Hume and Berkeley on the proofs of infinite divisibility

Philosophical Review 97 (1):47-69 (1988)
Since both berkeley and hume are committed to the view that a line is composed of finitely many fundamental parts, They must find responses to the standard geometrical proofs of infinite divisibility. They both repeat traditional arguments intended to show that infinite divisibility leads to absurdities, E.G., That all lines would be infinite in length, That all lines would have the same length, Etc. In each case, Their arguments rest upon a misunderstanding of the concept of a limit, And thus are not successful. Berkeley, However, Adds a further ingenious argument to the effect that the standard geometrical proofs of infinite divisibility misread the unlimited representational capacity of geometrical diagrams as a substantive feature of the objects that these diagrams represent. The article concludes that berkeley is right on this matter, And that the traditional proofs of infinite divisibility do not show what they are intended to show
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2307/2185099
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 15,914
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Emil Badici (2011). Standards of Equality and Hume's View of Geometry. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (4):448-467.
Dale Jacquette (1995). Hume's Aesthetic Psychology of Distance, Greatness and the Sublime. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 3 (1):89 – 112.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

36 ( #89,993 of 1,725,629 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #268,736 of 1,725,629 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.