Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

The Secret Connexion: Causation, Realism, and David Hume

Rate this book
It is widely supposed that David Hume invented and espoused the "regularity" theory of causation, holding that causal relations are nothing but a matter of one type of thing being regularly followed by another. It is also widely supposed that he was not only right about this, but that it was
one of his greatest contributions to philosophy. Strawson here argues that the regularity theory of causation is indefensible, and that Hume never adopted it in any case. Strawson maintains that Hume did not claim that causation in the natural world is just a matter of regular succession, that such
a dogmatic metaphysical claim about the nature of reality would have been utterly contrary to his fundamental philosophical principles, and that he rightly took it for granted that there was more to causation than regularity of succession, claiming only that regularity of succession was all that we
could ever know of causation.

306 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1989

1 person is currently reading
63 people want to read

About the author

Galen Strawson

21 books75 followers
Galen John Strawson is a British professor of philosopher and literary critic primarily workin the fields of mind, metaphysics, and free will.

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
2 (15%)
4 stars
5 (38%)
3 stars
6 (46%)
2 stars
0 (0%)
1 star
0 (0%)
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Profile Image for Leigh Jackson.
45 reviews6 followers
April 27, 2013
Very good book. Meticulously counters the traditional view of Hume as dogmatically denying the existence of causation. Strawson shows (by close reading of Hume's texts) that Hume's arguments about 'necessary connexion' being only in the mind are epistemological rather than ontological. Hume avoids the mistakes of the 20th century positivists who call themselves Humeans. 'Hume, then, is not a "Humean"' (p. 228).
Displaying 1 of 1 review

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.