FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2034204100> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2034204100 endingPage "250" @default.
• W2034204100 startingPage "207" @default.
• W2034204100 abstract "207 THE CARELESS SKEPTIC THE 'PAMPHILIAN' IRONIES IN HUME'S DIALOGUES In Hume and the Legacy of the Dialogues E. C. Mossner sets out a widely accepted interpretation of one of Hume's major intentions in that great work. He argues that Hume's main use of irony therein is to dissimulate with respect to his true religious convictions. The purpose is to provide Hume with a defense against the expected negative reaction to the powerful attack on religion mounted 2 in the Dialogues. The attack, as is well known, is set out in the arguments of Philo against natural and revealed religion as espoused by Cleanthes and Demea, and Philo's views are taken to be those of Hume. It is argued or assumed that since such attacks were in Hume's day imprudent, they must be made by indirection, that is, by a device such as irony. Thus the Dialogues have surface meanings in which the religious views under attack are said (by Pamphilus) to win out; they also have other meanings, underlying or implicit, in which the religious views are conclusively refuted. That they are refuted is a conclusion drawn by the interpreters, in the present case Mossner and those who share his views. These destructive refutations are derived from explication and assessment of the ongoing argument as embodied in the explicit statements of the contestants, and are thus not explicitly linked to Hume. In consequence, quite often from one standpoint (a trivial one of external comment by an immature and prejudiced onlooker) the design argument wins; and from another, more sophisticated one, it loses. The upshot is that Philo, who as Hume's spokesman for mitigated 208 skepticism will perforce be the victor in the philosophic debate, will nevertheless be 'artfully' depicted as being vanquished by the antagonist. The strategy Mossner finds in the Dialogues thus has the youthful Pamphilus, a ward of Cleanthes, and one who takes no actual part in the adversarial discussions, interposing (in brief asides) comments that superficially but subtly belittle Philo's philosophical position. Philo is characterized, for instance, as having a careless scepticism, in contrast with Cleanthes, who has an accurate philosophical turn [of mind] (D 128). Similarly, at the end of the Dialogues, Pamphilus awards the victory to Cleanthes. In support of his thesis that Philo is a devious Hume's mouthpiece, Mossner brings forth two kinds of evidence, roughly characterizable as external and internal. One kind of external evidence is exemplified in Hume's correspondence with Gilbert 4 5 Elliot of Minto, and Adam Smith; the letters involved are interpreted as showing that Philo represents Hume. Another kind involves comparing the amount of space devoted to the arguments of the three adversaries. The internal evidence is derived from the explication and appraisal of the explicit statements of the contestants; and it is essentially identified with the arguments and conclusions of Philo, except where Cleanthes can be said to make claims which square with those made by Hume in other works such as the Treatise. Thus Hume's views and the related arguments are interpreted as those of Philo, in part because they are considered to be more valid and sound than those of Cleanthes, and in part because they are held to square with the views and arguments affirmed in Hume's other writings. Hume's views, as indicated above, are taken to be those of 209 Philo except where Philo appears to agree with Cleanthes and to accept a form of the design argument. Hume is Cleanthes when Cleanthes sets forth doctrines of the Treatise and the Enquiry that are in accordance with the received (more or less) positivistic interpretation of Hume's skepticism. It is this view that requires that in those places in Parts III, X, and XII, where Philo appears to avow a form of the design argument or to let it stand unrefuted, he be (ironically) dissimulating. Thus the surface victories of Cleanthes and natural religion, which the adversarial flow of the statements of Philo and Cleanthes exhibits, are refuted by the propositions derived from the assessed form and content of the philosophical debate. The basic irony, therefore, lies in aspects of the..." @default.
• W2034204100 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2034204100 creator A5077685617 @default.
• W2034204100 date "1988-01-01" @default.
• W2034204100 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2034204100 title "The Careless Skeptic: The 'Pamphilian' Ironies in Hume's <i>Dialogues</i>" @default.
• W2034204100 cites W1579992125 @default.
• W2034204100 cites W1591422284 @default.
• W2034204100 cites W1724922661 @default.
• W2034204100 cites W2010758965 @default.
• W2034204100 cites W2020100031 @default.
• W2034204100 cites W2084812103 @default.
• W2034204100 cites W2595085788 @default.
• W2034204100 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2011.0483" @default.
• W2034204100 hasPublicationYear "1988" @default.
• W2034204100 type Work @default.
• W2034204100 sameAs 2034204100 @default.
• W2034204100 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2034204100 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2034204100 hasAuthorship W2034204100A5077685617 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConcept C18296254 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConcept C2779975665 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConcept C2781374135 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConceptScore W2034204100C111472728 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConceptScore W2034204100C138885662 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConceptScore W2034204100C18296254 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConceptScore W2034204100C185592680 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConceptScore W2034204100C2779975665 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConceptScore W2034204100C2781374135 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConceptScore W2034204100C41895202 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConceptScore W2034204100C527412718 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConceptScore W2034204100C55493867 @default.
• W2034204100 hasConceptScore W2034204100C98184364 @default.
• W2034204100 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2034204100 hasLocation W20342041001 @default.
• W2034204100 hasOpenAccess W2034204100 @default.
• W2034204100 hasPrimaryLocation W20342041001 @default.
• W2034204100 hasRelatedWork W1833180346 @default.
• W2034204100 hasRelatedWork W1989371618 @default.
• W2034204100 hasRelatedWork W1996569262 @default.
• W2034204100 hasRelatedWork W2014141214 @default.
• W2034204100 hasRelatedWork W2150522064 @default.
• W2034204100 hasRelatedWork W2151382357 @default.
• W2034204100 hasRelatedWork W2157502692 @default.
• W2034204100 hasRelatedWork W2605548374 @default.
• W2034204100 hasRelatedWork W4237844617 @default.
• W2034204100 hasRelatedWork W4298425675 @default.
• W2034204100 hasVolume "14" @default.
• W2034204100 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2034204100 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2034204100 magId "2034204100" @default.
• W2034204100 workType "article" @default.