that I have nearly completed my graduate vii education, I am thrilled to be joining the Illinois Wesleyan University philosophy faculty myself. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my absolutely wonderful family. My husband, Carlo Robustelli, who I first met in Caldwell Hall, has seen the good, the bad, and the ugly that has gone into completing this dissertation. He is the only person who has had to see me at my very worst, and he loves me anyway. Without his patience, encouragement, flexibility, and understanding, I would not have made it to this point. My entire life, my parents have shared heartily in my joy, frustration, righteous indignation, and satisfaction. They have been there in good times and in bad, glowing over my successes and blaming my failures on some injustice (occasionally real, but mostly imaginary). They gave me opportunities they did not have. They encouraged me to pursue my dreams and took the value of those dreams for granted. Everyone should have parents like mine. Finally, I am grateful to my brother, Matthew, who taught me to keep my head up. I have always turned to him during my lowest moments, and he has always made me feel like winning the next round. I am fortunate to have him in my corner. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION…………………..………………………………………………………....1 CHAPTER ONE: REINTERPRETING HUME’S THEORY OF IDEAS………………..…..4 Section 1.1: Some Preliminary Remarks……………………………………………...4 Section 1.2: The Skepticism-Naturalism Dichotomy………………………………....5 Section 1.3: A Devastating Objection to the Theory………………………………...11 Section 1.4: Hume’s Theory of Ideas Reconsidered………………………………....14 CHAPTER TWO: THE MISSING SHADE OF BLUE…………………………………..…36 Section 2.1: The Counterexample……………………………………………………37 Section 2.2: Six Versions of the Missing Shade of Blue…………………………….38 Section 2.3: An Interpretive Dilemma…………………………………………….....46 The Missing Shade of Blue Is Not a Simple Idea……………………………48 Assume That the Missing Shade of Blue Is a Simple Idea……………..……51 The “Hard” Version of the Case of the Missing Shade……………………...55 Section 2.4: The Status of the Copy Principle…………………………………..…...61 CHAPTER THREE: BELIEF IN BODY……………………………………………………63 Section 3.1: A Preliminary Sketch of Treatise 1.4.2………………………..……….64 Section 3.2: What is the Object of Hume’s Explanation in Treatise 1.4.2?................67 Concepts and Conceptual Skepticism………………………………..………70 Section 3.3: What Faculty Is Responsible for the Attributions?..................................73 Sensation……………………………………………………………..………75 ix Reason……………………………………………………………………..…76 The Vulgar and the Philosophical Belief in Body………………………..….78 Imagination and How It Produces Belief in Body………..……….………....87 Section 3.4: Justifying the System…………………………………………..……….94 An Enduring Objection…………………………………..…….………...…101 CHAPTER FOUR: PERSONAL IDENTITY……………………………………..……….105 Section 4.1: The Apparent Trouble with Hume’s Account………………………...106 Hume’s Confession…………………………………………………………110 Some Hypotheses…………………………………………………………...111 Section 4.2: The Five Theory-Centric Hypotheses…………………………………115 Section 4.3: Treatise 1.4.6 Reconsidered………………………………………..….125 An Alternative Explanation………………………………………………...130 CHAPTER FIVE: HUME’S CONCLUSION……………………….……...…………..….138 What Treatise 1.4.7 Has to Do with Treatise 1.4.6………………………...150 Final Thoughts……………………………………………………………...151 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………..…153 x LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration 1: Joe and Moe’s Mind…………………………………………………………119 xi INTRODUCTION The philosophy of David Hume, especially as it presents itself in his masterwork, A Treatise of Human Nature, is most often understood in terms of the longstanding skepticism- naturalism interpretive dichotomy.1 According to the skeptical interpretation, Hume is primarily a skeptical philosopher who developed and employed a version of the Theory of Ideas to eradicate dubious metaphysical views.2 This interpretation, the skeptical interpretation, has it that the Theory of Ideas leads directly and inevitably to skepticism, which undermines the project of developing a science of human nature.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "Why Adams Needs to Modify His Divine-Command Theory One More Time"
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Asbury Theological Seminary Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 11 Issue 1 Article 5 1-1-1994 "Why Adams Needs to Modify His Divine-Command Theory One More Time" Stephen J. Sullivan Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Sullivan, Stephen J. (1994) ""Why Adams Needs to Modify His Divine-Command Theory One More Time"," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 11 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol11/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. "WHY ADAMS NEEDS TO MODIFY HIS DIVINE­ COMMAND THEORY ONE MORE TIME"* Stephen J. Sullivan Robert Merrihew Adams has twice modified the divine-command theory of morality in interesting and plausible ways. The resulting theory says that rightness and wrongness consist respectively in agreement and disagreement with the commands of a loving God, and that a causallhistorical account of the reference of moral terms is correct. I argue, first, that Adams's theory must face up to the objection that it depicts morality-implausibly-as arbi­ trary; second, that the account of reference he accepts does not permit him to adopt either of two natural strategies for rebutting the objection; and finally, that this account does allow him recourse to a third, somewhat less natural strategy which requires modifying the theory one more time.
