Berkeley on the “Twofold state of things”


Authors
Melissa Frankel
Carleton University
Abstract
Berkeley writes in his ThreeDialogues Between Hylas and Philonous that he “acknowledge[s] a twofold state of things, the one ectypal or natural, the other archetypal and eternal[.] The former was created in time; the latter existed from everlasting in the mind of God”. On a straightforward reading of this passage, it looks as though Berkeley is an indirect perception theorist, who thinks that our sensory ideas are copies or resemblances of archetypal divine ideas. But this is problematic because Berkeley’s rejection of scepticism seems partly to rest on a rejection of indirect perception. In this paper, I consider, and reject, three different approaches to solving this problem: that Berkeley’s remarks on archetypes are unrepresentative; that Berkeley is indeed committed to divine archetypal ideas ; and that Berkeley thinks divine archetypal ideas are identical to human ideas. I finally settle on a fourth strategy, which involves reading Berkeley’s archetypes as divine powers to produce ideas. I claim that this reading is consistent with the texts, that it has an etymological basis and philosophical precedent, and that it resolves the problems associated with the other three approaches to archetypes.
Keywords Berkeley  Archetype  Divine ideas  Divine powers
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11153-015-9541-2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 39,626
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Berkeley: An Interpretation.Kenneth P. Winkler - 1989 - Oxford University Press UK.
A Mystery at the Heart of Berkeley's Philosophy.John Russell Roberts - 2010 - Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy:214-46.
Berkeley's Christian Neoplatonism, Archetypes, and Divine Ideas.Stephen H. Daniel - 2001 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 39 (2):239-258.
Berkeley and God in the Quad.Melissa Frankel - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (6):388-396.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Berkeley's Christian Neoplatonism, Archetypes, and Divine Ideas.Stephen H. Daniel - 2001 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 39 (2):239-258.
Acts, Ideas, and Objects in Berkeley's Metaphysics.Melissa Frankel - 2013 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43 (4):475-493.
Wenz on Abstract Ideas and Christian Neo-Platonism.Robert McKim - 1982 - Journal of the History of Ideas 43 (4):665.
Berkeley's Two Concepts of Impossibility: A Reply to Mckim.Peter S. Wenz - 1982 - Journal of the History of Ideas 43 (4):673.
Minds and Ideas in Berkeley.George Pitcher - 1969 - American Philosophical Quarterly 6 (3):198 - 207.
Berkeley and God in the Quad.Melissa Frankel - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (6):388-396.
'Ideas' in Berkeley and Arnauld.Ian Tipton - 1986 - History of European Ideas 7 (6):575-584.
Berkeley, Human Agency and Divine Concurrentism.Jeffrey K. McDonough - 2008 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (4):pp. 567-590.
Berkeley and Cognition.M. Glouberman - 1981 - Philosophy 56 (216):213 - 221.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-10-24

Total views
43 ( #173,074 of 2,325,847 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #115,440 of 2,325,847 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature