How the Two Interpretations Impinge on Hume’s Nominalism

In this chapter, I continue to explore the consequences of the Idealist Interpretation for Hume’s Science of Man. Here, I consider how the two interpretations impinge on Hume’s nominalism, his account of the way general terms (‘dog’, ‘man’, e.g.) function in the absence of abstract ideas. (General terms apply to several objects, unlike proper names (‘Fido’, ‘Napoleon’), which (typically) apply to only one.) My main claim will be that the Materialist reading renders Hume’s nominalism a total failure, whereas on the Idealist reading, it is moderately successful.