    [Show full text]
  • Perception Is Truth
    Perception is Truth... WHEN IT COMES TO LEASING AND SHOPPING REPORTS What is the truth? This age old question has some very deep implications that go way beyond the point of this training tip. Yet, the question reminds us that two people can experience the same incident and walk away with completely different perceptions of what actually happened. Sometimes, just like beauty, "truth” is in the eye of the beholder. It is a matter of perception. Shopping report information is a vivid example of the fact that perception is reality. Occasionally, an EPMS shopper remembers a specific leasing presentation somewhat differently than the on-site professional who was shopped and later evaluated in a written format. The shopper reports that the leasing consultant was a bit distracted and indifferent, not very friendly, or “didn’t seem interested in meeting my needs”. Yet, that individual’s supervisor cannot believe that this very friendly and warm staff member could ever come across in any way but delightful, enthusiastic and professional! “Everyone loves her!” the supervisor explains. Sometimes the gap between what the leasing professional believes about her presentation and what the shopper describes comes down to perception. Regardless of what really (or not really!) happened, the perception of the shopper – and that of the typical rental prospect – is the only “truth” that really matters! Leasing is all about perception, isn’t it? Fellow onsite associates may say, “He is the friendliest guy you’ll ever meet! We love him!” But if this “friendliest guy” is perceived as unfriendly, to that prospect he is unfriendly! “You know, Sara is really nice once you get to know her!” This may be “true”; but the reality is the prospect is unlikely to spend enough time “getting to know” Sara to override their initial impression.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil
    The Problem of Evil PHIL6305 New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary Defend Conference January 2-6, 2017 Office: Dodd 112, extension #3245 [email protected] Assistant: Katy Platt [email protected] Seminary Mission Statement The mission of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is to equip leaders to fulfill the Great Commission and the Great Commandments through the local church and its ministries. Course Description The course introduces students to contemporary philosophical issues related to the Christian concept of God and the problem of evil. Issues addressed include the nature of evil, the cause of evil, the intelligibility and coherence of the Christian concept of God in light of evil, solutions offered by various world religions to the problem of evil, as well as representative solutions offered by a selection of contemporary philosophers addressing the topic of evil. The thrust of the course will focus upon personal reading, research, and writing. Core Value and Key Competency The primary core value of the Seminary addressed in this course is Doctrinal Integrity. The primary key competency in ministry addressed is Christian Theological Heritage. The core value for the 2016-2017 academic year is Characteristic Excellence. Core Values Addressed The course will address the core value of Doctrinal Integrity directly and Spiritual Vitality indirectly. Reflection on the problem of evil is intimately related to reflection on the nature and existence of God as well as to considering the doctrine of creation. The vitality of one’s spiritual life is directly related to the degree of trust one places in God, which derives from one’s understanding of God’s nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Kierkegaard on Selfhood and Our Need for Others
    Kierkegaard on Selfhood and Our Need for Others 1. Kierkegaard in a Secular Age Scholars have devoted much attention lately to Kierkegaard’s views on personal identity and, in particular, to his account of selfhood.1 Central to this account is the idea that a self is not something we automatically are. It is rather something we must become. Thus, selfhood is a goal to realize or a project to undertake.2 To put the point another way, while we may already be selves in some sense, we have to work to become real, true, or “authentic” selves.3 The idea that authentic selfhood is a project is not unique to Kierkegaard. It is common fare in modern philosophy. Yet Kierkegaard distances himself from popular ways of thinking about the matter. He denies the view inherited from Rousseau that we can discover our true selves by consulting our innermost feelings, beliefs, and desires. He also rejects the idea developed by the German Romantics that we can invent our true selves in a burst of artistic or poetic creativity. In fact, according to Kierkegaard, becom- ing an authentic self is not something we can do on our own. If we are to succeed at the project, we must look beyond ourselves for assistance. In particular, Kierkegaard thinks, we must rely on God. For God alone can provide us with the content of our real identi- ties.4 A longstanding concern about Kierkegaard arises at this point. His account of au- thentic selfhood, like his accounts of so many concepts, is religious.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies on Collingwood, History and Civilization
    Studies on Collingwood, History and Civilization Jan van der Dussen Studies on Collingwood, History and Civilization Jan van der Dussen Heerlen , The Netherlands ISBN 978-3-319-20671-4 ISBN 978-3-319-20672-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-20672-1 Library of Congress Control Number: 2015951386 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Printed on acid-free paper Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www. springer.com) Acknowledgements The following four essays are reproduced from their original publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Perception and Law Enforcement
