Search results for 'Hastings Berkeley' (try it on Scholar)

999 found
Sort by:
  1. Hastings Berkeley (1912). The Kernel of Pragmatism. Mind 21 (81):84-88.score: 80.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. George Berkeley, Correspondence: Berkeley and Samuel Johnson.score: 60.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Geneviève Brykman & George Berkeley (1973). Berkeley et le désir de voir. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 163:205 - 213.score: 60.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. George Berkeley (1987). George Berkeley's Manuscript Introduction. Doxa.score: 60.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Geneviève Brykman, George Berkeley, George Cloyne & A. B. (1980). Berkeley et l'intérieur absolu Des choses. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 170 (4):421 - 432.score: 60.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. George Berkeley (2009). Berkeley's Alciphron: English Text and Essays in Interpretation. Olms.score: 60.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. George Berkeley (1930). Berkeley's Commonplace Book. London, Faber & Faber.score: 60.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. George Berkeley (1965). Berkeley's Philosophical Writings. New York, Collier Books.score: 60.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. George Berkeley (1899/1972). Selections From Berkeley, Annotated. Freeport, N.Y.,Books for Libraries Press.score: 60.0
  10. George Berkeley (1901/2005). The Works of George Berkeley. Continuum.score: 60.0
  11. George Berkeley (1871). The Works of George Berkeley, D.D. Macmillan.score: 60.0
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Stephen H. Daniel (2008). Berkeley's Stoic Notion of Spiritual Substance. In , New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books.score: 9.0
    For Berkeley, minds are not Cartesian spiritual substances because they cannot be said to exist (even if only conceptually) abstracted from their activities. Similarly, Berkeley's notion of mind differs from Locke's in that, for Berkeley, minds are not abstract substrata in which ideas inhere. Instead, Berkeley redefines what it means for the mind to be a substance in a way consistent with the Stoic logic of 17th century Ramists on which Leibniz and Jonathan Edwards draw. This (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. John Russell Roberts, Innate Ideas Without Abstract Ideas: An Essay on Berkeley's Platonism.score: 8.0
    Draft. Berkeley denied the existence of abstract ideas and any faculty of abstraction. At the same time, however, he embraced innate ideas and a faculty of pure intellect. This paper attempts to reconcile the tension between these commitments by offering an interpretation of Berkeley's Platonism.
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Anthony Skelton (2013). Hastings Rashdall. In Hugh LaFollette (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Wiley-Blackwell.score: 8.0
    An opinionated encyclopedia entry on Hastings Rashdall, in which several worries about his case for ideal utilitarianism are raised.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Richard Brook, Berkeley and the Causality of Ideas; a Look at PHK 25.score: 8.0
    I argue that Berkeley's distinctive idealism/immaterialism can't support his view that objects of sense, immediately or mediately perceived, are causally inert. (The Passivity of Ideas thesis or PI) Neither appeal to ordinary perception, nor traditional arguments, for example, that causal connections are necessary, and we can't perceive such connections, are helpful. More likely it is theological concerns,e.g., how to have second causes if God upholds by continuously creating the world, that's in the background. This puts Berkeley closer to (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. John T. Sanders, From Perception to Metaphysics: Reflections on Berkeley and Merleau-Ponty.score: 8.0
    George Berkeley's apparently strange view – that nothing exists without a mind except for minds themselves – is notorious. Also well known, and equally perplexing at a superficial level, is his insistence that his doctrine is no more than what is consistent with common sense. It was every bit as crucial for Berkeley that it be demonstrated that the colors are really in the tulip, as that there is nothing that is neither a mind nor something perceived by (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Melissa Frankel (2009). Something-We-Know-Not-What, Something-We-Know-Not-Why: Berkeley, Meaning and Minds. Philosophia 37 (3):381-402.score: 8.0
    It is sometimes suggested that Berkeley adheres to an empirical criterion of meaning, on which a term is meaningful just in case it signifies an idea (i.e., an immediate object of perceptual experience). This criterion is thought to underlie his rejection of the term ‘matter’ as meaningless. As is well known, Berkeley thinks that it is impossible to perceive matter. If one cannot perceive matter, then, per Berkeley, one can have no idea of it; if one can (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Walter Ott (2006). Descartes and Berkeley on Mind: The Fourth Distinction. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 14 (3):437 – 450.score: 8.0
