A Phylogenetic Interpretation of Hume's ‘General Rules’

Abstract

Hearn (1970) notes that what Hume calls ‘general rules’ should be distinguished into two types. The first one are the eight rules Hume mentions in Treatise 1.3.15 as normative; the second one are the mere natural inclinations of our imagination. Following Hearn, many scholars try to extract from the writings the distinguishable criterion of ‘good’ rules. On the contrary, I try to understand the common feature, or the origin, of apparently different types of general rules. My interpretation will offer a naturalistic explanation of epistemic normativity of Hume's general rules.