    Perception and Law Enforcement Lt. Norman Hale White County Sheriff Department School of Law Enforcement Supervision Session XXXII Criminal Justice Institute Introduction Since the beginning, perception has been used by everyone. When man first said I am naked, I need clothing. The perception was I am naked. Without understanding why things are the way they appear man was fearful of the world around him. Superstitions overwhelmed man and his thoughts. It was an effort to explain the unexplainable. This is the perception of man and his surroundings. Early man worshiped nature in an attempt to change what was happening. At one time, it was believed that a man lived in the moon. This was based on the face seen on the moon. More resonantly, many believed there was or had been life on Mars, because of a photo taken as a satellite passed Mars showing a face on the surface (face on mars). This raised a large stir among people and the scientific community. It was not until some time later when a new photo was taken by a passing satellite, that the face on Mars proved to be a mountain and the face was formed by shadows cast across the surface of the mountain (face on mars). The attempt to understand how things are perceived goes back before the Egyptians were building pyramids. Modern man has devoted an extensive amount of time to studying perception and how it affects man. As the understanding of perception increases, the mystery that caused many superstitions is solved and man is no longer fearful.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagination Bound: a Theoretical Imperative
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Philosophy Philosophy 2016 Imagination Bound: A Theoretical Imperative Robert Michael Guerin University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2016.017 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Guerin, Robert Michael, "Imagination Bound: A Theoretical Imperative" (2016). Theses and Dissertations-- Philosophy. 8. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/philosophy_etds/8 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Philosophy by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless an embargo applies.
    [Show full text]
  • Why William Rowe's Argument from Natural Evil Fails
    Scholars Crossing Other Graduate Scholarship School of Divinity 2015 Why William Rowe’s Argument from Natural Evil Fails Douglas Taylor Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_grad_schol Part of the Christianity Commons, Metaphysics Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Taylor, Douglas, "Why William Rowe’s Argument from Natural Evil Fails" (2015). Other Graduate Scholarship. 2. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_grad_schol/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Divinity at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Other Graduate Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY Why William Rowe’s Argument from Natural Evil Fails Submitted to the Evangelical Theological Society Southeastern Region Meeting by Doug Taylor February 14, 2015 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................3 BUILDING THE THEODICY ............................................................................................6 Culpability ...................................................................................................................6 Growth .........................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • 272 Bibliography Abbreviations for Frequently Cited Works Analysis = Mill [1829] E&W = Bain [1859] EAP = Reid[1788/1969]
    Bibliography Abbreviations for Frequently Cited Works Analysis = Mill [1829] E&W = Bain [1859] EAP = Reid[1788/1969] EIP = Reid [1785/1969] First Enquiry = “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding” in Hume [1777/1975] Inquiry = Reid [1764/1997] Lectures = Brown [1828/1860] or Hamilton [1844/1877] (sense obvious in context) Observations, OM = Hartley [1749/1966] S&I = Bain [1855] Sketch = Brown [1820/1977] SSR = Kuhn [1962/1970] Treatise = Hume [1739-1740/1978] Section I: Primary Sources Allen, Grant, Physiological Aesthetics [Garland Publishing, 1877]. Bain, Alexander, The Senses and the Intellect [University Publications of America, 1855/1977]. Bain, Alexander, The Emotions and the Will [University Publications of America, 1859/1977]. Bain, Alexander, “The Early Life of James Mill” in Mind, 1(1), pp.97-116 [1876a]. Bain, Alexander, “The Life of James Mill” in Mind, 1(4), pp.509-531 [1876b]. Bain, Alexander, James Mill: A Biography [Augustus M. Kelley, 1882a/1967]. Bain, Alexander, John Stuart Mill: A Criticism with Personal Reflections [Longmans, Green and Co., 1882b]. Bain, Alexander, Autobiography [1904]. Barzellotti, Giacomo, “Philosophy in Italy” in Mind, 3(12), pp.505-538 [1878]. Berkeley, George, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Jonathan Dancy, ed. [Oxford University Press, 1710/1998] Brown, Thomas, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind [Hallowell Glazer and Co., 1828]. 272 Brown, Thomas, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind [William Tegg, 1828/1860 (20th Edition)]. Brown, Thomas, Sketch of a System of the Philosophy of the Human Mind [1820], reprinted in Significant Contributions to the History of Psychology, Series A: Orientations, Volume I, Daniel N.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Inquiry Into the Meaning of Sin and Faith: with on My Religion Free
