This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Subcategories:
63 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 63
Material to categorize
  1. Margaret Atherton (1987). Berkeley's Anti-Abstractionism. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. R. Attfield (1970). Berkeley and Imagination. Philosophy 45 (173):237 - 239.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Michael R. Ayers (2007). Berkeley, Ideas, and Idealism. In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), Reexamining Berkeley's Philosophy.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Teppei Baba (2008). Is Berkeley's Theory of Ideas A Variant of Locke's? Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 16:9-15.
    I try to show that Berkeley's theory of ideas is not a variant of Locke's. We can find such an interpretation of Berkeley in Thomas Reid. So, we could call this interpretation a 'traditional interpretation'. This traditional interpretation has an influence still now, for example, Tomida interprets Berkeley in this line (Tomida2002). We will see that this traditional interpretation gives a serious problem to Berkeley (section 1). And I am going to present an argument against this traditional interpretation (section 2).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Kenneth Barber (1971). Gruner on Berkeley on General Ideas. Dialogue 10 (02):337-341.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Monroe C. Beardsley (1943). Berkeley on "Abstract Ideas". Mind 52 (206):157-170.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Hans Peter Benschop (1997). Berkeley, Lee and Abstract Ideas. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 5 (1):55 – 66.
  8. Martha Brandt Bolton (2008). Berkeley and Mental Representation : Why Not a Lockean Theory of Ideas? In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Martha Brandt Bolton (1987). Berkeley's Objection to Abstract Ideas and Unconceived Objects. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. David Braybrooke (1955). Berkeley on the Numerical Identity of Ideas. Philosophical Review 64 (4):631-636.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Richard Brook, Berkeley and the Causality of Ideas; a Look at PHK 25.
    I argue that Berkeley's distinctive idealism/immaterialism can't support his view that objects of sense, immediately or mediately perceived, are causally inert. (The Passivity of Ideas thesis or PI) Neither appeal to ordinary perception, nor traditional arguments, for example, that causal connections are necessary, and we can't perceive such connections, are helpful. More likely it is theological concerns,e.g., how to have second causes if God upholds by continuously creating the world, that's in the background. This puts Berkeley closer to Malebranche than (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Richard Brook (2005). Berkeley, Bundles, and Immediate Perception. Dialogue 44 (3):493-504.
    I argue in this article that, contrary to some recent views, Berkeley’s bundle theory of physical objects is incompatible with the thinking that we immediately perceive such objects. Those who argue the contrary view rightly stress that immediate perception of ideas or objects must be non-conceptual for Berkeley, that is, the concept of the object cannot be made use of in the perception, otherwise it would be mediate perception. After a brief look at the texts, I contrast how a direct (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. John Campbell (2002). Berkeley's Puzzle. In Tamar S. Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. MIT Press.
    But say you,surely there is nothing easier than to imagine trees,for instance,in a park, or books existing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no dif?culty in it:but what is all this,I beseech you,more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees, and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of anyone that may perceive them? But do you not yourself perceive or think of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. John Carriero (2003). Berkeley, Resemblance, and Sensible Things. Philosophical Topics 31 (1/2):21-46.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Ewing Y. Chinn (1994). The Anti-Abstractionism of Dignāga and Berkeley. Philosophy East and West 44 (1):55-77.
  16. E. J. Craig (1968). Berkeley's Attack on Abstract Ideas. Philosophical Review 77 (4):425-437.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Georges Dicker (2001). Berkeley on the Impossibility of Abstracting Primary From Secondary Qualities: Lockean Rejoinders. Southern Journal of Philosophy 39 (1):23-45.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Willis Doney (ed.) (1989). Berkeley on Abstraction and Abstract Ideas. Garland.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Willis Doney (1983). Berkeley's Argument Against Abstract Ideas. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 8 (1):295-308.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. François Duchesneau (1987). An Similes Apud Deum Et Percipientem Ideae Dici Possint (Commentaire de David Raynor, “Berkeley's Ontology”). Dialogue 26 (04):621-.
  21. Lorne Falkenstein (1991). Book Review:Particles and Ideas: Bishop Berkeley's Corpuscularian Philosophy Gabriel Moked. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 58 (1):133-.
  22. Daniel E. Flage (1986). Berkeley on Abstraction. Journal of the History of Philosophy 24 (4):483-501.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Melissa Frankel (2009). Something-We-Know-Not-What, Something-We-Know-Not-Why: Berkeley, Meaning and Minds. Philosophia 37 (3):381-402.
    It is sometimes suggested that Berkeley adheres to an empirical criterion of meaning, on which a term is meaningful just in case it signifies an idea (i.e., an immediate object of perceptual experience). This criterion is thought to underlie his rejection of the term ‘matter’ as meaningless. As is well known, Berkeley thinks that it is impossible to perceive matter. If one cannot perceive matter, then, per Berkeley, one can have no idea of it; if one can have no idea (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. S. A. Grave (1964). The Mind and its Ideas: Some Problems in the Interpretation of Berkeley. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 42 (2):199 – 210.
  25. Rolf Gruner (1969). Berkeley on General Ideas. Dialogue 8 (03):481-485.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Ingemar Hedenius (1936). Sensationalism and Theology in Berkeley's Philosophy. Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri-A.-B.
  27. Jonathan Hill (2011). Berkeley's Missing Argument: The Sceptical Attack on Intentionality. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (1):47-77.
    Berkeley argues that our ideas cannot represent external objects, because only an idea can resemble an idea. But he does not offer any argument for the claim that an idea can represent only what it resembles - a premise essential to his argument. I argue that this gap can be both historically explained and filled by examining the debates between Cartesians and sceptics in the late seventeenth century. Descartes held that representation involves two relations between an idea and its object (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Robert Anderson Imlay (1971). Berkeley on Abstract General Ideas. Journal of the History of Philosophy 9 (3):321-328.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Michael Jacovides (2009). How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive. Philosophia 37 (3):415-429.
    Berkeley’s capacity to conceive of mind-independent bodies was corrupted by his theory of representation. He thought that representation of things outside the mind depended on resemblance. Since ideas can resemble nothing than ideas, and all ideas are mind dependent, he concluded that we couldn’t form ideas of mind-independent bodies. More generally, he thought that we had no inner resembling proxies for mind-independent bodies, and so we couldn’t even form a notion of such things. Because conception is a suggestible faculty, Berkeley’s (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Michael Jacovides (2009). Remarks on Smalligan Marusic's Comments. Philosophia 37 (3):437-439.
    The author defends attributing to Berkeley the thesis that we can't conceive of extension in a mind-independent body against criticism from Smalligan Marusic. The author also specifies the resemblance requirements that Berkeley places on conceivability, concedes that the principle that ideas can only be like other ideas is not, strictly speaking, a premise in the Master Argument, and clarifies his views on the relation between possibility and conceivability.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Nicholas Jolley (1996). Berkeley, Malebranche, and Vision in God. Journal of the History of Philosophy 34 (4):535-548.
  32. John Kilcullen, Week 12: Medieval Elements in Berkeley, Locke and Hume.
    This is cassette 12, concerned with more connexions between late medieval and early modern thought. The first writer we will look at is George Berkeley, who criticised Locke's theory of abstract ideas and put forward his own theory of universality.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Craig Lehman (1981). Will, Ideas, and Perception in Berkeley's God. Southern Journal of Philosophy 19 (2):197-203.
  34. Thomas M. Lennon (2001). Berkeley on the Act-Object Distinction. Dialogue 40 (04):651-.
  35. Joseph Margolis (1982). Berkeley and Others on the Problem of Universals. In Colin M. Turbayne (ed.), Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Jennifer Smalligan Marusic (2009). Comments on Michael Jacovides “How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive”. Philosophia 37 (3):431-436.
    The manuscript includes comments on Michael Jacovides’s paper, “How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive.” The paper and comments were delivered at the conference “Meaning and Modern Empiricism” held at Virginia Tech in April 2008. I consider Jacovides’s treatment of Berkeley’s Resemblance Argument and his interpretation of the Master Argument. In particular, I distinguish several ways of understanding the disagreement between Jacovides and Kenneth Winkler over the right way to read the Master Argument.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Gabriel Moked (1988). Particles And Ideas: Bishop Berkeley's Corpuscularian Philosophy. Clarendon Press.
    Demonstrating that in George Berkeley's last major work, Siris, Berkeley had converted to a belief in the usefulness of the concept and existence of minute particles, Moked here posits that Berkeley developed a highly original brand of corpuscularian physics.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Vance G. Morgan (1993). Kant and Dogmatic Idealism: A Defense of Kant's Refutation of Berkeley. Southern Journal of Philosophy 31 (2):217-237.
  39. Steven M. Nadler (1990). Berkeley's Ideas and the Primary/Secondary Distinction. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20 (1):47-61.
  40. Walter R. Ott (2004). The Cartesian Context of Berkeley's Attack on Abstraction. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85 (4):407–424.
    I claim that Berkeley's main argument against abstraction comes into focus only when we see Descartes as one of its targets. Berkeley does not deploy Winkler's impossibility argument but instead argues that what is impossible is inconceivable. Since Descartes conceives of extension as a determinable, and since determinables cannot exist as such, he falls within the scope of Berkeley's argument.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Christopher Peacocke (1985). Imagination, Experience, and Possibility. In John Foster & Howard Robinson (eds.), Essays on Berkeley: A Tercentennial Celebration. Oxford University Press.
  42. Samuel C. Rickless (2012). The Relation Between Anti-Abstractionism and Idealism in Berkeley's Metaphysics. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (4):723 - 740.
    George Berkeley maintains both anti-abstractionism (that abstract ideas are impossible) and idealism (that physical objects and their qualities are mind-dependent). Some scholars (including Atherton, Bolton, and Pappas) have argued, in different ways, that Berkeley uses anti-abstractionism as a premise in a simple argument for idealism. In this paper, I argue that the relation between anti-abstractionism and idealism in Berkeley's metaphysics is more complex than these scholars acknowledge. Berkeley distinguishes between two kinds of abstraction, singling abstraction and generalizing abstraction. He then (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. John Russell Roberts, Innate Ideas Without Abstract Ideas: An Essay on Berkeley's Platonism.
    Draft. Berkeley denied the existence of abstract ideas and any faculty of abstraction. At the same time, however, he embraced innate ideas and a faculty of pure intellect. This paper attempts to reconcile the tension between these commitments by offering an interpretation of Berkeley's Platonism.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Todd Ryan (2006). A New Account of Berkeley's Likeness Principle. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 14 (4):561 – 580.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Ian Tipton (1987). Berkeley's Imagination. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
Berkeley: Abstract Ideas
  1. Maria Adriana Camargo Cappello (2005). A crítica à abstração e à representação no imaterialismo de Berkeley. Doispontos 1 (2).
    O presente texto tem por objetivo examinar as relações existentes entre a crítica às idéias abstratas, apresentada por Berkeley na “Introdução” ao Tratado sobre os princípios do entendimento humano, e a argumentação desenvolvida nos primeiros parágrafos da Parte I do mesmo texto, em que o autor propõe seu imaterialismo. A hipótese levantada a partir de tal exame defende uma relação direta entre o nominalismo de Berkeley e o caráter inaceitável, para o autor, da distinção entre o ser e o aparecer (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. M. Glouberman (1994). Berkeley's Anti-Abstractionism. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 2 (1):145 – 163.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Michael Anthony Istvan (2011). The Link Between Berkeley’s Refutation of Abstraction and His Refutation of Materialism. Methodus 6:78-105.
    This paper engages the controversy as to whether there is a link between Berkeley’s refutation of abstraction and his refutation of materialism. I argue that there is a strong link. In the opening paragraph I show that materialism being true requires and is required by the possibility of abstraction, and that the obviousness of this fact suggests that the real controversy is whether there is a link between Berkeley’s refutation of materialism and his refutation of the possibility of framing abstract (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. J. J. (1965). La Critica de la Abstracción y la Theoria Del Mundo En Berkeley. Review of Metaphysics 18 (4):777-777.
  5. George Pappas (2002). Abstraction and Existence. History of Philosophy Quarterly 19 (1):43 - 63.
1 — 50 / 63