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:
93 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 93
Material to categorize
  1. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (1864/1988). Sight and Touch: An Attempt to Disprove the Received (or Berkeleian) Theory of Vision. Garland.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Fred Ablondi (2005). Berkeley, Archetypes, and Errors. Southern Journal of Philosophy 43 (4):493-504.
  3. D. M. Armstrong (1960/1988). Berkeley's Theory of Vision: A Critical Examination of Bishop Berkeley's Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision. Garland Pub..
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Branka Arsić (2003). The Passive Eye: Gaze and Subjectivity in Berkeley (Via Beckett). Stanford University Press.
    The Passive Eye is a revolutionary and historically rich account of Berkeley’s theory of vision. In this formidable work, the author considers the theory of the embodied subject and its passions in light of a highly dynamic conception of infinity. Arsic shows the profound affinities between Berkeley and Spinoza, and offers a highly textual reading of Berkeley on the concept of an “exhausted subjectivity.” The author begins by following the Renaissance universe of vision, particularly the paradoxical elusive nature of mirrors, (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Margaret Atherton (2008). The Objects of Immediate Perception. In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Margaret Atherton (2005). Berkeley's Theory of Vision and its Reception. In Kenneth Winkler (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Cambridge University Press. 94.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Margaret Atherton (2003). Mr. Abbott and Professor Fraser: A Nineteenth Century Debate About Berkeleys Theory of Vision. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 85 (1):21-50.
  8. Margaret Atherton (1990). Berkeley's Revolution in Vision. Cornell University Press.
    Introduction In 1709 George Berkeley published his first substantial work, An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision. As a contribution to the theory of ...
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Winston H. F. Barnes (1940). Did Berkeley Misunderstand Locke? Mind 49 (193):52-57.
  10. Donald L. M. Baxter (1991). Berkeley, Perception, and Identity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51 (1):85-98.
  11. A. E. Best (1968). Misleading Questions and Irrelevant Answers in Berkeley's Theory of Vision. Philosophy 43 (164):138 - 151.
  12. 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.
  13. 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  
  14. A. S. C. (1971). Berkeley's Analysis of Perception. Review of Metaphysics 25 (2):371-371.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  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. Arnold I. Davidson & Norbert Hornstein (1984). The Primary/Secondary Quality Distinction: Berkeley, Locke, and the Foundations of Corpuscularian Science. Dialogue 23 (02):281-303.
  17. Georges Dicker (2008). Anti-Berkeley. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 16 (2):335 – 350.
  18. Georges Dicker (2006). Berkeley on Immediate Perception: Once More Unto the Breach. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (225):517–535.
    I have previously argued that within an argument to show that we cannot perceive the causes of our sensations, Berkeley's Philonous conflates a psychological and an epistemic sense of 'immediately perceive', and uses the principle of perceptual immediacy (PPI), that whatever is perceived by the senses is immediately perceived. George Pappas has objected that Berkeley does not operate with either of these concepts of immediate perception, and does not subscribe to (PPI). But I show that Berkeley's argumentative strategy requires him (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. 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  
  20. Georges Dicker (1982). Two Arguments From Perceptual Relativity in Berkeley's Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. Southern Journal of Philosophy 20 (4):409-422.
    I argue that philonous gives two versions of the argument from perceptual relativity--One for the secondary qualities and another for the primary. Further, Both versions ultimately turn on the epistemological assumption that every case of perceiving, Regardless of the conditions of observation, Is a case of "knowing" the character of some "object". This assumption is made in order to avoid a vicious regress that arises when one tries to understand how perceptual knowledge is possible.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Georges Dicker (1982). The Concept of Immediate Perception and Berkeley's Immaterialism. In Colin M. Turbayne (ed.), Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Willis Doney (1952). Two Questions About Berkeley. Philosophical Review 61 (3):382-391.
  23. James A. Elbert (1934). Berkeley's Conception of God From the Standpoint of Perception and Causation. New Scholasticism 8 (2):152-158.
  24. 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  
  25. E. J. Furlong (1963). Berkeley and the 'Knot About Inverted Images'. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 41 (3):306 – 316.
  26. Donald Gotterbarn (1975). Berkeley: God's Pain. Philosophical Studies 28 (4):245 - 254.
  27. Jody Graham (1997). Common Sense and Berkeley's Perception by Suggestion. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 5 (3):397 – 423.
