This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
43 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. David M. Armstrong (1956). Discussion: Berkeley's New Theory of Vision. Journal of the History of Ideas 17 (1):127-129.
    Most of the New Theory of Vision is an argument for a negative answer to Molyneux's question.// re primacy of vision in spatial perception: "most rational philosopher on this topic is Berkeley, whose New Theory of Vision presents in cogent detail the argument" (from Bennett 1966, p. 30, in note cites 41ff.).// Berkeley's criticisms of Locke: "If we really abstract from colour and hardness and all that 'belongs to sensation', so far from being left with 'pure' notions of extension and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Margaret Atherton (1995). Berkeley Without God. In Robert G. Muehlmann (ed.), Berkeley's Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretive, and Critical Essays. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  3. Bertil Belfrage (1992). The Constructivism of Berkeley's New Theory of Vision. In Phillip D. Cummins & Guenter Zoeller (eds.), Minds, Ideas, and Objects: Essays in the Theory of Representation in Modern Philosophy. Ridgeview Publishing Company.
  4. George Berkeley (1963/1981). Works on Vision. Greenwood Press.
    A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge -- An essay towards a new theory of vision -- Alciphron, the fourth dialogue (excerpts) -- The theory of vision.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. George Berkeley (1934). A New Theory of Vision, and Other Select Philosophical Writings. New York, E.P. Dutton & Co..
  6. George Berkeley (1901/2005). The Works of George Berkeley. Continuum.
  7. George Berkeley (1901). Philosophical Works, 1705-21. In , The Works of George Berkeley. Continuum.
  8. George Berkeley (1901). Philosophical Works, 1707-50. In , The Works of George Berkeley. Continuum.
  9. George Berkeley (1709). An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision. Aaron Rhames.
    touch 27 Thirrdly, the straining of the eye 28 The occasions which suggest distance have in their own nature no relation to it 29 A difficult case proposed by Dr. Barrow as repugnant to all the known theories 30 This case contradicts a ...
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. A. E. Best (1968). Misleading Questions and Irrelevant Answers in Berkeley's Theory of Vision. Philosophy 43 (164):138 - 151.
  11. Michael Braund (2007). The Indirect Perception of Distance: Interpretive Complexities in Berkeley's Theory of Vision. Kritike: An Online Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):49-64.
  12. Richard Brook (2003). Berkeley's Theory of Vision: Transparency and Signification. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 11 (4):691 – 699.
    By "transparency" with respect to Berkeley's theory of signs, I mean the notion that because of the often close association between signs and what they signify, we mistakenly think we sense what is signified by the sense that accesses the sign. I argue that although this makes sense for some examples, for a variety of reasons it's not really applicable to Berkeley's claim that we mistakenly think we immediately see distance ('outness') when we, in fact, immediately see only light and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Rebecca Copenhaver (2014). Berkeley on the Language of Nature and the Objects of Vision. Res Philosophica 91 (1):29-46.
    Berkeley holds that vision, in isolation, presents only color and light. He also claims that typical perceivers experience distance, figure, magnitude, and situation visually. The question posed in New Theory is how we perceive by sight spatial features that are not, strictly speaking, visible. Berkeley’s answer is “that the proper objects of vision constitute an universal language of the Author of nature.” For typical humans, this language of vision comes naturally. Berkeley identifies two sorts of objects of vision: primary (light (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Walter E. Creery (1972). Berkeley's Argument for a Divine Visual Language. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3 (4):212 - 222.
  15. Phillip D. Cummins (1987). On the Status of Visuals in Berkeley's 'New Theory of Vision'. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Norman Daniels (1972). Thomas Reid's Discovery of a Non-Euclidean Geometry. Philosophy of Science 39 (2):219-234.
    Independently of any eighteenth century work on the geometry of parallels, Thomas Reid discovered the non-euclidean "geometry of visibles" in 1764. Reid's construction uses an idealized eye, incapable of making distance discriminations, to specify operationally a two dimensional visible space and a set of objects, the visibles. Reid offers sample theorems for his doubly elliptical geometry and proposes a natural model, the surface of the sphere. His construction draws on eighteenth century theory of vision for some of its technical features (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Katherine Dunlop (2011). The Role of Visual Language in Berkeley's Account of Generality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (3):525-559.
  18. Lorne Falkenstein (1994). Intuition and Construction in Berkeley's Account of Visual Space. Journal of the History of Philosophy 32 (1):63-84.
  19. Daniel E. Flage (2011). Analysis in Berkeley's Theory of Vision. In Timo Airaksinen & Bertil Belfrage (eds.), Berkeley's Lasting Legacy: 300 Years Later. Cambridge Scholars.
