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 45 (3):413-442 (2007)
: 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 object of vision, Berkeley directs arguments he takes to be entirely parallel against the notion that vision has two-dimensional planar contents as proper objects. I show that this argument fails due to an illicit slide unnoticed by both Berkeley and his commentators—a slide present but innocuously so in the case of depth. Berkeley's positive account, according to which the apparent spatial content of vision is a matter of associations between, on the one hand, tactile and motor contents, and on the other hand non-spatial visual contents, also fails because of an illicit slide—again, unnoticed by Berkeley and his commentators. I close by discerning the salvageable and correct core of Berkeley's theory of the spatiality of vision
|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
Rick Grush (2007). Skill Theory V2.0: Dispositions, Emulation, and Spatial Perception. Synthese 159 (3):389 - 416.
Stefan Storrie (2012). What is It the Unbodied Spirit Cannot Do? Berkeley and Barrow on the Nature of Geometrical Construction. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (2):249-268.
Rebecca Copenhaver (2014). Berkeley on the Language of Nature and the Objects of Vision. Res Philosophica 91 (1):29-46.
Katherine Dunlop (2011). The Role of Visual Language in Berkeley's Account of Generality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (3):525-559.
Similar books and articles
David Berman (2005). Berkeley and Irish Philosophy. Thoemmes Continuum.
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.
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
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
Margaret Atherton (2005). Berkeley's Theory of Vision and its Reception. In Kenneth Winkler (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Cambridge University Press 94.
Tom Stoneham (2011). Catching Berkeley's Shadow. Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (2):116-136.
D. M. Armstrong (1960). Berkeley's Theory of Vision: A Critical Examination of Bishop Berkeley's Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision. Garland Pub..
Branka Arsić (2003). The Passive Eye: Gaze and Subjectivity in Berkeley (Via Beckett). Stanford University Press.
Margaret Atherton (1990). Berkeley's Revolution in Vision. Cornell University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads188 ( #19,504 of 1,934,580 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #39,145 of 1,934,580 )
How can I increase my downloads?