One ambiguity in Meillassoux‘s understanding of Hume‘s psychologism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63356/sin.2026.014Keywords:
Hume, imagination, a priori, Meillassoux, knowledge, contingencyAbstract
The majority part of the problems in this paper gravitated toward the aporetics of temporal continuity - constitutive epistemic presupposition of perception, experience, and science, whose place within Hume’s philosophical sistem was sought and justified in psychological states and processes grounded in imagination. Guided by this general aporetic framework, we attempted to show that within certain receptions of Hume’s psychologism and skepticism – encountered in the context of contemporary epistemological debates – there still remain inconsistencies and ambiguites related to the understanding of the basic motives and intentions of Hume’s epistemological project. In this context, we turned to the ambiguity that we believe we detected within Meillassoux’s critique of Hume’s psychologism. We paid attention to the specific character of Hume’s conception of the nature and role of imagination, as found in the Treatise of Human Nature. We argued that the given topic required a more thorough and clearer analysis, and that the omission of such an analysis rendered Meillassoux’s reception of Hume’s psychologism inconclusive.
References
Cassirer, E. (1999). Problem saznanja u filozofiji i nauci novijeg doba, sv. II. Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića/Biblioteka Theoria.
Cassirer, E. (1953). Substance and function. Dower publication.
Deleuze, G. (1989). Empiricism and subjectivity. Columbia U.P.
Galić, M. (2025). Quentin Meillassoux – sablasna dilema i došašće nepostojećeg boga. Filozofska istraživanja, 45(4), 673-686. https://doi.org/10.21464/fi45406
Gilead, A. (2009). Necessity and truthful fictions. Rodopi.
Gore, W.C. (1902). The imagination of Spinoza and Hume. The Library of Congress.
Guyer, P. (2008). Knowledge reason and taste. Princeton University Press.
Hume, D. (1902). Enquiries concernig the human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Clarendon Press.
Hume, D. (1888). A treatise of human nature. Clarendon Press.
Hume, D. (1987). Essays, moral, political and literary. Liberty Fund.
Husserl, E. (1991). Kriza evropskih nauka i transcendentalna fenomenologija. Dečje novine.
Husserl, E. (1975). Ideja fenomenologije. BIGZ.
Husserl, E. (1969). Formal and transcendental logic. Martinus Nijhoff.
Kant, I. (1976). Kritika čistog uma. BIGZ.
Kant, I. (2005). Prolegomena za svaku buduću metafiziku. Plato.
Kant, I. (1985). Logika. Grafos.
Louden, R. (2011). Kant’s human being: Essays on his theory of human nature. Oxford University Press.
Matković, A. (2013). O spekulativnom realizmu. Treći program, 157. 9-13.
Meillassoux, Q. (2010). The immanence of the world beyond. The grandeur of reason. SCM Press.
Meillassoux, Q. (2010). The contingency of the laws of nature. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(2), 322–334. https://doi.org/10.1068/d6210
Meillassoux, Q. (2016). Poslije konačnosti: esej o nužnosti kontingencije. Multimedijalni institut.
Meillassoux, Q. (2013). Metafizika, spekulacija, korelacija. Treći program, 157. 14-33.
Milisavljević, V. (2017). Ima li stvarnosti bez čoveka? Problemi novog realizma. Nauka i stvarnost (Knj. 11, tom 1). Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Istočnom Sarajevu.
Wittgenstein, L. (1987). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Logos.
