Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
References to the Three Dialogues (3D) are to volume and page numbers in The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne.
We could augment the principles by considering what is required for two things to have some feature in common, e.g. whether it is enough that they have some determinable feature in common, or whether they must have some determinate feature in common.
References to The Principles of Human Knowledge (PHK) are to section numbers.
References
Berkeley, G. (1978). The works of George Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne. In A. A. Luce, & T. E. Jessop. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.
Jacovides, M. (2009). How Berkeley corrupted his capacity to conceive. Philosophia, 37(3), 415–429. doi: 10.1007/s11406-008-9158-0.
Winkler, K. (1989). Berkeley: An interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smalligan Marusic, J. Comments on Michael Jacovides “How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive”. Philosophia 37, 431–436 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-008-9165-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-008-9165-1