    In Section 38 of the Theory of Vision Vindicated, George Berkeley claims that he had used the method of analysis throughout the Theory of Vision. What does that mean? I first show that "analysis" denoted a fairly well-defined method in the early modern period: it was regularly described as a method of discovery. Then I show that the discussion of distance perception in the Theory of Vision exemplifies the method of analysis and may be seen as a modification of a (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. 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  
  21. E. J. Furlong (1963). Berkeley and the 'Knot About Inverted Images'. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 41 (3):306 – 316.
  22. Rick Grush (2007). Berkeley and the Spatiality of Vision. Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (3):413-442.
    : Berkeley's Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision presents a theory of various aspects of the spatial content of visual experience that attempts to undercut not only the optico-geometric accounts of e.g., Descartes and Malebranche, but also elements of the empiricist account of Locke. My task in this paper is to shed light on some features of Berkeley's account that have not been adequately appreciated. After rehearsing a more detailed Lockean critique of the notion that depth is a proper (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Basileios Kroustallis (2004). Berkeley and the Moon Illusion. History of Philosophy Quarterly 21 (2):151 - 166.
  24. David M. Levy (1993). "Magic Buffalo" and Berkeley's Theory of Vision. Hume Studies 19 (1):223-226.
  25. Lawrence A. Mirarchi (1982). Dynamical Implications of Berkeley's Doctrine of Heterogeneity: A Note on the Language Model of Nature. In Colin M. Turbayne (ed.), Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
  26. David Morris (1997). Optical Idealism and the Languages of Depth in Descartes and Berkeley. Southern Journal of Philosophy 35 (3):363-392.
  27. Robert Muehlmann (2008). Strong and Weak Heterogeneity in Berkeley's New Theory of Vision. In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books.
  28. George Pitcher (ed.) (1842/1988). Berkeley on Vision: A Nineteenth-Century Debate. Garland Pub..
  29. E. Tranekjær Rasmussen (1953). Berkeley and Modern Psychology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4 (13):2-12.
  30. Karen Rogers (1980). Two Mistakes About Berkeley. Philosophy 55 (214):552 - 553.
  31. Helen E. Ross (2001). Berkeley, Helmholtz, the Moon Illusion, and Two Visual Systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (1):116-117.
    Berkeley and Helmholtz proposed different indirect mechanisms for size perception: Berkeley, that size was conditioned to various cues, independently of perceived distance; Helmholtz, that it was unconsciously calculated from angular size and perceived distance. The geometrical approach cannot explain size-distance paradoxes (e.g., moon illusion). The dorsal/ventral solution is dubious for close displays and untestable for far displays.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Rolf Sartorius (1969). A Neglected Aspect of the Relationship Between Berkeley's Theory of Vision and His Immaterialism. American Philosophical Quarterly 6 (4):318 - 323.
  33. Steven Schroeder (2002). George Berkeley's Embodied Vision. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 9 (2):87-92.
    Taking up John of Salisbury’s dictum that we read ancient texts to improve our eyesight, this article returns to an “old” book for “new” insight into the perennial philosophical problem of visual perception. A careful reading of Berkeley’s essay on vision improves our eyesight in at least four ways: First, it reminds us that the most interesting aspects of visual perception are not “primary” but “derivative.” Second, it reminds us that our relationship with the world is an interactive process of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Ralph Schumacher (2007). Berkeley on Visible Figure and Extension. In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), Reexamining Berkeley's Philosophy.
  35. Robert Schwartz (1995). Seeing Distance From a Berkeleian Perspective. In Robert G. Muehlmann (ed.), Berkeley's Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretive, and Critical Essays. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Robert Schwartz (1994). Vision: Variations on Some Berkeleian Themes. Cambridge: Blackwell.
  37. Bruce Silver (1977). The Invisible World of Berkeley's New Theory of Vision. New Scholasticism 51 (2):142-161.
  38. Bruce Silver (1974). A Note on Berkeley's New Theory of Vision and Thomas Reid's Distinction Between Primary and Secondary Qualities. Southern Journal of Philosophy 12 (2):253-263.
  39. George J. Stack (1970/1991). Berkeley's Analysis of Perception. P. Lang.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Tom Stoneham (2011). Catching Berkeley's Shadow. Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (2):116-136.
    Berkeley thinks that we only see the size, shape, location, and orientation of objects in virtue of the correlation between sight and touch. Shadows have all of these spatial properties and yet are intangible. In Seeing Dark Things (2008), Roy Sorensen argues that shadows provide a counterexample to Berkeley's theory of vision and, consequently, to his idealism. This paper shows that Berkeley can accept both that shadows are intangible and that they have spatial properties.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Colin Murray Turbayne (1970). Berkeley's Metaphysical Grammar. In , A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge / George Berkeley with Critical Essays. Bobbs-Merrill.
  42. James van Cleve (2003). Reid Versus Berkeley on the Inverted Retinal Image. Philosophical Topics 31 (1/2).
  43. Gideon Yaffe (2003). Berkeley and the 'Mighty Difficulty'. Philosophical Topics 31 (1/2):485-510.