Stability and Justification in Hume's Treatise

Abstract

Abstract Working within a philosophical tradition that values tranquillity, Hume favors an epistemology that links justification with settled belief. Hume appeals to psychological stability to support his own epistemological assessments, both favorable regarding causal inference and unfavorable regarding the imagination. The theory's success in explaining Hume's epistemic distinctions gives way to pessimism or ”skepticism,” since Hume contends that reflection on beliefs is deeply destabilizing. So much the worse, Hume concludes, for placing a premium on reflection. Hume endorses and defends the position that stable beliefs of unreflective persons are justified, though they would not survive reflection. At the same time, Hume relishes, and strains to establish, the paradox that unreflective beliefs enjoy a preferred epistemic status. A series of amendments to the Treatise secures a more positive result for justified belief while maintaining Hume's fundamental principles. These include a stratum of psychological doctrine beyond associationism, a theory of conditions in which beliefs are felt to conflict and of the resolution of this uneasiness or dissonance. This theory of mental conflict is also essential to Hume's strategy for integrating empiricism about meaning with his naturalism. However, Hume fails to provide a general account of the conditions in which conflicting beliefs lead to persisting instability, so his theory is incomplete.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 279 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.