    The popular Cartesian reading of George Berkeley's philosophy of mind mischaracterizes his views on the relations between substance and essence and between an idea and the act of thought in which it figures. I argue that Berkeley rejects Descartes's tripartite taxonomy of distinctions and makes use of a fourth kind of distinction. In addition to illuminating Berkeley's ontology of mind, this fourth distinction allows us to dissolve an important dilemma raised by Kenneth Winkler.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Stephen H. Daniel (2001). The Ramist Context of Berkeley's Philosophy. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 9 (3):487 – 505.score: 8.0
    Berkeley's doctrines about mind, the language of nature, substance, minima sensibilia, notions, abstract ideas, inference, and freedom appropriate principles developed by the 16th-century logician Peter Ramus and his 17th-century followers (e.g., Alexander Richardson, William Ames, John Milton). Even though Berkeley expresses himself in Cartesian or Lockean terms, he relies on a Ramist way of thinking that is not a form of mere rhetoric or pedagogy but a logic and ontology grounded in Stoicism. This article summarizes the central features (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Stephen H. Daniel (2001). Berkeley's Christian Neoplatonism, Archetypes, and Divine Ideas. Journal of the History of Philosophy 39 (2):239-258.score: 8.0
    Berkeley's doctrine of archetypes explains how God perceives and can have the same ideas as finite minds. His appeal of Christian neo-Platonism opens up a way to understand how the relation of mind, ideas, and their union is modeled on the Cappadocian church fathers' account of the persons of the trinity. This way of understanding Berkeley indicates why he, in contrast to Descartes or Locke, thinks that mind (spiritual substance) and ideas (the object of mind) cannot exist or (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Stephen H. Daniel (2001). Berkeley's Pantheistic Discourse. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 49 (3):179-194.score: 8.0
    Berkeley's immaterialism has more in common with views developed by Henry More, the mathematician Joseph Raphson, John Toland, and Jonathan Edwards than those of thinkers with whom he is commonly associated (e.g., Malebranche and Locke). The key for recognizing their similarities lies in appreciating how they understand St. Paul's remark that in God "we live and move and have our being" as an invitation to think to God as the space of discourse in which minds and ideas are identified. (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Michael Jacovides (2009). How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive. Philosophia 37 (3):415-429.score: 8.0
    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, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Melissa Frankel (2009). Berkeley, Meaning and Minds: Remarks on Glezakos' Comments. Philosophia 37 (3):409-413.score: 8.0
    This is a response to Stavroula Glezakos’ commentary on my paper, in which I address three main points: (1) whether Berkeley is entitled to argue via inference to the best explanation, (2) whether Berkeley’s likeness principle might be too strict, and (3) whether the texts support my reading.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Kenneth L. Pearce, Can Berkeley's God Raise the Same Body, Transformed?score: 8.0
    Orthodox Christianity affirms a bodily resurrection of the dead. That is, Christians believe that at some point in the eschatological future, possibly after a period of (conscious or unconscious) disembodied existence, we will once again live and animate our own bodies. However, our bodies will also undergo radical qualitative transformation. This creates a serious problem: how can a body persist across both temporal discontinuity and qualitative transformation? After discussing this problem as it appears in contemporary philosophical literature on the resurrection, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Jennifer Smalligan Marusic (2009). Comments on Michael Jacovides “How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive”. Philosophia 37 (3):431-436.score: 8.0
    The manuscript includes comments on Michael Jacovides’s paper, “How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive.” The paper and comments were delivered at the conference “Meaning and Modern Empiricism” held at Virginia Tech in April 2008. I consider Jacovides’s treatment of Berkeley’s Resemblance Argument and his interpretation of the Master Argument. In particular, I distinguish several ways of understanding the disagreement between Jacovides and Kenneth Winkler over the right way to read the Master Argument.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Kenneth L. Pearce (2014). Berkeley's Lockean Religious Epistemology. Journal of the History of Ideas 75 (3):417-438.score: 8.0
