When [Philosopher] Is Not A [Philosopher]-ian

“David Hume was not a Humean.” So says Galen Strawson, regarding the so-called Humean account of causation and what Strawson takes to be Hume’s actual account, in a recent post at his newsletter (a position he has advanced before). Previously, philosophers have told us that Hume is not a Humean about practical reason (Millgram, Schafer), nor a Humean about testimony (O’Brien), nor even a Humean about miracles (Fogelin). This is a fun kind of point to make. It’s typically a way of saying: so many people for so long have been so wrong about this philosopher; it’s a good thing I showed up to save them. The critic gets to play superhero to a famous figure from the history of ideas, rescuing them from the widely accepted philosophical defamation of the misinterpreting mob. (At least that’s usually how it works. I don’t think I recall seeing, “So-and-so isn’t a so-and-so-ian, which is too bad because this common misinterpretation of them is actually much better than what they really said.” Perhaps you have?) What should we call this “Hume is not a Humean” kind of move? We could name it for Hume: “Exhumeation”? “Dehumeanization?” Probably better to have a term not tied to a particular philosopher. How about “disattribution”? It has the advantage of conveying that one is both removing the attribution and dissing everyone for having accepted it. But I’m not sure how well it works (feel free to suggest alternates). In any event, Hume isn’t the only philosopher who has been… disattributed. Which other philosophers have had ideas so widely believed to be theirs that the ideas were named for them, only to have someone come along and argue, “actually, [philosopher] was not a [philosopher]-ian”? Let us know who was disattributed, by whom, and in regard to what. Perhaps we can figure out which philosopher has been disattributed the most. The post When Philosopher] Is Not A [Philosopher]-ian first appeared on [Daily Nous.