Berkeley and Other Philosophers

Esse est percipi---this famous phrase of 18th century British philosopher, George Berkeley, is known to be an Idealist challenge against our common sense that there are mind-independent things. In contrast with the familiarity Berkeley’s theory, the existence of similar theory in Indian Buddhism in the 8th century is widely unknown. The Indian version of this theory can be expressed in Sanskrit, sattopalambhavāda, i.e., the theory claiming that “to be is to perceive/to be perceived.” The first and probably last philosopher who (...) clearly advocated this theory in Indian Buddhism is Prajñākaragputa, one of the great commentators of his predecessor, Dharmakīrti’s magnum opus, Pramāṇavārttika. In explaining Dharmakīrti’s ideas of the Buddha’s religious authority, theory of perception and logic, Prajñākaragupta incorporated his original ideas into his commentarial work, Pramāṇavarttikālaṅkāra. His sattopalambhavāda is one remarkable result of his innovated theorems of Buddhist epistemology and ontology. The aim of this paper is to clarify the significance of Prajñākaragupta’s idea of sattopalambhavāda from two viewpoints: Frist, I will examine its philosophical-historical development from Dharmakīrti’s ontology and make its innovative value clear. Second, I will also briefly compare its idea with Berkeley’s esse est percipi, especially focusing on their similarities in defending their religious authorities. (shrink)

Many passages in Kant’s texts suggest that he is a phenomenalist about appearances, i.e., that appearances are only part of our mental content and do not exist outside our mind. In recent years, however, phenomenalist readings of Kant’s idealism have been of ill repute. Without wanting to make a positive case for phenomenalism, this paper attempts to rebut three particularly popular objections to any phenomenalist reading. In slogan form, they are 1) «There is only prima facie evidence», 2) «Kant is (...) an empirical realist», and 3) «Kant is not Berkeley». In response, I argue, first, that any strategy to explain the textual evidence for phenomenalism away fails. Second, I hold that Kant’s «empirical realism» is consistent with phenomenalism, as empirical realism does not mean that appearances exist outside our mind. Third, I will give a novel interpretation of Kant’s rejection of Berkeley’s idealism: Kant does not criticize him because he thinks Berkeley is a phenomenalist, but because his transcen dental realism renders all outer things, appearances and things in themselves alike, impossible. (shrink)

Mostly what Bennett learns from these six philosophers is not their positive doctrines. Rather, his learning takes the form of reconstruction and analysis of what he deems to be otherwise incorrect views. A good example is found in his treatment of Berkeley’s attack on the conceptual defects of materialism. On Bennett’s analysis Berkeley’s case rests on a flawed theory of representation, but Bennett sticks with Berkeley nonetheless. We see the same kind of learning in his excellent chapter 29 on the (...) reasons behind Berkeley’s mistaken reading of Locke, as well as in his discussion of the nature of and reasons for phenomenalism in Berkeley’s work. Incidently, many scholars will take exception to Bennett’s argument that Berkeley’s assurances that idealism squares with commonsense materialism are merely rhetorical. Throughout his study Bennett readily and generously acknowledges debts for insights he has received from other interpreters of these six great philosophers, insights which often cause him to revise or recant some of his own earlier views. For instance, a big climbdown is found in his assessment that the doctrine of tropes, which he once dismissed as nonsense but now accepts, does not bear negatively upon the notion of bodies as modes in Spinoza’s monist philosophy. Again, Bennett revises his earlier views on Locke’s two-faced attitude toward substance, as something both indispensible and “intellectually disgraceful,” and shows it to be a case of “genius in a bind.”. (shrink)