    Berkeley's main aim in his well-known early works was to identify and refute "the grounds of Scepticism, Atheism, and irreligion." This appears to place Berkeley within a well-established tradition of religious critics of Locke's epistemology, including, most famously, Stillingfleet. I argue that these appearances are deceiving. Berkeley is, in fact, in important respects an opponent of this tradition. According to Berkeley, Locke's earlier critics, including Stillingfleet, had misidentified the grounds of irreligion in Locke's philosophy while all (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Stephen H. Daniel (2000). Berkeley, Suárez, and the Esse-Existere Distinction. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 74 (4):621-636.score: 8.0
    For Berkeley, a thing's existence 'esse' is nothing more than its being perceived 'as that thing'. It makes no sense to ask (with Samuel Johnson) about the 'esse' of the mind or the specific act of perception, for that would be like asking what it means for existence to exist. Berkeley's "existere is percipi or percipere" (NB 429) thus carefully adopts the scholastic distinction between 'esse' and 'existere' ignored by Locke and others committed to a substantialist notion of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Timothy Pritchard (2012). Meaning, Signification, and Suggestion: Berkeley on General Words. History of Philosophy Quarterly 29 (3):301-317.score: 8.0
    Discussion of Berkeley’s theory of language has largely ignored what he says about the ‘meaning’ of a general word. Berkeley distinguishes the meaning of a general word both from the extension of the word and from what the word might suggest in the mind of the language user. D. Flage has argued that Berkeley has an ‘extensional’ theory of meaning, but this is based on passages where Berkeley does not speak of word meaning. When Berkeley (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Stephen H. Daniel (2011). Berkeley's Rejection of Divine Analogy. Science Et Esprit 63 (2):149-161.score: 8.0
    Berkeley argues that claims about divine predication (e.g., God is wise or exists) should be understood literally rather than analogically, because like all spirits (i.e., causes), God is intelligible only in terms of the extent of his effects. By focusing on the harmony and order of nature, Berkeley thus unites his view of God with his doctrines of mind, force, grace, and power, and avoids challenges to religious claims that are raised by appeals to analogy. The essay concludes (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Daniele Bertini (2007). Berkeley and Gentile: A Reading of Berkeley's Master Argument. Idealistic Studies 37 (1):43-50.score: 8.0
    My purpose is to compare Berkeley’s and Gentile’s idealism, interpreting Berkeley’s Treatise, §§22–23, and Gentile’s reading of this passage. The Italianphilosopher finds in Berkeley’s master argument the original source of the true idealistic way of thinking, but he believes that Berkeley has not been sufficientlyconsistent in deducing all the consequences from his new principle. This criticism is the ground of Gentile’s actual idealism. Comparing the two positions is very instructive both to elucidate the general issue of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Jeffrey K. McDonough, Comments on Sukjae Lee's “Berkeley on the Activity of Spirits”.score: 8.0
    Comments on Sukjae Lee's "Berkeley on the Activity of Spirits," presented at Eastern Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Baltimore, MD, December 2007.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Giovanni Battista Grandi (2009). Comments on Daniel E. Flage's “Berkeley's Contingent Necessities”. Philosophia 37 (3):373-378.score: 8.0
    According to Daniel Flage, Berkeley thinks that all necessary truths are founded on acts of will that assign meanings to words. After briefly commenting on the air of paradox contained in the title of Flage’s paper, and on the historical accuracy of Berkeley’s understanding of the abstractionist tradition, I make some remarks on two points made by Flage. Firstly, I discuss Flage’s distinction between the ontological ground of a necessary truth and our knowledge of a necessary truth. Secondly, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Stephen H. Daniel (2013). Berkeley's Doctrine of Mind and the “Black List Hypothesis”: A Dialogue. Southern Journal of Philosophy 51 (1):24-41.score: 8.0
    Clues about what Berkeley was planning to say about mind in his now-lost second volume of the Principles seem to abound in his Notebooks. However, commentators have been reluctant to use his unpublished entries to explicate his remarks about spiritual substances in the Principles and Dialogues for three reasons. First, it has proven difficult to reconcile the seemingly Humean bundle theory of the self in the Notebooks with Berkeley's published characterization of spirits as “active beings or principles.” Second, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Daniel Callahan (1999). The Hastings Center and the Early Years of Bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9 (1):53-71.score: 8.0