    Significant attention has been paid to Berkeley's account of perception; however, the interpretations of Berkeley's account of perception by suggestion are either incomplete or mistaken. In this paper I begin by examining a common interpretation of suggestion, the 'Propositional Account'. I argue that the Propositional Account is inadequate and defend an alternative, non-propositional, account. I then address George Pitcher's objection that Berkeley's view of sense perception forces him to adopt a 'non-conciliatory' attitude towards common sense. I argue that Pitcher's charge (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. 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  
  29. Ingemar Hedenius (1936). Sensationalism and Theology in Berkeley's Philosophy. Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri-A.-B.
  30. Donald F. Henze (1965). Berkeley on Sensations and Qualities. Theoria 31 (3):174-180.
  31. G. A. Johnston (1937). Sensationalism and Theology in Berkeley's Philosophy. By Ingemar Hedenius. (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells Boktryckeri-A.B.; Oxford: B. H. Blackwell. 1936. Pp. 238. Price 10s.). [REVIEW] Philosophy 12 (47):358-.
  32. E. G. King (1970). Language, Berkeley, and God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 1 (2):112 - 123.
  33. A. David Kline (1987). Berkeley's Divine Language Argument. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
  34. A. David Kline (1980). Berkeley, Pitcher, and Distance Perception. International Studies in Philosophy 12 (2):1-8.
  35. Richard T. Lambert (1980). Berkeley's Use of the Relativity Argument. Idealistic Studies 10 (2):107-121.
  36. Craig Lehman (1981). Will, Ideas, and Perception in Berkeley's God. Southern Journal of Philosophy 19 (2):197-203.
  37. Thomas M. Lennon (2011). The Main Part and Pillar of Berkeley's Theory: Idealism and Perceptual Heterogeneity. Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (2):91-115.
    Berkeley subscribed to the principle of heterogeneity, that what we see is qualitatively and numerically different from what we touch. He says of this principle that it is “the main part and pillar of [his] theory.” The argument I present here is that the theory to which Berkeley refers is not just his theory of vision, but what that theory was the preparation for, which is nothing less than his idealism. The argument turns on the passivity of perception, which is (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. David M. Levy (1993). "Magic Buffalo" and Berkeley's Theory of Vision. Hume Studies 19 (1):223-226.
  39. Konrad Marc-Wogau (1957). Berkeley's Sensationalism and the Esse Est Percipi-Principle. Theoria 23 (1):12-36.
  40. 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.
  41. David Morris (1997). Optical Idealism and the Languages of Depth in Descartes and Berkeley. Southern Journal of Philosophy 35 (3):363-392.
  42. R. G. Muehlmann (1991). The Role of Perceptual Relativity in Berkeley's Philosophy. Journal of the History of Philosophy 29 (3):397-425.
    My purpose herein is to demonstrate that Berkeley's only use of the argument from perceptual relativity (APR), in both of his major works, is ad hominem, that he uses it to undermine what he calls materialism. Specifically, I show that Berkeley does not use APR to conclude that sensible qualities are mind-dependent; rather he uses APR only to conclude that they are not in material substances; and that his real argument for the former is a quite different one: the heat-pain (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. 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.
  44. Steven M. Nadler (1990). Berkeley's Ideas and the Primary/Secondary Distinction. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20 (1):47-61.
  45. George Pappas (1999). Berkeley and Scepticism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (1):133 - 149.
    In both the Principles and the Three Dialogues, Berkeley claims that he wants to uncover those principles which lead to scepticism; to refute those principles; and to refute scepticism itself. This paper examines the principles Berkeley says have scepticial consequences, and contends that only one of them implies scepticism. It is also argued that Berkeley's attempted refutation of scepticism rests not on his acceptance of the esse est percipi principle, but rather on the thesis that physical objects and their sensible (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. George S. Pappas (1987). Berkeley and Immediate Perception. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Kenneth L. Pearce (2008). The Semantics of Sense Perception in Berkeley. Religious Studies 44 (3):249-268.
    George Berkeley's linguistic account of sense perception is one of the most central tenets of his philosophy. It is intended as a solution to a wide range of critical issues in both metaphysics and theology. However, it is not clear from Berkeley's writings just how this ‘universal language of the Author of Nature’ is to be interpreted. This paper discusses the nature of the theory of sense perception as language, together with its metaphysical and theological motivations, then proceeds to develop (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Robert L. Phillips (1964). Austin and Berkeley on Perception. Philosophy 39 (148):161 - 163.
  49. George Pitcher (1986). Berkeley on the Perception of Objects. Journal of the History of Philosophy 24 (1):99-105.
  50. George Pitcher (ed.) (1842/1988). Berkeley on Vision: A Nineteenth-Century Debate. Garland Pub..
1 — 50 / 93