Richetti finds Locke, Berkeley, and Hume to be appropriate for a literary study on his claim that for these three philosophers writing was itself a special problem. Since their works were still addressed to a general, not a professional audience, each gave much consideration to the manner of the presentation of his thought, attempting to close the emerging gap between literary creation and technical writing. Further, because these authors dealt in the abstruse, sometimes in the paradoxical, finding a literary voice (...) that establishes community with the reader without abandoning the demands of philosophic discourse posed a sizable challenge. (shrink)

resumo A influência do ceticismo nos século XVI e XVII é por demais evidente para ser posta em questão. De Montaigne a Bayle, parece que o cético foi o promotor tanto de uma refutação radical dos princípios metafísicos escolásticos e depois cartesianos quanto de uma crítica feroz às autoridades religiosas e políticas. Ora, esse papel parece ter se amenizado no Século das Luzes, ou melhor, se deslocado - somente as dimensões críticas do social continuaram pertinentes. Pretende-se mostrar aqui o pressuposto (...) de uma tal leitura que leva em conta apenas o aspecto visível da crítica cética e mostrar que o ceticismo, sob uma forma particular, foi uma das grandes questões da epistemologia das Luzes e que ele é indissociável, para ser compreendido em toda a sua dimensão polêmica, da recepção européia do imaterialismo berkeleyano. O objetivo de nossa intervenção se faz compreender então claramente: explicar primeiramente como uma tal concepção epistemológica pôde nascer em terra cartesiana e quais foram os seus líderes desse solipsismo das Luzes, a supor que os tenha havido, para mostrar, em seguida, porque ela pôde se tornar uma questão metafísica maior no século XVIII, antes de definir, para concluir, os interesses a que ela serviu ou desserviu. palavras-chave cartesianismo – imaterialismo – Luzes – materialismo – metafísica – ceticismo - solipsismo. (shrink)

First surprise! You make the brain itself into an idea, and consequently, also the five senses and the whole body. Thus you can no longer talk about sensations; that would be saying that a great idea, an idea of specific dimensions or an infinite number of small ideas, however you feel like explaining it to us, becomes the vehicle that seizes all other ideas, except of course yours, which finds no place there and doesn’t come up [to the mind].

Reid thought that the linchpin of his response to\nskepticism was his rejection of the theory of ideas. I\nargue that Reid's assessment of his own work is incorrect;\nthe theory of ideas plays no important role in at least one\nof Berkeley's and Hume's arguments for skepticism, and\nrejecting the theory is therefore neither necessary nor\nsufficient as a reply to that argument. Reid does in fact\nanswer the argument, but with his theory of evidence rather\nthan his rejection of the theory of ideas.

George Orwell wrote to Roger Senhouse upon completion of 1984 that the work was designed in part “to indicate by parodying them the intellectual implications of totalitarianism.” The implications for social and political philosophy have furnished a generation of readers with frightening realizations. I will attempt in what follows to show that the implications for epistemology and metaphysics are equally central to the book’s message, and equally discomfitting to philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition. The book connects totalitarianism with the entire (...) British empiricist tradition from George Berkeley to A. J. Ayer, primarily by disclosing the totalitarian implications of Berkeley’s philosophy. The result is a vision of empiricism as the intellectual foundation for totalitarianism. (shrink)

Available from UMI in association with The British Library. ;The aim of this thesis is to evaluate Descartes and Berkeley's theories of perception in the light of Merleau Ponty's objections to classical theories in La Phenomenologie de la Perception. According to Merleau Ponty--whose thesis is elucidated by reference to the Gestaltists and Husserl--classical theories of perception either rely on causal explanations or on logical analyses. But, Merleau Ponty argues, neither form of explanation can suitably account for the intentional character of (...) perception. Merleau Ponty claims that it is the adherence of classical theories to the concepts and assumptions of science which lies at the root of their failure to find an adequate third form of explanation. In an attempt to give Merleau Ponty's arguments some historical substance, I undertake a detailed examination of Descartes and Berkeley's theories of perception and I argue that they are indeed founded on the new physics and that they both fail to capture the intentional character of perception. (shrink)

En su Tratado sobre los principios del conocimiento humano, George Berkeley ofrece una serie de argumentos cuyo objetivo es criticar la tesis materialista. Mi propósito en este artículo es reconstruir y analizar en detalle estos argumentos. Dado que la crítica de Berkeley al materialismo es, fundamentalmente, una crítica al materialismo representacionalista de John Locke, empezaré este artículo explicando cuáles son las ideas básicas de la propuesta de Locke.