    FREE A BRIEF INQUIRY INTO THE MEANING OF SIN AND FAITH: WITH ON MY RELIGION PDF John Rawls,Joshua Cohen,Thomas Nagel,Robert Merrihew Adams | 288 pages | 20 May 2010 | HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS | 9780674047532 | English | Cambridge, Mass, United States A Brief Inquiry into the Meaning of Sin & Faith with On My Religion by John Rawls Sign in Create an account. Syntax Advanced Search. JohnHG Rawls. Harvard University Press Faith in Philosophy of Religion. Edit this record. Mark as duplicate. Find it on Scholar. Request removal from index. Revision history. Download options PhilArchive copy. From the Publisher via CrossRef no proxy Setup an account with your affiliations in A Brief Inquiry into the Meaning of Sin and Faith: With On My Religion to access resources via your University's proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy. Configure custom resolver. Chapters BETA. Robert Merrihew Adams. A Note on the Text. Chapter Four. The Meaning of Sin. Chapter Five. The Meaning of Faith. Chapter One. A General Prospectus. Chapter A Brief Inquiry into the Meaning of Sin and Faith: With On My Religion. The Extended Natural Cosmos. Chapter Two. Vindication of the Natural Cosmos. General Index. Index of Biblical Passages. On My Religion. Epistemology Personalized. Matthew A. Benton - - Philosophical Quarterly 67 God and Interpersonal Knowledge. Benton - - Res Philosophica 95 3 Kristina Stoeckl - - Philosophy and Social Criticism 43 1 Mackenzie Bok - - Modern Intellectual History 14 1 Harvard University Press. John Rawls - - Harvard University Press. Added to PP index Total views 13of 2, Recent downloads 6 months 2of 2, How can I increase my downloads? Sign in to use this feature.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil and the Limits of Governmental Power
    Liberty University Law Review Volume 5 Issue 3 Article 3 July 2011 Lessons from Theodicy: The Problem of Evil and the Limits of Governmental Power David E. Gilbert Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review Recommended Citation Gilbert, David E. (2011) "Lessons from Theodicy: The Problem of Evil and the Limits of Governmental Power," Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 5 : Iss. 3 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review/vol5/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Liberty University School of Law at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Liberty University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE LESSONS FROM THEODICY: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND THE LIMITS OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER David E. Gilbert† Why is there any misery at all in the world? Not by chance, surely. From some cause then. Is it from the intention of the Diety? But he is perfectly benevolent. Is it contrary to his intention? But he is almighty. Nothing can shake the solidity of this reasoning, so short, so clear, so decisive, except we assert that these subjects exceed all human capacity, and that our common measures of truth and falsehood are not applicable to them. 1 David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion I. INTRODUCTION Although I teach law, I am fascinated by the philosophy of religion. And I am fascinated, in particular, by the Problem of Evil, which asserts that the 2 following propositions cannot be reconciled: † A version of this article was presented on May 31, 2010 at a symposium entitled “The Monotheistic Religions and the Human Liberties.” The symposium was held in Constantza, Romania and was sponsored by The Centre for Religious and Juridical- Canonical Study and Research of the Three Monotheistic Religions (Mosaic, Christian and Islamic) of Ovidius University of Constantza.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptual Causality, Counterfactuals, and Special Causal Concepts
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/10/2011, SPi 3 Perceptual Causality, Counterfactuals, and Special Causal Concepts Johannes Roessler On one view, an adequate account of causal understanding may focus exclusively on what is involved in mastering general causal concepts (concepts such as ‘x causes y’ or ‘p causally explains q’). An alternative view is that causal understanding is, partly but irreducibly, a matter of grasping what Anscombe called special causal concepts, con- cepts such as ‘push’, ‘flatten’,or‘knock over’. We can label these views generalist vs particularist approaches to causal understanding. It is worth emphasizing that the contrast here is not between two kinds of theories of the metaphysics of causation, but two views of the nature and perhaps source of ordinary causal understanding. One aim of this paper is to argue that it would be a mistake to dismiss particularism because of its putative metaphysical commitments. I begin by formulating an intuitively attractive version of particularism due to P.F. Strawson, a central element of which is what I will call na¨ıve realism concerning mechanical transactions. I will then present the account with two challenges. Both challenges reflect the worry that Strawson’s particularism may be unable to acknowledge the intimate connection between causa- tion and counterfactuals, as articulated by the interventionist approach to causation. My project will be to allay these concerns, or at least to explore how this might be done. My (tentative) conclusion will be that Strawson’sna¨ıve realism can accept what interventionism has to say about ordinary causal understanding, and that intervention- ism should not be seen as being committed to generalism.
    [Show full text]