Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T21:09:00.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hume as a trope nominalist

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Jani Hakkarainen
Jani Hakkarainen*
Affiliation:
Discipline of Philosophy, School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere, PinniB4134, FI-33014University of Tampere, Finland
*
*Email: jani.hakkarainen@uta.fi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that Hume's solution to a problem that contemporary metaphysicians call “the problem of universals” would be rather tropetheoretical than some other type of nominalism. The basic idea in different trope theories is that particular properties, i.e., tropes are postulated to account for the fact that there are particular beings resembling each other. I show that Hume's simple sensible perceptions are tropes: simple qualities. Accordingly, their similarities are explained by these tropes themselves and their resemblance. Reading Hume as a trope nominalist sheds light on his account of general ideas, perceptions, relations and nominalism.

Keywords

David Humenominalismtropesmetaphysicsideas
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 42 , Issue S1: Hume in Alberta: Selected Papers from the 2012 Hume Conference in Calgary , February 2012 , pp. 55 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

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

Ainslie, Donald C. 2008. “Hume's Perceptions.” Paper presented at the 35thAnnual Hume Society Conference, Iceland, August 6–10.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1978. Nominalism & Realism: Universals and Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1989. Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. 1990. Abstract Particulars. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Devitt, Michael 1997. “‘Ostrich Nominalism’ or ‘Mirage Realism’?” In Properties, edited by Mellor, D. H. and AlexOliver, 93–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press (originally published in Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 61: 433–449).Google Scholar
Garrett, Don 1997. Cognition and Commitment in Hume's Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hakkarainen, Jani 2012. “A Third Type of Distinction in the Treatise.” Hume Studies 38 (1): 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, John 2003. From an Ontological Point of View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David 1932. “Letters.”. Vol. 1 of The Letters of David Hume. Edited by Greig, J. Y. T. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Keinänen, Markku 2005. Trope Theories and the Problem of Universals. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press.Google Scholar
Keinänen, Markku 2011. “Tropes – The Basic Constituents of Powerful Particulars?” Dialectica 65 (3): 419–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keinänen, Markku and Hakkarainen, Jani 2010. “Persistence of Simple Substances.” Metaphysica 11 (2): 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keinänen, Markku and Hakkarainen, Jani 2014. “The Problem of Trope Individuation: A Reply to Lowe.” Erkenntnis 79 (1): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2006. The Four-Category Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maurin, Anna-Sofia 2002. If Tropes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez-Pereyra, Gonzalo 2002. Resemblance Nominalism. A Solution to the Problem of Universals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Simons, Peter 1994. “Particulars in Particular Clothing – Three Trope Theories of Substance.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (3): 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Donald Cary 1953a. “On the Elements of Being: I.” Review of Metaphysics 7 (1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Williams, Donald Cary 1953b. “On the Elements of Being: II.” Review of Metaphysics 7 (2): 171–192.Google Scholar