Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Hume's Cognitive Stoicism

Hume's Cognitive Stoicism Several writers have emphasized the role in Hume's ethics of belief of the principle that must implies ought - the converse of ought implies can2: we must make causal inferences, and therefore, contrary to the Cartesian ethics of belief, we ought to do so, that is, it is the reasonable way to conduct our mental life.3 If we let 'N' represent necessity and ÎOE' obligatoriness, then the must implies ought principle can be symbolized as (1) Np 3 Op Hintikka has wondered whether this principle should be accepted Â-- indeed, he wonders whether ought implies can should be accepted Â-- but he is prepared to defend the thesis. (2) 0(Np => Op) that it ought to be the case that must implies ought. Without going into the issue of whether (1) is defensible, I propose in this note to suggest a Humean defence of (2). (I) On "Ought" For Hume, 'ought' (a) expresses an impulse that tends to move the will and also (b) tends to elicit in others the same impulse. The affinity to emotivism is clear enough Â-- indeed, for many purposes it is important to emphasize this emotivism Â-- but at the same time it http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Hume Studies Hume Society

Hume's Cognitive Stoicism

Hume Studies , Volume 1985 (1) – Jan 26, 1985

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hume-society/hume-s-cognitive-stoicism-h5Hmm4Qhm4
Publisher
Hume Society
Copyright
Copyright © Hume Society
ISSN
1947-9921
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Several writers have emphasized the role in Hume's ethics of belief of the principle that must implies ought - the converse of ought implies can2: we must make causal inferences, and therefore, contrary to the Cartesian ethics of belief, we ought to do so, that is, it is the reasonable way to conduct our mental life.3 If we let 'N' represent necessity and ÎOE' obligatoriness, then the must implies ought principle can be symbolized as (1) Np 3 Op Hintikka has wondered whether this principle should be accepted Â-- indeed, he wonders whether ought implies can should be accepted Â-- but he is prepared to defend the thesis. (2) 0(Np => Op) that it ought to be the case that must implies ought. Without going into the issue of whether (1) is defensible, I propose in this note to suggest a Humean defence of (2). (I) On "Ought" For Hume, 'ought' (a) expresses an impulse that tends to move the will and also (b) tends to elicit in others the same impulse. The affinity to emotivism is clear enough Â-- indeed, for many purposes it is important to emphasize this emotivism Â-- but at the same time it

Journal

Hume StudiesHume Society

Published: Jan 26, 1985

There are no references for this article.