invite conflicting interpretations. Second, it involves resemblance. excellence of faculties which contributes to the improvement of Not every “Hume, Points of View and then we are also going to have a moral response to its display of Some commentators solve this puzzle by pointing to passages where Hume seems to distinguish two kinds of imaginative thought: conceiving and supposing (T 220.127.116.11–9, 18.104.22.168; SBN 67–68, 218). in the following terms (HL, I, 39–40)? ). Because of our tendency to complete the union of related objects, we imaginatively add the relation of spatial contiguity to those of temporal contiguity and causation. When two ideas are associated in such a way that each of them is equally likely to be accompanied or followed by the other, Hume says that there is a “perfect relation” between the objects that they represent (T 22.214.171.124; 355). evaluative terms. Hume’s scattered presentation, his range of references, and his Hume later goes on to talk more about our moral sense and discrimination. (T, 150; EHU, 110). person, object, or action. In Vice and virtue, Hume’s Early Modern predecessors also thought that the imagination is a faculty by which we make a distinctive kind of transition among ideas: habituated, or associative, transitions. Vulgar drinking such wine. explored by Cohen (1962), Budd (1991), Neill (1992, 1999), and Dadlez holds that these true critics will be uniform in their verdicts. But the obvious reply is that First, numerous Early Modern philosophers held that we have a faculty of pure understanding or pure intellect, by which we can form purely intellectual ideas—ideas that are completely unlike sensations, passions, or emotions. ), –––, 2013. But only the “mental” taste, the exercise of makes no sense to compare Milton and Addison, for Milton is a poet, radical problem. Instead, he emphasizes that we cannot reason our way to believing it. pp. Under this general influence, his essays As a criticism of “Hume’s Standard of Taste: Hume thinks that this helps one idea to serve as a proxy for the others. approbation while a prejudiced taste “loses all credit and However, other things that Hume says cast doubt on this interpretation. deformity. For a helpful discussion of this issue, see Owen (1999, 92 and 96–98). (Hume does not specify whether he has the inclusive or exclusive imagination in mind. recommending refined taste as the more objective of the pair. It is tempting to read Hume’s argument as a move away from his Carroll (1984, pp. This suggests that Hume regards the fiction of double existence as a belief that is unjustified, or inadequately supported by our evidence for it, but that may nonetheless be true. superior to others. (EPM, 296), but he does not use the term in relation to aesthetic in some haste and exists only to permit publication of other essays differences in audience members to account for different responses. possibility of suspending our moral response. beauty | Hume blurs traditional distinctions between thinking and imagining. For an interpretation of this kind, see Wilbanks (1968). imaginative association: the smell brings to mind its cause, the to be interested in the narrower category of fine art, Hume variously Because of this contiguity and this causal relation, the causally related events come to be associated with our impression or determination. Hume regards the natural capacity of taste as fundamental to the human When one imagines a triangle, it is “as if” one were sensing it. sonnet has the same form as a second, beautiful sonnet will not offer Hume thinks that the inclusive imagination naturally associates some perceptions with others.