David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophia 37 (3):415-429 (2009)
Berkeley’s capacity to conceive of mind-independent bodies was corrupted by his theory of representation. He thought that representation of things outside the mind depended on resemblance. Since ideas can resemble nothing than ideas, and all ideas are mind dependent, he concluded that we couldn’t form ideas of mind-independent bodies. More generally, he thought that we had no inner resembling proxies for mind-independent bodies, and so we couldn’t even form a notion of such things. Because conception is a suggestible faculty, Berkeley’s arguments actually made it the case that he himself couldn’t conceive of mind-independent bodies.
|Keywords||Berkeley Resemblance Conception Idea Notion Master argument|
|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
Robert Merrihew Adams (1973). Berkeley's “Notion” of Spiritual Substance. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 55 (1):47-69.
Jonathan Bennett (1982). A Note on Interpretation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 12 (4):753 - 755.
Jonathan Francis Bennett (1971). Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes. Oxford,Clarendon Press.
E. M. Curley (1972). Locke, Boyle, and the Distinction Between Primary and Secondary Qualities. Philosophical Review 81 (4):438-464.
Stephen Everson (1997). Aristotle on Perception. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Jennifer Smalligan Marusic (2009). Comments on Michael Jacovides “How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive”. Philosophia 37 (3):431-436.
Similar books and articles
Michael Jacovides (1999). Locke's Resemblance Theses. Philosophical Review 108 (4):461-496.
Martha Brandt Bolton (2008). Berkeley and Mental Representation : Why Not a Lockean Theory of Ideas? In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books.
Walter Ott (2006). Descartes and Berkeley on Mind: The Fourth Distinction. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 14 (3):437 – 450.
Margaret Atherton (2003). How Berkeley Can Maintain That Snow is White. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (1):101–113.
John Campbell (2002). Berkeley's Puzzle. In Tamar S. Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. MIT Press.
Michael Jacovides (2009). Remarks on Smalligan Marusic's Comments. Philosophia 37 (3):437-439.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #43,530 of 1,102,964 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #62,029 of 1,102,964 )
How can I increase my downloads?