Abstract

Peter Millican claims that Hume's argument for the doctrine of necessity in §VIII of the first Enquiry is a ‘torpedo into the core’ of the sceptical realist interpretation of Hume. I argue against this claim: Hume's argument in fact provides no new evidence for or against any of the standard interpretative positions.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call