Hume’s Answer to Bayle on the Vacuum

Jonathan Cottrell 1
  • 1 Department of Philosophy, Wayne State University, 5057 Woodward Avenue 12th Floor, Detroit, USA
Jonathan Cottrell
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Philosophy, Wayne State University, 5057 Woodward Avenue 12th Floor, Detroit, MI 48202, Detroit, USA
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar

Abstract

Hume’s discussion of space in the Treatise addresses two main topics: divisibility and vacuum. It is widely recognized that his discussion of divisibility contains an answer to Bayle, whose Dictionary article “Zeno of Elea” presents arguments about divisibility as support for fideism. It is not so widely recognized that, elsewhere in the same article, Bayle presents arguments about vacuum as further support for fideism. This paper aims to show that Hume’s discussion of vacuum contains an answer to these vacuum-based fideistic arguments. Key to this answer is a distinction between two ways in which vacuum was conceived in the early modern period: i) as a genuine thing that has spatial properties, and yet is immobile, indivisible, and penetrable (positive vacuum); ii) as a mere absence of spatial things (privative vacuum). This paper also aims to provide a novel defense of Hume against the long-standing objection that he is inconsistent in denying that we can conceive of a vacuum, while allowing that we can conceive of “invisible and intangible distance.” As I interpret him, Hume consistently denies that we can conceive of a positive vacuum, while allowing that we can conceive of two or more objects’ being arranged so as to have privative vacuum between them.

  • Ainslie, D. 2010. “Adequate Ideas and Modest Scepticism in Hume’s Metaphysics of Space.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 92, 39–67.

  • –. 2015. Hume’s True Scepticism. New York.

  • Allison, H. 2008. Custom and Reason in Hume: A Kantian Reading of the First Book of the Treatise. New York.

  • –. 2016. “Hume and the Molyneux Problem.” In P. Russell (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Hume. New York, 158–72.

  • Baxter, D. 2008. Hume’s Difficulty: Time and Identity in the Treatise. New York.

  • –. 2009. “Hume’s Theory of Space and Time in Its Skeptical Context.” In The Cambridge Companion to Hume. 2nd edn. Ed. D. Norton/J. Taylor. New York, 105–46.

  • Bayle, P. 1991. Historical and Critical Dictionary, Selections. Trans/ed. R. Popkin. Indianapolis.

  • Boehm, M. 2012. “Filling the Gaps in Hume’s Vacuums.” Hume Studies 38, 79–99.

  • Chambers, E. 1728. Cyclopædia. 2 vols. London.

  • [Clarke, Joseph] 1732. A Defence of Dr. Clarke’s Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, &c. London.

  • Clarke, J. 1733. Dr. Clarke’s Notions of Space Examin’d. London.

  • Cottrell, J. 2016. “A Puzzle about Fictions in the Treatise”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 54, 47–73.

  • –. 2019. “Hume on Space and Time: A Limited Defense”. In The Humean Mind. Ed. A. Coventry/A. Sager. New York, 83–95.

  • –. Forthcoming. “Unperceived Existence and Hume’s Theory of Ideas.” Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy.

  • Descartes, R. 1985. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. 2 vols. Translated by J. Cottingham/R. Stoothoff/D. Murdoch. New York.

  • Falkenstein, L. 2006. “Space and Time.” In The Blackwell Guide to Hume’s Treatise. Ed. S. Traiger. Oxford, 59–76.

  • –. 2013. “Hume on the Idea of a Vacuum.” Hume Studies 39, 131–68.

  • –. 2015. “The Ideas of Space and Time and Spatial and Temporal Ideas in Treatise 1.2.” In The Cambridge Companion to Hume’s Treatise. Ed. D. Ainslie/A. Butler. New York, 31–68.

  • Flew, A. 1976. “Infinite Divisibility in Hume’s Treatise.” In Hume: A Re-Evaluation. Ed. D. Livingston/J. King. New York, 257–69.

  • Fogelin, R. 1985. Hume’s Skepticism in the Treatise of Human Nature. London.

  • Frasca-Spada, M. 1998. Space and the Self in Hume’s Treatise. Cambridge.

  • Garrett, D. 1997. Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy. New York.

