Abstract

The main concern of this paper is to comment on certain points in the authoritative thesis about the prevalence of the so called "Reid-Beattie interpretation of Hume's philosophy", endorsed by Norman Kemp Smith and recently revisited in this journal by Guido Bonino. The following analysis is intended to show that the most prominent philosophers of the British empiricist tradition, namely James and John Stuart Mill, neither accepted "almost without reservation". Reid's interpretation, nor were led to refute Hume's principles because of his sceptical conclusions. The very revival of the sceptical interpretation promoted by Thomas Hill Green was primarily intended to contrast the last developments of empiricism. It gives evidence of the uninterrupted concern the best-known exponents of that tradition had with the philosophy of Hume.