    The Hastings Center was founded in 1969 to study ethical problems in medicine and biology. The Center arose from a confluence of three social currents: the increased public scrutiny of medicine and its practices, the concern about the moral problems being generated by technological developments, and the desire of one of its founders (Callahan) to make use of his philosophical training in a more applied way. The early years of the Center were devoted to raising money, developing an early (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Jeremy E. Henkel (2011). How to Avoid Solipsism While Remaining an Idealist: Lessons From Berkeley and Dharmakīrti. Comparative Philosophy 3 (1).score: 8.0
    This essay examines the strategies that Berkeley and Dharmakīrti utilize to deny that idealism entails solipsism. Beginning from similar arguments for the non-existence of matter, the two philosophers employ markedly different strategies for establishing the existence of other minds. This difference stems from their responses to the problem of intersubjective agreement. While Berkeley’s reliance on his Cartesian inheritance does allow him to account for intersubjective agreement without descending into solipsism, it nevertheless prevents him from establishing the existence of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Michael Anthony Istvan (2011). The Link Between Berkeley’s Refutation of Abstraction and His Refutation of Materialism. Methodus 6:78-105.score: 8.0
    This paper engages the controversy as to whether there is a link between Berkeley’s refutation of abstraction and his refutation of materialism. I argue that there is a strong link. In the opening paragraph I show that materialism being true requires and is required by the possibility of abstraction, and that the obviousness of this fact suggests that the real controversy is whether there is a link between Berkeley’s refutation of materialism and his refutation of the possibility of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. David Berman (1986). The Jacobitism of Berkeley's Passive Obedience. Journal of the History of Ideas 47 (2):309-319.score: 8.0
    Why did the Lord Justices make strong representation against Berkeley? According to Joseph Stock, Berkeley's first biographer "Lord Galway [a Lord Justice in 1716] having heard of those sermons, published in 1712 as Passive Obedience represented Berkeley as a Jacobite, and hence unworthy of the living of St. Paul's. From the beginning, Passive Obedience was rumored to be politically heterodox...
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Kenneth L. Pearce, Berkeley's Meta-Ontology: Bodies, Forces, and the Semantics of 'Exists'.score: 8.0
    To the great puzzlement of his readers, Berkeley begins by arguing that nothing exists other than minds and ideas, but concludes by claiming to have defended the existence of bodies. How can Berkeley's idealism amount to such a defense? I introduce resources from Berkeley's philosophy of language, and especially his analysis of the discourse of physics, to defend a novel answer to this question. According to Berkeley, the technical terms of physics are meaningful despite failing to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Enrique Aramendia Muneta (2013). La visión en Marr y Berkeley. El problema de perderse el principio de la película. Daimon 59:125-144.score: 8.0
    Se comparan las teorías de Marr y Berkeley sobre la visión a partir de las cualidades de Descartes. La descripción de tres niveles de Marr, donde la conciencia está ausente, contrasta con el nivel único de Berkeley construido sobre la conciencia y la experiencia carece de importancia en los momentos esquemáticos y cobra protagonismo en el último paso del proceso de la visión de Marr mediante la noción de marcación. Bajo la premisa de que las descripciones puramente sincrónicas (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Gabriel Moked (1988). Particles And Ideas: Bishop Berkeley's Corpuscularian Philosophy. Clarendon Press.score: 8.0
    Demonstrating that in George Berkeley's last major work, Siris, Berkeley had converted to a belief in the usefulness of the concept and existence of minute particles, Moked here posits that Berkeley developed a highly original brand of corpuscularian physics.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Bento Prado Neto (2005). O triângulo geral de Locke e a consideração parcial de Berkeley. Doispontos 1 (2).score: 8.0
    São variadas as interpretações da crítica berkeleyana às idéias abstratas, mas elas costumam concordar na tese de que essa crítica gira em torno da natureza das “idéias”. Isto é, se “idéia” for o mesmo que “imagem”, então a abstração lockeana é impossível, caso contrário, não. Neste artigo eu procuro mostrar que essa crítica não depende de idéia ser ou não uma imagem e que Locke está parcialmente consciente do problema levantado por Berkeley. Locke's general triangle and Berkeley's partial (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Lisa Downing (1995). Berkeley's Case Against Realism About Dynamics. In Robert G. Muehlmann (ed.), Berkeley's Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretive, and Critical Essays. The Pennsylvania State University Press. 197--214.score: 7.0
