Hume on reason

Abstract

The paper argues that the standard interpretation of Hume’s “treatise”, involving a univocal reading of ‘reason’ and related terms, must attribute major internal inconsistencies to the work and results in misinterpretation of the nature of Hume’s overall argument. The paper develops an alternate interpretation that describes two different senses in which such terms are used, avoiding these difficulties. A consequence of this interpretation is that the faculty of reason whose role in action is discussed in book iii is not the same faculty that has been shown not to determine belief in book i.