Peirce described himself as a disciple of Berkeley, and described the truth of Berkeleyanism as consisting, in part, of “hinging” all philosophy (or "all coenoscopy") on the concept of sign. This article collects Berkeley’s chief semiotic contributions, and discusses how it may have influenced Peirce’s semiotic.

In 1827, Lady Mary Shepherd published Essays on the Perception of an External Universe, which offers both an argument for the existence of a world of external bodies existing outside our minds and a criticism of Berkeley's argument for idealism in A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. In this paper, I evaluate Margaret Atherton's criticisms of Shepherd's case against Berkeley, and provide reasons for thinking that, although Shepherd's particular criticisms of Berkeley do not succeed, she correctly identifies an (...) important problem to which Berkeley's reasoning is subject. (shrink)

Embodiment is a fact of human existence which philosophers should not ignore. They may differ to a great extent in what they have to say about our bodies, but they have to take into account that for each of us our body has a special status, it is not merely one amongst the physical objects, but a physical object to which we have a unique relation. While Descartes approached the issue of embodiment through consideration of sensation and imagination, it is (...) more directly reached by consideration of action and agency: whenever we act upon the world, we act by moving our bodies. So if we can understand what an immaterialist such as Berkeley thinks about agency, we will have gone a fair way to understanding what he thinks about embodiment. §1 discusses a recent flurry of articles on the subject of Berkeley’s account of action. I choose to present Berkeley as a causal-volitional theorist not because I think it is the uniquely correct interpretation of the texts, but because I find it more philosophically interesting as a version of immaterialism. In particular, it raises the possibility of a substantive account of human embodiment which is completely unavailable to the occasionalist. §2 articulates an apparent philosophical problem for Berkeley qua causal-volitional theorist and show that Locke was aware of a related problem and had a solution of which Berkeley would have known. §3 distinguishes two interpretations of Berkeley’s famous denial of blind agency – as the assertion of a weak representational condition or a strong epistemic one – and provide evidence that there was a well-established debate about blind powers in the seventeenth century which took the metaphor of blindness as indicating an epistemic rather than merely representational failing. What remains to do in §4 is to consider whether Berkeley, with his own peculiar commitments, could in fact accept this account of agency. (shrink)

Phenomenalist interpretations of Kant are out of fashion. The most common complaint from anti-phenomenalist critics is that a phenomenalist reading of Kant would collapse Kantian idealism into Berkeleyan idealism. This would be unacceptable because Berkeleyan idealism is incompatible with core elements of Kant’s empirical realism. In this paper, I argue that not all phenomenalist readings threaten empirical realism. First, I distinguish several variants of phenomenalism, and then show that Berkeley’s idealism is characterized by his commitment to most of them. I (...) then make the case that two forms of phenomenalism are consistent with Kant’s empirical realism. The comparison between Kant and Berkeley runs throughout the paper, with special emphasis on the significance of their theories of intentionality. (shrink)

: La contribution de Berkeley à l'histoire de la métaphysique n'a que rarement été étudiée par ses commentateurs français ou anglo-saxons. La présente étude se propose de revenir sur la définition berkeleyenne de la métaphysique, sur la place qu'elle occupe dans l'économie de sa pensée, et tente ainsi d'éclairer la contribution de Berkeley à l'histoire de la notion de métaphysique à l'époque moderne. Nous montrons que la critique berkeleyenne de la métaphysique n'empêche pas Berkeley de maintenir sa pertinence théorique, si (...) l'on rapporte sa conception de la métaphysique à la transformation qui affecte celle-ci après Descartes, et qui en fait la science des principes de la connaissance humaine. Cette étude entend donc réévaluer la place de la métaphysique dans l'oeuvre de Berkeley, et, simultanément, de mesurer l'apport de Berkeley à l'histoire de la métaphysique. (shrink)

This study uses the key terms of Berkeleian epistemology as a framework for understanding Blake's early prophetic works. As a foil, Berkeley highlights the importance of epistemology to Blake and makes clear that the fundamental characteristic of the Fall for Blake is the mistaken assumption that sensory perceptions are effects of an external spiritual cause. ;Most importantly: "Independence" denotes Berkeley's tenet that the existence of a "real thing" or physical object is constantly maintained by God regardless of whether any human (...) perceiver is perceiving it at any given moment. The term also entails the principle that God is the sole cause of all sensory "ideas" that constitute real things. These doctrines contrast sharply with Blake's insistence that "each thing is its own cause & its own effect." "Sensible qualities" denote the generic qualities such as color, shape, texture, etc., that according to Berkeley combine to constitute sensorily-perceived objects. Blake, however, would regard this account as hopelessly reductive, and a description of fallen sense experience. ;Following a brief introduction and a second chapter that defines key theoretical terms, Chapter 3 contrasts Blake's pronouncement that "Energy is the only Life and is from the Body" to Berkeley's tenet that the body is merely a complex of passive sensory ideas. Chapter 4 demonstrates that Blake's conception of abstract "Reason" is equivalent to Berkeley's definition of Natural Law, since both entail an assumption of the external causation of sensory ideas. Chapter 5 finds the fire imagery in America a Prophecy marked by a stifled, repressed quality produced by the imposition of Urizenic Law on infinite Energy. Chapter 6 uses Berkeley's theory of relative space to demonstrate that in Europe a Prophecy separating space appears as a product of the illusion of external causation. Chapter 7 adduces the solipsistic consequences of Berkeley's epistemology to show that Enitharmon's dream of history in Europe is marked by a spiritual isolation resulting from the fallacy of external causation. A final chapter concludes that for Blake the unfallen, "infinite" mode of sense experience comprises immediate knowledge that the authentic forms of real things are entirely self-determined and self-caused. (shrink)

Despite apparent similarities between them, in the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics and in the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason Kant makes several attempts to distinguish his idealism from Berkeley’s. I argue that Kant’s arguments in three of the four places where he explicitly distances himself from Berkeley are insufficient to their task because they attack only Berkeley’s empiricism rather than his immaterialism. Although a close reading of the Refutation of Idealism lies beyond the scope of this (...) paper, my reading of Kant’s critique of Berkeley will produce an interesting result concerning the reading of this difficult passage: If Kant is to offer a convincing defense of the charge that Berkeley reduces the world to sheer illusion while his does not, then the Refutation of Idealism must be aimed at proving, on a transcendental idealist basis, the existence of things in themselves. (shrink)

Ever since its first publication critics of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason have been struck by certain strong formal resemblances between transcendental idealism and Berkeley's immaterialism. Both philosophers hold that the sensible world is mind-dependent, and that from this very mind-dependence we can draw a refutation of scepticism of the senses.

This essay deals with a quite unexplored topic : Berkeley's sources from Renaissance. In fact, while the relationships between Berkeley and the most well-known modern philosophers (as Descartes, Malebranche, Locke and Hume) have been widely analysed, the importance of Berkeley's classical learning and erudition for the development of his own philosophical thought has usually been overlooked. After some general considerations, I focus on two topics : ether and tar-water in Siris. Cet essai traite un sujet très peu exploré : les (...) sources de Berkeley dans la Renaissance. Alors que les relations entre Berkeley et les plus célèbres philosophes modernes (comme Descartes, Malebranche, Locke et Hume) ont été amplement analysées, l'importance de la culture classique et de l'érudition de Berkeley pour le développement de sa propre philosophie a été généralement méjugé. Après quelques considérations générales, je me concentre sur deux questions : l'éther et l'eau de goudron dans la Siris. (shrink)