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:
238 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 238
Material to categorize
  1. Michael Ayers (1997). Minds, Ideas and Objects. Philosophical Review 106 (2):288-291.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Bertil Belfrage (2007). Berkeley's Four Concepts of the Soul (1707-1709). In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), Reexamining Berkeley's Philosophy.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Harry Bracken (1960). Berkeley on the Immortality of the Soul. Modern Schoolman 37 (3):197-212.
  4. Harry M. Bracken (1962). Berkeley's Theory of Vision. Modern Schoolman 39 (3):287-289.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. G. Brykman (1985). Principle of Resemblance and Heterogeneity of Ideas in Berkeley Philosophy. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 39 (154):242-251.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Genevieve Brykman (2010). Short View and Synoptic Vision in Berkeley's Works. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de L Etranger 135 (1):83.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Geoffrey Cantor (1991). Berkeley's Revolution in Vision. [REVIEW] British Journal for the History of Science 24 (2):257-258.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Phillip D. Cummins (2007). Perceiving and Berkeley's Theory of Substance. In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), Reexamining Berkeley's Philosophy.
  9. Phillip D. Cummins (2005). Berkeley on Minds and Agency. In Kenneth Winkler (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Cambridge University Press. 190.
  10. Stephen H. Daniel (2008). Berkeley's Stoic Notion of Spiritual Substance. In , New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books.
    For Berkeley, minds are not Cartesian spiritual substances because they cannot be said to exist (even if only conceptually) abstracted from their activities. Similarly, Berkeley's notion of mind differs from Locke's in that, for Berkeley, minds are not abstract substrata in which ideas inhere. Instead, Berkeley redefines what it means for the mind to be a substance in a way consistent with the Stoic logic of 17th century Ramists on which Leibniz and Jonathan Edwards draw. This view of mind, I (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Willis Doney (1982). Is Berkeley's a Cartesian Mind? In Colin M. Turbayne (ed.), Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Keota Fields (2011). Berkeley: Ideas, Immateralism, and Objective Presence. Lexington Books.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Daniel Flage (2006). Berkeley’s Ideas of Reflection. Berkeley Studies 17:7-13.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Henry R. Frankel (1977). Berkeley's Concept of Mind as Presented in Book II Ofthe Principles. Southern Journal of Philosophy 15 (1):37-51.
  15. M. Glouberman (1981). Berkeley and Cognition. Philosophy 56 (216):213 - 221.
    In ‘Berkeley and God’, Jonathan Bennett diagnoses Berkeley's intermittent advocacy of the proposition that physical things ‘do sometimes exist when not perceived by any human spirit’ by pinning on him the invalid argument, vitiated by the ambiguity of ‘depend’, from all ideas depend on some spirit or other, via some sensible ideas do not depend on these spirits themselves, to some ideas depend on non-finite spirits.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Peter Loptson (1992). Margaret Atherton, Berkeley's Revolution in Vision Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 12 (6):379-383.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. A. A. Luce (1953). L'Essai Sur la Vision de Berkeley Et Sa Défense Et Explication de la Théorie de la Vision. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 143:164 - 180.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Joseph P. Mueller (1930). Aristotle's Theory of Vision. Modern Schoolman 7 (1):15-16.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. O. O. Norris (1934). The Nature of Distance Vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology 17 (3):462.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Nicholas Pastore (1967). Condillac's Phenomenological Rejection of Locke and Berkeley. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 27 (3):429-431.
  21. M. H. Pirenne (1953). Physiological Mechanisms in the Perception of Distance by Sight and Berkeley's Theory of Vision. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4 (13):13-21.
  22. M. I. Posner & S. W. Keele (1968). On the Genesis of Abstract Ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology 77 (2p1):353-363.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. K. M. Sayre (1961). Berkeley's Theory of Vision. Philosophical Studies 11:203-207.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. G. J. Warnock & D. M. Armstrong (1962). Perception and the Physical World.Berkeley's Theory of Vision. Philosophical Quarterly 12 (49):373.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
Berkeley: Epistemology of Mind
  1. Robert Merrihew Adams (1973). Berkeley's “Notion” of Spiritual Substance. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 55 (1):47-69.
  2. Bertil Belfrage (2011). Berkeley's Way Towards Constructivism, 1707-1709. In Timo Airaksinen & Bertil Belfrage Airaksinen (eds.), Berkeley's Lasting Legacy: 300 Years Later. Cambridge Scholars.
    George Berkeley opens the Principles (Part I) with "a Survey of the Objects of Human Knowledge" including such ideas "as are perceiv'd by attending to the Passions and Operations of the Mind." Scholars have rejected this passage as being "philosophically impossible," not seriously meant, just a reference to John Locke's ideas of reflection, or not at all about "ideas." It is true, in a few unpublished manuscripts Berkeley used the term "ideas" for image-pictures of particular things (the Old Paradigm). But, (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Talia Mae Bettcher (2008). Berkeley on Self-Consciousness. In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. James W. Cornman (1971). A Reconstruction of Berkeley: Minds and Physical Objects as Theoretical Entities. Ratio 13 (1):76.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. James W. Cornman (1970). Theoretical Terms, Berkeleian Notions, and Minds. In Colin Murray Turbayne (ed.), A Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge / George Berkeley, with Critical Essays. Bobbs-Merrill.