  • –. 2015. Hume. New York.

  • Green, T. 1882. “General Introduction.” In A Treatise of Human Nature. Vol. 1. Ed. T. Green/T. Grose, 1–299. London.

  • Hume, D. 1932. The Letters of David Hume. 2 vols. Ed. J. Greig. New York.

  • –. 1975. Enquiries Concerning Human Understand and Concerning the Principles of Morals. Ed. L. Selby-Bigge. 3rd edn. by P. Nidditch. Oxford.

  • –. 1978. A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. L. Selby-Bigge. 2nd edn. by P. Nidditch. Oxford.

  • –. 2000. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. T. Beauchamp. Oxford.

  • –. 2007. A Treatise of Human Nature, Vol. 1: Texts. Ed. D. Norton/M. Norton. Oxford.

  • Irwin, K. 2013. “Bayle on the (Ir)rationality of Religious Belief.” Philosophy Compass 8/6, 560–69.

  • Jacquette, D. 2001. David Hume’s Critique of Infinity. Leiden.

  • Johnson, O. 1995. The Mind of David Hume. Urbana/Chicago.

  • Kemp Smith, N. 1941. The Philosophy of David Hume. New York.

  • King, W. 1731. An Essay on the Origin of Evil. Trans./ed. E. Law. London.

  • Labrousse, E. 1983. Bayle. Trans. D. Potts. New York.

  • Larivière, D./Lennon, T. 2002. “The History and Significance of Hume’s Burning Coal Example: Time, Identity, and Individuation.” Journal of Philosophical Research 27, 511–26.

  • Law, E. 1734. An Enquiry into the Ideas of Space, Time, Immensity, and Eternity. Cambridge.

  • Leibniz, G./Clarke, S. 1956. The Leibniz–Clarke Correspondence. Ed. H. Alexander. Manchester.

  • Locke, J. 1975. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. P. Nidditch. Oxford.

  • Miller, J. 2013. “Hume’s Citation of Strabo and the Dating of the Memoranda.” Hume Studies 39, 197–202.

  • Mossner, E. 1948. “Hume’s Early Memoranda, 1729–1740: The Complete Text.” Journal of the History of Ideas, 9, 492–518.

  • Newton, I. 1999. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Trans./ed. I. Cohen/A. Whitman. Berkeley/Los Angeles.

  • Pittion, J. 1977. “Hume’s Reading of Bayle: An Inquiry into the Source and Role of the Memoranda.” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 15, 373–86.

  • Popkin, R. 1964. “So, Hume did Read Berkeley.” The Journal of Philosophy, 61, 773–78.

  • Powell, L. 2014. “Hume’s Treatment of Denial in the Treatise.” Philosophers’ Imprint, 14(26), 1–22.

  • Rohault, J. 1735. System of Natural Philosophy. 2 vols. Trans. J. Clarke. London.

  • Russell, P. 2008. The Riddle of Hume’s Treatise: Skepticism, Naturalism, and Irreligion. New York.

  • Ryan, T. 2009. Pierre Bayle’s Cartesian Metaphysics: Rediscovering Early Modern Philosophy. New York.

  • Sakamoto, T. 2011. “Hume’s “Early Memoranda” and the Making of His Political Economy.” Hume Studies 37, 131–64.

  • Schliesser, E. 2007. “Hume’s Newtonianism and Anti-Newtonianism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), E. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/hume-newton/

  • Stewart, M. 2000. “The Dating of Hume’s Manuscripts.” In P. Wood (ed.), “The Scottish Enlightenment: Essays in Reinterpretation”. Rochester, NY, 267–314.

  • Traiger, S. 1987. “Impressions, Ideas, and Fictions.” Hume Studies, 13, 381–99.

  • Watts, I. 1733. Philosophical Essays on Various Subjects. London.

  • Wollaston, W. 1722. The Religion of Nature Delineated.

  • Wood, P. 1986. “David Hume on Thomas Reid’s An Inquiry into the Human Mind, On the Principles of Common Sense: A New Letter to Hugh Blair from July 1762.” Mind, 95, 411–16.

  • Wright, J. 1983. The Sceptical Realism of David Hume. Minneapolis.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Search