David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of the History of Philosophy 16 (4):415-434 (1978)
Berkeley held space to be relational. On the other hand, He took extension to be composed of absolute minima. This paper offers an analysis of berkeley's views on the nature of minimum visibles and space and related notions, E.G., Distance, Extension, And figure. The difficulties in his theory are clearest in the analysis of figure where it is argued that minima can have neither figure nor extension and that, Contrary to berkeley's view, Extension and figure cannot be composed of such minima. The paper concludes by arguing that the "esse est percipi" doctrine is false, Since it entails that there are minimum visibles and that distances be specifiable in terms of minimum visible distances
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Margaret Atherton (2005). Berkeley's Theory of Vision and its Reception. In Kenneth Winkler (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Cambridge University Press 94.
John Tull Baker (1930). An Historical and Critical Examination of English Space and Time Theories From Henry More to Bishop Berkeley. Bronxville, N.Y.,Sarah Lawrence College.
Tom Stoneham (2006). Berkeley's "Esse Is Percipi" and Collier's "Simple" Argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly 23 (3):211-224.
David Berman (2005). Berkeley and Irish Philosophy. Thoemmes Continuum.
George Berkeley (1988). Principles of Human Knowledge ; and, Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. Penguin Books.
Patrick Fleming (2006). Berkeley's Immaterialist Account of Action. Journal of the History of Philosophy 44 (3):415-429.
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
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.
A. D. Smith (2000). Space and Sight. Mind 109 (435):481-518.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads29 ( #164,466 of 1,941,041 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #149,681 of 1,941,041 )
How can I increase my downloads?