  6. Phillip Cummins (1982). Hylas' Parity Argument. In Colin M. Turbayne (ed.), Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Stephen H. Daniel (2013). Berkeley's Doctrine of Mind and the “Black List Hypothesis”: A Dialogue. Southern Journal of Philosophy 51 (1):24-41.
    Clues about what Berkeley was planning to say about mind in his now-lost second volume of the Principles seem to abound in his Notebooks. However, commentators have been reluctant to use his unpublished entries to explicate his remarks about spiritual substances in the Principles and Dialogues for three reasons. First, it has proven difficult to reconcile the seemingly Humean bundle theory of the self in the Notebooks with Berkeley's published characterization of spirits as “active beings or principles.” Second, the fact (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Lorne Falkenstein (1990). Berkeley's Argument for Other Minds. History of Philosophy Quarterly 7 (4):431 - 440.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. David S. Forth (1971). Berkeley and Buber: An Epistemological Comparison. Dialogue 10 (04):690-707.
  10. Melissa Frankel (2009). Berkeley, Meaning and Minds: Remarks on Glezakos' Comments. Philosophia 37 (3):409-413.
    This is a response to Stavroula Glezakos’ commentary on my paper, in which I address three main points: (1) whether Berkeley is entitled to argue via inference to the best explanation, (2) whether Berkeley’s likeness principle might be too strict, and (3) whether the texts support my reading.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. 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  
  12. Stavroula Glezakos (2009). Comments on Melissa Frankel's “Something-We-Know-Not-What, Something-We-Know-Not Why: Berkeley, Meaning and Minds”. Philosophia 37 (3):403-407.
  13. S. A. Grave (1964). The Mind and its Ideas: Some Problems in the Interpretation of Berkeley. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 42 (2):199 – 210.
  14. Denis Grey (1954). Berkeley on Other Selves: A Study in Fugue. Philosophical Quarterly 4 (14):28-44.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Denis Grey (1952). The Solipsism of Bishop Berkeley. Philosophical Quarterly 2 (9):338-349.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. 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 |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Jeremy E. Henkel (2011). How to Avoid Solipsism While Remaining an Idealist: Lessons From Berkeley and Dharmakīrti. Comparative Philosophy 3 (1):58-73.
    This essay examines the strategies that Berkeley and Dharmakīrti utilize to deny that idealism entails solipsism. Beginning from similar arguments for the non-existence of matter, the two philosophers employ markedly different strategies for establishing the existence of other minds. This difference stems from their responses to the problem of intersubjective agreement. While Berkeley’s reliance on his Cartesian inheritance does allow him to account for intersubjective agreement without descending into solipsism, it nevertheless prevents him from establishing the existence of other finite (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Laurent Jaffro (2004). Le cogito de Berkeley. Archives de Philosophie 1:85-111.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. A. C. Lloyd (1985). The Self in Berkeley's Philosophy. In John Foster & Howard Robinson (eds.), Essays on Berkeley: A Tercentennial Celebration. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Charles J. McCracken (1986). Berkeley's Notion of Spirit. History of European Ideas 7 (6):597-602.
  21. George W. Miller (1965). The Commonplace Book and Berkeley's Concept Of The Self. Southern Journal of Philosophy 3 (1):23-32.
  22. Tim Mooney, Irish Cartesian and Proto-Phenomenologist: The Case of Berkeley.
    Comparatively recent scholarship suggests that George Berkeley cannot be seen solely or even chiefly as a British empiricist who is reacting to the materialistic implications of Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding. C.J. McCracken has shown how Berkeley is influenced by Malebranche’s theses concerning the dependence of bodies on God, without himself doubting the evidence of the senses. McCracken also shows how Berkeley reconstructs and reapplies Malebranche’s fideism.1 Harry Bracken has argued, most notably, that Berkeley espouses certain theses that set him (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Sami M. Najm (1966). Knowledge of the Self in Berkeley's Philosophy. International Philosophical Quarterly 6 (2):248-269.
    Given berkeley's view of ideas and spirits and his reference to notions of spirits, Actions, Relations, And ideas, I argue that (a) the doctrine of the notion is his account of knowledge of the self, (b) to have a notion of something is to comprehend it non-Perceptually and actively, And (c) berkeley ultimately holds the self is substantial and knowable. By intuition and principled knowledge we know the self "exists". Notional knowledge is not intuition. The former and principled knowledge presuppose (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. George S. Pappas (1980). Ideas, Minds, and Berkeley. American Philosophical Quarterly 17 (3):181 - 194.
    A number of commentators on the work of berkeley have maintained that berkeleyan minds are related to ideas by the relation of inherence. Thus, Ideas are taken to inhere in minds in something like the way that accidents were supposed to inhere in substances for the aristotelian. This inherence account, As I call it, Is spelled out in detail and critically evaluated. Ultimately it is rejected despite its considerable initial plausibility.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Warren E. Steinkraus (1972). Berkeley and Inferred Friends. Dialogue 11 (04):592-595.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Richard J. Van Iten (1962). Berkeley's Alleged Solipsism. Revue International de Philosophie 16 (61-62):447-452.
    Reprinted in Colin Murray Turbayne, ed., 'A Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge / George Berkeley, with Critical Essays' (Bobbs-Merrill, 1970): 47-56.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 238