David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Journal of Philosophical Studies 5 (3):397 – 423 (1997)
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 is no longer plausible once we recognize that Berkeley endorses the non-propositional sense of mediate perception. I close by urging that the non-propositional interpretation of Berkeley's account of mediate perception affords a greater appreciation of Berkeley's attempt to bring a philosophical account of sense perception in line with some key principles of common sense. While Berkeley's account of perception and physical objects permits physical objects to be immediately perceived by some of the senses, they are, most often, mediately perceived. But for Berkeley this is not a challenge to common sense since common sense requires only that we perceive objects by our senses and that they are, more or less, as we perceive them. Mediate perception by suggestion is, for Berkeley, as genuine a form of perception as immediate perception, and both are compatible with Berkeley's understanding of the demands of common sense.
|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
Kenneth P. Winkler (1994). Berkeley: An Interpretation. Oxford University Press Uk.
Brian O'Shaughnessy (1989). The Sense of Touch. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67 (1):37 – 58.
George Pitcher (1977/1999). Berkeley. Routledge.
George Pitcher (1986). Berkeley on the Perception of Objects. Journal of the History of Philosophy 24 (1):99-105.
G. J. Warnock (1953/1983). Berkeley. University of Notre Dame Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
R. I. Aaron (1958). The Common Sense View of Sense-Perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 58:1-14.
Clement W. K. Mundle (1971). Perception: Facts And Theories. London,: Oxford University Press,.
Richard Brook (2005). Berkeley, Bundles, and Immediate Perception. Dialogue 44 (3):493-504.
Jay Newman, Martin A. Bertman & Finngeir Hiorth (1992). Book Reviews. [REVIEW] Philosophia 21 (3-4):339-349.
Michael Newman (1990). Book Review. [REVIEW] British Journal of Aesthetics 30 (4):390-392.
Goerge Pappas (1982). Berkeley, Perception, and Common Sense. In Colin M. Turbayne (ed.), Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays. University of Minnesota Press
Colin Murray Turbayne (ed.) (1982). Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays. University of Minnesota Press.
James W. Cornman (1975). Perception, Common Sense And Science. Yale University Press.
Kenneth L. Pearce (2008). The Semantics of Sense Perception in Berkeley. Religious Studies 44 (3):249-268.
Georges Dicker (2006). Berkeley on Immediate Perception: Once More Unto the Breach. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (225):517–535.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #113,150 of 1,790,385 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #431,678 of 1,790,385 )
How can I increase my downloads?