Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Remarks on Grandi’s Comments

  • Published:
Philosophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This note is a reply to some of Giovanni Grandi’s comments on my paper “Berkeley’s Contingent Necessities.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Draft Introduction, in The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, edited by A. A. Luce and T. E. Jessop, 9 volumes (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1948–1957), 2:125.

  2. I take this to be the Cartesian notion of an innate idea. See Daniel E. Flage and Clarence A. Bonnen, “Innate Ideas and Cartesian Dispositions,” International Studies in Philosophy 24 (1992): 60–85.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Religion, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807, USA

    Daniel E. Flage

Authors
  1. Daniel E. Flage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel E. Flage.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Flage, D.E. Remarks on Grandi’s Comments. Philosophia 37, 379–380 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-008-9147-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-008-9147-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation