A Defense of Hume on Miracles by Fogelin Robert J

Author:Fogelin, Robert J.
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781400825776
Publisher: Princeton University Press

3

The Place of “Of Miracles” in Hume’s Philosophy

THE INTERPRETATION of a philosophical text is often a controversial matter, with commentators disagreeing even about the basic aspects of the work under consideration. Clearly I read Hume’s discussion of miracles in ways that are radically different from the readings offered by Johnson and Earman. Are there principles or guidelines that we can appeal to in trying to decide how a philosophical text should be interpreted? In the introduction to Philosophical Interpretations—a collection of articles in which I offer analyses of texts by Wittgenstein, Hume, Berkeley, Plato, and others—I suggest two such principles. The first is the principle of local interpretation: “To understand the point of a philosophical remark or philosophical argument, we must ask what the remark or argument is intended to do in just the context in which it appears. Precisely how does it move the enterprise along?” (Fogelin 1992, 6). Complementing this principle is another, which I call the principle of global interpretation. It tells us to place the particular remark (together with the context that immediately surrounds it) in the broader context of the philosophical position as a whole and perhaps, beyond this, in the historical context in which the position itself emerged (ibid.). The first is a principle of close reading; the second is a principle of broad understanding. Both principles strike me as platitudes, but, like many platitudes, they are often ignored. David Johnson, it seems to me, consistently violates both principles. He misreads the text of “Of Miracles, ” and his general understanding of Hume’s position hardly reaches past part 1 of the essay. John Earman is better at getting the text of section 10 right, but he goes wrong by attributing to Hume views that are not found in the text of that section. Beyond this, he attributes to Hume doctrines that are actually incompatible with central claims that Hume makes elsewhere in his writings. I am referring, of course, to his attribution of “Hume’s straight rule” to Hume.

Thus far in this work, I have largely been guided by the principle of local interpretation, staying close to the text of section 10. In closing I will present some reflections from the second—global—perspective. Our question is this: How does Hume’s discussion of miracles relate to the fundamental features of his philosophical standpoint? The answer is that Hume’s attitude toward miracles is of a piece with some of his most fundamental philosophical commitments.

Hume’s philosophical position has various levels, dimensions, and themes, and it is a subtle and complex challenge to understand how these components fit together to form a coherent whole. Different styles of interpreting Hume’s philosophy usually turn on how these various aspects of his position are weighted and assembled. I will not attempt to produce such a synoptic view here, but will simply enumerate central themes in Hume’s philosophy and then ask how his treatment of miracles is related to them.

1. To begin with, Hume was committed to an empiricist account of the origin and nature of ideas.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.