Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (3):413-442 (2007)
|Abstract||: 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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
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.
Tom Stoneham (2011). Catching Berkeley's Shadow. Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (2):116-136.
D. M. Armstrong (1960/1988). 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 downloads26 ( #48,417 of 556,803 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,010 of 556,803 )
How can I increase my downloads?