INTRODUTION 683
the food, hearing the bell, getting the food, hearing the bell...and after a period of
time concluding, “bells cause food.” But there is obviously no necessary relation
between cause and effect in this case. There is no logical reason why the bell might
not sound and yet no food appears. Hume argues that all supposed instances of
cause and effect are of this kind. We get so used to seeing two events joined that we
conclude that one caused the other. Thus, according to Hume, Locke’s claim that
the “external world” causes sensations and the Thomistic First-Cause argument for
God’s existence are without empirical foundation. It also means that the “laws of
nature” are founded only on past experience and that we have no a priorievidence
that tomorrow will be the same as today.
The remainder of the Enquirydevelops the implications of Hume’s radical
empiricism and deals with the skepticism arising from it. He acknowledges that
his own practice does not always reflect his philosophical position. Hume recog-
nizes that despite his causal skepticism, it would not be wise to “throw himself
out at the window.” As he wrote early on in this work, we must “be modest in our
pretensions; and even to discover the difficulty ourselves before it is objected to
us. By this means, we may make a kind of merit of our very ignorance.”
Philosophers differ in their appraisals of Hume’s two greatest works, the
Treatiseand its reworking, the Enquiry. Many consider the Enquirymore mature;
others think the Treatisemore brilliant. Hume himself said that the Enquiry, not
the Treatise, contained his “philosophical sentiments and principles.” The
Enquiryis reprinted here complete.
For a comprehensive biography of Hume, including interesting material from his
letters, see Ernest Campbell Mossner,The Life of David Hume(Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1954, 1980). The classic studies of Hume’s thought are Charles William
Hendel,Studies in the Philosophy of David Hume(Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1925); and, especially, Norman Kemp Smith,The Philosophy of
David Hume(London: Macmillan, 1941). Short, clear overviews of his thought
include A.J. Ayer,Hume(New York: Oxford University Press, 1981)—part of the
“Past Masters” series, now reprinted in a combined volume, John Dunn et al., eds.,
The British Empiricists(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), and Anthony
Quinton, Hume(London: Routledge, 1999). Barry Stroud,Hume(Oxford:
Routledge, 1981); Terence Penelhum,David Hume: An Introduction to His
Philosophical System(West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1995); Don
Garrett,Hume(London: Routledge, 2006); and Angela M. Coventry,Hume:
A Guide for the Perplexed(London: Continuum, 2007) are also useful. For studies
in specific areas of Hume’s thought, see Tom L. Beauchamp,Hume and the
Problem of Causation(New York: Oxford University Press, 1981); Robert J.
Fogelin,Hume’s Skepticism in theTreatise of Human Nature (London: Routledge,
1985); David Pears,Hume’s System(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991),
George Dicker,Hume’s Epistemology and Metaphysics(London: Routledge,
1998); H.O. Mounce,Hume’s Naturalism(London: Routledge, 1999); Harold
Noonan,Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Hume on Knowledge(London:
Routledge, 1999); A.E. Pitson,Hume’s Philosophy of the Self(London: Routledge,
2002); Angela M. Coventry,Hume’s Theory of Causation(London: Continuum,
2006); and Alan Bailey and Dan O’Brien,Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human