Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Metaphysica

International Journal for Ontology and Metaphysics

Ed. by Hüntelmann, Rafael / Meixner, Uwe / Tegtmeier, Erwin

Together with Cumpa, Javier

Editorial Board Member: Addis, Laird / Davies, Brian / Hochberg, Herbert / Johansson, Ingvar / Kanzian, Christian / Klima, Gyula / Koons, Robert C / Künne, Wolfgang / Löffler, Winfried / Mulligan, Kevin / Nef, Frederic / Oaklander, Nathan / Oderberg, David / Orilia, Francesco / Plantinga, Alvin / Potrc, Matjaz / Rapp, Christof / Reicher-Marek, Maria Elisabeth / Schantz, Richard / Scholz, Oliver / Seibt, Johanna / Simons, Peter / Smith, Barry / Stoecker, Ralf / Strobach, Niko / Trettin, Käthe / Wachter, Daniel

2 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.12

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.111
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.530

Online
ISSN
1874-6373
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Mary Shepherd on Causal Necessity

Jeremy Fantl
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Philosophy, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 2Z5, Canada
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-03-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2016-0007

Abstract

Lady Mary Shepherd’s critique of Hume’s account of causation, his worries about knowledge of matters of fact, and the contention that it is possible for the course of nature to spontaneously change relies primarily on three premises, two of which – that objects are merely bundles of qualities and that the qualities of an object are individuated by the causal powers contributed by those qualities – anticipate contemporary metaphysical views in ways that she should be getting credit for. The remaining premise – that it is impossible for an object to begin to exist uncaused – seems more old fashioned. I argue that Shepherd can do without her old-fashioned premise and that she provides the materials for arguing that her remaining premises demonstrate a stronger anti-Humeanism than is maintained even by the contemporary representatives of those views, even though she may have to concede more to Humeanism than she would like.

Keywords: Mary Shepherd; Hume; causation; bundle view; causal view of properties; causal necessity; scientific essentialism

References

  • Aquinas, T. c. 1268/1932. Quaestiones Disputatae De Poentia Dei: Dispusted Questions on the Power of God. The English Dominican Fathers, trans. Westminster, MD: The Newman Press.Google Scholar

  • Aristotle. 350 BC./2014. “Physics.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, Volume 1, edited by J. Barnes, 315–446. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Atherton, M. 1994. Women Philosophers of the Early Modern Period. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar

  • Beebee, H. 2011. “Necessary Connections and the Problem of Induction.” Noûs 45 (3):504–27.Google Scholar

  • Bolton, M. B. 2010. “Causality and Causal Induction: The Necessitarian Theory of Lady Mary Shepherd.” In Causation and Modern Philosophy, edited by K. Allen, and T. Stoneham, 242–61. KY: Routledge: Florency.Google Scholar

  • Campbell, K. 1981. “The Metaphysic of Abstract Particulars.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6 (1):477–88.Google Scholar

  • Castañeda, H.-N. 1974. “Thinking and the Structure of the World.” Philosophia 4 (1):3–40.Google Scholar

  • Colby, Alyssa. (2014) untitled manuscript.

  • Elder, C. L. 1994. “Laws, Natures, and Contingent Necessities.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (3):649–67.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, B. 2001. Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Harré, R., and E. H. Madden. 1975. Causal Powers: A Theory of Natural Necessity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Heil, J. 2003. From an Ontological Point of View. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Hume, D. 1748/2007. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Leibniz, G. W. 1698/1989. “On Nature Itself”. Philosophical Essays, 155–66. Hackett: Indianapolis.Google Scholar

  • Locke, J. 1689/1996. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Kenneth P. Winkler, ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • MacIntosh, J. 1995. “St. Thomas on Angelic Time and Motion.” Thomist: a Speculative Quarterly Review 59 (4):547–75.Google Scholar

  • MacIntosh, Jack. (manuscript) The Arguments of Aquinas. (unpublished)

  • MacIsaac, A. 2013. Synchronicity and Sensation: The Causal Theory of Lady Mary Shepherd. MA Thesis. Carleton University.Google Scholar

  • McRobert, J. 2014. Mary Shepherd and the Causal Relation. http://philpapers.org/archive/MCRMSA.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2016

  • Paoletti, C. 2011. “Restoring Necessary Connections: Lady Mary Shepherd on Hume and the Early Nineteenth Century Debate on Causality.” Castelli Di Yale 11:47–59.Google Scholar

  • Paul, L. A. 2006. “Coincidence as Overlap.” Noûs 40 (4):623–59.Google Scholar

  • Pitt, D. (manuscript). “Realist Bundle Theory.” http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/dpitt/Realist%20Bundle%20Theory2.pdf Accessed February 26, 2016.

  • Priestley, J. 1782. Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit. London: Piearson and Rollason.Google Scholar

  • Russell, B. 1940. An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar

  • Schaffer, J. 2001. “The Individuation of Tropes.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (2):247–57.Google Scholar

  • Shepherd, M. 1824/2012. An Essay Upon the Relation of Cause and Effect, Controverting the Doctrine of Mr. Hume, Concerning the Nature of That Relation. Lenox, MA: HardPress Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Shoemaker, S. 2003. “Causality and Properties.” In his Identity, Cause, and Mind: Philosophical Essays, 206–33. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Sparshott, F. E. 1975. “In Defence of Kemp Smith”. Hume Studies 1 (2):66–9Google Scholar

  • Strawson, G. 2015. “Humeanism.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 1 (1):96–102.Google Scholar

  • Strawson, G. 2002. “David Hume: Objects and Power.” In Reading Hume on Human Understanding, edited by P. Millican, 231–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Towl, B. N. 2010. “Spurious Causal Kinds: A Problem for the Causal-Power Conception of Kinds.” Philosophia 38:217–23.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-03-08

Published in Print: 2016-04-01


Citation Information: Metaphysica, ISSN (Online) 1874-6373, ISSN (Print) 1437-2053, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2016-0007.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in