    While De Motu, Berkeley's treatise on the philosophical foundations of mechanics, has frequently been cited for the surprisingly modern ring of certain of its passages, it has not often been taken as seriously as Berkeley hoped it would be. Even A.A. Luce, in his editor's introduction to De Motu, describes it as a modest work, of limited scope. Luce writes: The De Motu is written in good, correct Latin, but in construction and balance the workmanship falls below (...)'s usual standards. The title is ambitious for so brief a tract, and may lead the reader to expect a more sustained argument than he will find. A more modest title, say Motion without Matter, would fitly describe its scope and content. Regarded as a treatise on motion in general, it is a slight and disappointing work; but viewed from a narrower angle, it is of absorbing interest and high importance. It is the application of immaterialism to contemporary problems of motion, and should be read as such. ...apart from the Principles the De Motu would be nonsense.1.. (shrink)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. John Campbell (2002). Berkeley's Puzzle. In Tamar S. Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. MIT Press.score: 7.0
    But say you,surely there is nothing easier than to imagine trees,for instance,in a park, or books existing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no dif?culty in it:but what is all this,I beseech you,more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees, and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of anyone that may perceive them? But do you not yourself perceive or think of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Stavroula Glezakos (2009). Comments on Melissa Frankel's “Something-We-Know-Not-What, Something-We-Know-Not Why: Berkeley, Meaning and Minds”. Philosophia 37 (3):403-407.score: 7.0
  45. Lisa Downing (2005). Berkeley's Natural Philosophy and Philosophy of Science. In Kenneth Winkler (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Cambridge University Press. 230--265.score: 7.0
    Although George Berkeley himself made no major scientific discoveries, nor formulated any novel theories, he was nonetheless actively concerned with the rapidly evolving science of the early eighteenth century. Berkeley's works display his keen interest in natural philosophy and mathematics from his earliest writings (Arithmetica, 1707) to his latest (Siris, 1744). Moreover, much of his philosophy is fundamentally shaped by his engagement with the science of his time. In Berkeley's best-known philosophical works, the Principles and Dialogues, he (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Kenneth Winkler (ed.) (2005). The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Cambridge University Press.score: 7.0
    George Berkeley is one of the greatest and most influential modern philosophers. In defending the immaterialism for which he is most famous, he redirected modern thinking about the nature of objectivity and the mind's capacity to come to terms with it. Along the way, he made striking and influential proposals concerning the psychology of the senses, the workings of language, the aims of science, and the scope of mathematics. In this Companion volume a team of distinguished authors not only (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Steven M. Nadler (1990). Berkeley's Ideas and the Primary/Secondary Distinction. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20 (1):47-61.score: 7.0
  48. Daniel E. Flage, George Berkeley. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 7.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Kenneth L. Pearce (forthcoming). Berkeley's Philosophy of Religion. In Richard Brook & Bertil Belfrage (eds.), The Continuum Companion to Berkeley. Bloomsbury.score: 7.0
    Traditionally, religious doctrines and practices have been divided into two categories. Those that purport to be justified by natural reason alone are said to be part of natural religion, while those which purport to be justified only by appeal to supernatural revelation are said to be part of revealed religion. One of the central aims of Berkeley's philosophy is to understand and defend both the doctrines and the practices of both natural and revealed (Christian) religion. This chapter will provide (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Douglas M. Jesseph (1993). Berkeley's Philosophy of Mathematics. University of Chicago Press.score: 7.0
    In this first modern, critical assessment of the place of mathematics in Berkeley's philosophy and Berkeley's place in the history of mathematics, Douglas M. Jesseph provides a bold reinterpretation of Berkeley's work.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 999