Berkeley and the doctrine of signs
In Kenneth Winkler (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Cambridge University Press (2005)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesWalter R. Ott (2004). The Cartesian Context of Berkeley's Attack on Abstraction. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85 (4):407–424.
Kenneth P. Winkler (1989). Berkeley: An Interpretation. Clarendon Press.
Walter Ott (2006). Descartes and Berkeley on Mind: The Fourth Distinction. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 14 (3):437 – 450.
Charles W. Morris (1972). Writings on the General Theory of Signs. The Hague,Mouton.
Marc A. Hight (2007). Berkeley and Bodily Resurrection. Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (3):443-458.
Lawrence A. Mirarchi (1982). Dynamical Implications of Berkeley's Doctrine of Heterogeneity: A Note on the Language Model of Nature. In Colin M. Turbayne (ed.), Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
Jeffrey Barnouw (2008). The Two Motives Behind Berkeley's Expressly Unmotivated Signs : Sure Perception and Personal Providence. In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books.
William McGowan (1982). Berkeley's Doctrine of Signs. In Colin M. Turbayne (ed.), Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
