Mary Shepherd on Causal Necessity

  • 1 Department of Philosophy, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 2Z5, Canada
Jeremy Fantl

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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • Colby, Alyssa. (2014) untitled manuscript.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metaphysica provides an international forum of ontology and metaphysics for readers all over the world. The journal is published biannually.

Search