Philosophical Review 97 (1):47-69 (1988)
Since both berkeley and hume are committed to the view that a line is composed of finitely many fundamental parts, They must find responses to the standard geometrical proofs of infinite divisibility. They both repeat traditional arguments intended to show that infinite divisibility leads to absurdities, E.G., That all lines would be infinite in length, That all lines would have the same length, Etc. In each case, Their arguments rest upon a misunderstanding of the concept of a limit, And thus are not successful. Berkeley, However, Adds a further ingenious argument to the effect that the standard geometrical proofs of infinite divisibility misread the unlimited representational capacity of geometrical diagrams as a substantive feature of the objects that these diagrams represent. The article concludes that berkeley is right on this matter, And that the traditional proofs of infinite divisibility do not show what they are intended to show
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
What is It the Unbodied Spirit Cannot Do? Berkeley and Barrow on the Nature of Geometrical Construction.Stefan Storrie - 2012 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (2):249-268.
Standards of Equality and Hume's View of Geometry.Emil Badici - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (4):448-467.
Hume's Aesthetic Psychology of Distance, Greatness and the Sublime.Dale Jacquette - 1995 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 3 (1):89 – 112.
Similar books and articles
Hume on Infinite Divisibility and the Negative Idea of a Vacuum.Dale Jacquette - 2002 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 10 (3):413 – 435.
Hume on Infinite Divisibility and Sensible Extensionless Indivisibles.Dale Jacquette - 1996 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 34 (1):61-78.
Hume on Infinite Divisibility.Donald L. M. Baxter - 1988 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 5 (2):133-140.
Infinite Divisibility and Actual Parts in Hume’s Treatise.Thomas Holden - 2002 - Hume Studies 28 (1):3-25.
Hume on Geometry and Infinite Divisibility in the Treatise.H. Mark Pressman - 1997 - Hume Studies 23 (2):227-244.
From Inexactness to Certainty: The Change in Hume's Conception of Geometry.Vadim Batitsky - 1998 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 29 (1):1-20.
Achievements and Fallacies in Hume's Account of Infinite Divisibility.James Franklin - 1994 - Hume Studies 20 (1):85-101.
On the Compatibility Between Euclidean Geometry and Hume's Denial of Infinite Divisibility.Emil Badici - 2008 - Hume Studies 34 (2):231-244.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads51 ( #99,658 of 2,152,250 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #281,219 of 2,152,250 )
How can I increase my downloads?