A Tale of Two Interpretations

Abstract

Quine once quipped, “The Humean predicament is the human predicament” (1969, 72). His point is that people rely on inductive reasoning that, when carefully examined, faces perplexing philosophical problems of the sort that David Hume famously discussed centuries ago. While Quine’s pithy remark borders on the hyperbolic, no one doubts that Hume had a penchant for putting his finger on intriguing and important philosophical matters. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the impact of Hume’s writings on the present philosophical landscape.¹ In many senses, Hume has set the terms of debate to the extent that understanding his writings is almost essential for understanding the nuances of the contemporary situation, at least in the Anglo-American philosophical community. For example, contemporary discussions of the nature of causality, the relationship between descriptive and normative statements and so on are heavily indebted to his reflections on these matters. It is unsurprising, then, that those who offer Humean approaches to certain philosophical issues are legion today.