Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T16:22:21.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hume, Hegel, and Abstract General Ideas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

Kenneth R. Westphal
Kenneth R. Westphal*
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Get access

Abstract:

Hegel's phenomenological method allows and requires him to justify his own positive views only by thorough internal critique of the views he opposes; Hegel calls this ‘determinate negation’ (§1). Hegel's transcendental-pragmatic epistemology is sharply opposed to empiricism. One key tenet of Modern empiricism is aconceptual ‘knowledge by acquaintance’ of particulars. This view is deeply embedded in Hume's official ‘copy theory’ of sensory impressions and ideas. Both of these views are required by Hume's account of abstract general ideas. Both of these views saw widespread revival in twentieth-century empiricism. Can these views be criticised on strictly internal grounds, as Hegel requires? This paper answers in the affirmative. More thoroughly than any other philosopher, Hume attempted to analyse our conceptual, propositionally-structured thought solely in terms of our ultimate awareness of nothing but objects, whether they be sensory impressions or their copies, ‘ideas’. In this context, Hume's account of our ideas of space and time have long been regarded as anomalies in, if not exceptions to, his account of the generality of thought. I argue that these ideas are not anomalous, but rather are typical of Hume's account of the generality of thought, an account that ultimately undermines Hume's official empiricist account of the generality of thought, based on his copy theory. I reexamine Hume's ‘idea of existence’ to identify some key equivocations between ‘ideas’ as objects and ‘ideas’ as concepts that are crucial to Hume's attempt to account for the generality of thought. The main issue is clarified by placing it within its Modern context (§2). The key issues are then specified by considering Hume's idea of existence (§3). The fundamental role played in Hume's account by his equivocations are then developed in detail by examining Hume's accounts of abstract ideas (§4), of distinctions of reason (§5), of the idea of equality (§6), and of the ideas of space and time (§7). On this basis I contend that Hume's account of the generality of thought is fundamentally linguistic, and is rooted in judgmental discriminations of kinds that cannot be accounted for by appeal to impressions of sensation or reflection, nor their corresponding idea-objects. These conclusions are reinforced and extended by critical evaluation of Garrett's analysis and defence of Hume's account of abstract ideas (§8). Hume is thus not only the great Modern exponent of the copy theory of impressions and ideas, he is also its first and still one of its most profound critics (§9). To this considerable extent, not only are the most basic principles of Hume's empiricism subject to internal critique, as Hegel requires, but Hume himself provides all the essentials of such a critique. These results serve to substantiate and highlight the philosophical significance of Hegel's critique of ‘Sense Certainty’ (§10).

Type
Hegel and British Philosophy
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 26 , Issue 1-2: number 51/52 , 2005 , pp. 28 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References and Abbreviations

Baier, Annette, 1991, A Progress of Sentiments. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis White, 1978, Essays on Kant and Hume. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Prin. Berkeley, George, 1710, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Dublin: J. Pepyat.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf, 1928, Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin: Welkreis. R. A. George, tr., The Logical Structure of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Church, Ralph, 1935, Hume's Theory of Understanding, London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald, 1984, ‘A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge’ in Henrich, D., ed., Kant oder Hegel? Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, pp. 423–38.Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth, 1975, ‘Identity and Predication’ in Journal of Philosophy 72.13: 343–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Don, 1997, Cognition and Commitment in Hume's Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Don, 2001a, ‘Précis of Cognition and Commitment in Hume's Philosophy ’ in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62.1:185–89.Google Scholar
Garrett, Don, 2001b, ‘Replies’ in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62.1: 205–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greig, J. Y. T., ed., 1932, The Letters of David Hume. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
G Hegel, G. W. F., 1807, Die Phänomenologie des Geistes in Buchner, H. and Pöggeler, O., eds., Gesammelte Werke, vol. 9. Rheinisch-Westfalischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften in association with the Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Hamburg: Meiner, 1968–.Google Scholar
En Hume, David, 1975, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in Nidditch, P. H., ed., Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
T Hume, David, 1978, Selby-Bigge, L. A. and Nidditch, P. H., eds., A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David, 2000, Norton, D. F. and Norton, M. J., eds., A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Oliver, 1995, The Mind of David Hume. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
KdrV Kant, Immanuel, 1781, 1787, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 1st and 2nd editions, in Preussische, Könniglich (now Deutsche) Akademie der Wissenschaften, Kants Gesammelte Schriften, 29 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, now De Gruyter, 1902–), vols. 3 (B) and 4 (A).Google Scholar
Owen, David, 2001, ‘Reason and Commitment’ in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62.1: 191–6.10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00050.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappas, George, 1977, ‘Hume and Abstract Ideas’ in Hume Studies 3:17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pears, David, 1990, Hume's System: An Examination of the First Book of his Treatise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Penner, Terrence, 1987, The Ascent from Nominalism. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, Rupert and Richman, Ken, eds., 2000, The New Hume Debate. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Norman Kemp, 1964, The Philosophy of David Hume. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Turnbull, Robert G., 1959, ‘Empirical and A Priori Elements in Broad's Theory of Knowledge’ in Schilpp, P. A., ed., The Philosophy of C. D. Broad. New York: Tudor, pp. 197–231.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1989, Hegel's Epistemological Realism. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1998, Hegel, Hume und die Identität wahrnehmbarer Dinge. Historischkritische Analyse zum Kapitel »Wahrnehmung« in der Phänomenologie von 1807. Frankfurt-am-Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 2000a, ‘Hegel's Internal Critique of Naive Realism’ in Journal of Philosophical Research 25:173–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 2000b, ‘Kant, Hegel, and the Fate of “the” Intuitive Intellect’ in Sedgwick, S., ed., The Reception of Kant's Critical Philosophy: Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 2002, ‘“Sense Certainty”, or Why Russell had no “Knowledge by Acquaintance’” in The Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 45/46: 110–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 2003, Hegel's Epistemology: A Philosophical Introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit. Cambridge, Mass.: Hackett Publishing Co. Google Scholar
Wright, John, 1983, The Sceptical Realism of David Hume. Manchester: Manchester University Press; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar