Related categories
Siblings:
35 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Timo Airaksinen (2011). Light and Causality in Siris. In Timo Airaksinen & Bertil Belfrage (eds.), Berkeley's Lasting Legacy: 300 Years Later. Cambridge Scholars.
    George Berkeley's Siris (1744) has been a neglected work, for many reasons. Some of them are good and some bad. The book is difficult to decipher, mainly because of its ancient metaphysics. He talks about the world as an animal or plant. He speculates about man as a microcosm which is analogous to the universe as a macrocosm. He recommends tar-water as a universal medicine. This was understandable in his own time. But Siris is also a Newtonian treatise which both (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. M. R. Ayers (1986). Berkeley and the Meaning of Existence. History of European Ideas 7 (6):567-573.
  3. David Berman (1986). Berkeley's Quad. Idealistic Studies 16 (1):41-45.
  4. Bill Brewer, Berkeley and Modern Metaphysics.
    Notoriously, Berkeley combines his denial of the existence of mind-independent matter with the insistence that most of what common sense claims about physical objects is perfectly true (1975a, 1975b).1 As I explain (§ 1), he suggests two broad strategies for this reconciliation, one of which importantly subdivides. Thus, I distinguish three Berkeleyian metaphysical views. The subsequent argument is as follows. Reflection, both upon Berkeley’s ingenious construal of science as approaching towards an essentially indirect identification of the causal-explanatory ground of the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Richard Brook (1995). Berkeley, Causality, and Signification. International Studies in Philosophy 27 (2):15-31.
  6. Eric Bush (1977). Berkeley, Truth, and the World. Inquiry 20 (1-4):205 – 225.
    There is a structural similarity between an influential argument of Berkeley's against causal realism and a traditional, and recently revived, argument against the correspondence theory of truth. Both arguments chide the realist for positing a relation between his conceptions (perceptions) of reality and a world independent of those conceptions (perceptions). Man could have no epistemic access to such a relation, it is said, for, by the realist's own admission, he has access to only one of the relata - his conceptions (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Phillip D. Cummins (2007). Perceiving and Berkeley's Theory of Substance. In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), Reexamining Berkeley's Philosophy.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Phillip D. Cummins (1989). Berkeley's Unstable Ontology. The Modern Schoolman 67 (1):15-32.
  9. Stephen H. Daniel (2000). Berkeley, Suárez, and the Esse-Existere Distinction. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 74 (4):621-636.
    For Berkeley, a thing's existence 'esse' is nothing more than its being perceived 'as that thing'. It makes no sense to ask (with Samuel Johnson) about the 'esse' of the mind or the specific act of perception, for that would be like asking what it means for existence to exist. Berkeley's "existere is percipi or percipere" (NB 429) thus carefully adopts the scholastic distinction between 'esse' and 'existere' ignored by Locke and others committed to a substantialist notion of mind. Following (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Lisa Downing (1995). Berkeley's Case Against Realism About Dynamics. In Robert G. Muehlmann (ed.), Berkeley's Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretive, and Critical Essays. The Pennsylvania State University Press. 197--214.
    While De Motu, Berkeley's treatise on the philosophical foundations of mechanics, has frequently been cited for the surprisingly modern ring of certain of its passages, it has not often been taken as seriously as Berkeley hoped it would be. Even A.A. Luce, in his editor's introduction to De Motu, describes it as a modest work, of limited scope. Luce writes: The De Motu is written in good, correct Latin, but in construction and balance the workmanship falls below Berkeley's usual standards. (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Lisa Jeanne Downing (1994). Berkeley's Ontology (Review). Journal of the History of Philosophy 32 (2):309-311.
  12. François Duchesneau (1987). An Similes Apud Deum Et Percipientem Ideae Dici Possint (Commentaire de David Raynor, “Berkeley's Ontology”). Dialogue 26 (04):621-.
  13. James A. Elbert (1934). Berkeley's Conception of God From the Standpoint of Perception and Causation. New Scholasticism 8 (2):152-158.
  14. Daniel E. Flage (2009). Berkeley's Contingent Necessities. Philosophia 37 (3):361-372.
    The paper provides an account of necessary truths in Berkeley based upon his divine language model. If the thesis of the paper is correct, not all Berkeleian necessary truths can be known a priori.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Daniel Garber (1987). Something-I-Know-Not-What: Berkeley on Locke on Substance. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
  16. Jody L. Graham (1998). Berkeley's Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretive and Critical Essays Robert G. Muehlmann, Editor University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State Press, 1995, Xiv + 264 Pp. [REVIEW] Dialogue 37 (02):411-.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Jody L. Graham (1998). Berkeley's Metaphysics. Dialogue 37 (2):411-413.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Giovanni Battista Grandi (2009). Comments on Daniel E. Flage's “Berkeley's Contingent Necessities”. Philosophia 37 (3):373-378.
    According to Daniel Flage, Berkeley thinks that all necessary truths are founded on acts of will that assign meanings to words. After briefly commenting on the air of paradox contained in the title of Flage’s paper, and on the historical accuracy of Berkeley’s understanding of the abstractionist tradition, I make some remarks on two points made by Flage. Firstly, I discuss Flage’s distinction between the ontological ground of a necessary truth and our knowledge of a necessary truth. Secondly, I discuss (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Peter S. Groff (1998). Peirce on Berkeley's Nominalistic Platonism. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 72 (2):165-177.
  20. W. H. Hay (1953). Berkeley's Argument From Nominalism. Revue Internationale De Philosophie 7 (23-24):19-27.
    Reprinted in Colin Murray Turbayne, ed., 'A Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge / George Berkeley, with Critical Essays' (Bobbs-Merrill, 1970): 37-46.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. John Immerwahr (1974). Berkeley's Causal Thesis. New Scholasticism 48 (2):153-170.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. T. E. Jessop (1936). The Metaphysics of Berkeley Critically Examined in the Light of Modern Philosophy. By G. W. Kaveeshwar. (High School, Khandwa, Central Provinces, India: A. Kaveeshwar. 1933. Pp. Vi + 360. Price 5s. 6d.). [REVIEW] Philosophy 11 (42):228-.
  23. P. J. E. Kail (2010). Causation, Fictionalism, and Non-Cognitivism: Berkeley and Hume. In Silvia Parigi (ed.), George Berkeley: Religion and Science in the Age of Enlightenment. Springer.
  24. Gajanan Wasudeo Kaveeshwar (1933). The Metaphysics of Berkeley: Critically Examined in the Light of Modern Philosophy. Mrs. Ashavati Kaveeshwar.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. J. D. Mabbott (1931). The Place of God in Berkeley's Philosophy. Philosophy 6 (21):18-.
  26. Joseph Moreau (1988). Berkeley et le schématisme. Kant-Studien 79 (1-4):286-292.
  27. Robert G. Muehlmann (ed.) (1995). Berkeley's Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretive, and Critical Essays. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    Contents Part I: Idealism Berkeley's Idealism: Yet Another Visit/Edwin B. Allaire On Allaire's ""Another Visit""/Alan Hausman and David Hausman A New Approach to Berkeley's Ideal Reality/ Alan Hausman and David Hausman On the Hausmans's ""A ...
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Robert G. Muehlmann (1992). Berkeley's Ontology. Hackett.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. George S. Pappas (1997). The Metaphysics of George Berkeley, 1685-1753. International Studies in Philosophy 29 (4):126-127.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Christopher Peacocke (1985). Imagination, Experience, and Possibility. In John Foster & Howard Robinson (eds.), Essays on Berkeley: A Tercentennial Celebration. Oxford University Press.
  31. David R. Raynor (1987). Berkeley's Ontology. Dialogue 26 (04):611-620.
  32. Samuel C. Rickless (2009). A Metaphysics for the Mob: The Philosophy of George Berkeley. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 118 (2):244-247.
  33. C. M. Turbayne (1956). The Influence of Berkeley's Science on His Metaphysics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 16 (4):476-487.
  34. Colin M. Turbayne (1982). Lending a Hand to Philonous: The Berkeley, Plato, Aristotle Connection. In , Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
  35. Kenneth P. Winkler (1985). Berkeley on Volition, Power, and the Complexity of Causation. History of Philosophy Quarterly 2 (1):53 - 69.