Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (3):413-442 (2007)
Abstract: Berkeley's Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision presents a theory of various aspects of the spatial content of visual experience that attempts to undercut not only the optico-geometric accounts of e.g., Descartes and Malebranche, but also elements of the empiricist account of Locke. My task in this paper is to shed light on some features of Berkeley's account that have not been adequately appreciated. After rehearsing a more detailed Lockean critique of the notion that depth is a proper object of vision, Berkeley directs arguments he takes to be entirely parallel against the notion that vision has two-dimensional planar contents as proper objects. I show that this argument fails due to an illicit slide unnoticed by both Berkeley and his commentators—a slide present but innocuously so in the case of depth. Berkeley's positive account, according to which the apparent spatial content of vision is a matter of associations between, on the one hand, tactile and motor contents, and on the other hand non-spatial visual contents, also fails because of an illicit slide—again, unnoticed by Berkeley and his commentators. I close by discerning the salvageable and correct core of Berkeley's theory of the spatiality of vision
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.
Citations of this work
Skill Theory V2.0: Dispositions, Emulation, and Spatial Perception.Rick Grush - 2007 - Synthese 159 (3):389 - 416.
Russell on Acquaintance with Spatial Properties: The Significance of James.Alexander Klein - 2017 - In Innovations in the History of Analytical Philosophy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 229 – 264.
Berkeley on the Language of Nature and the Objects of Vision.Rebecca Copenhaver - 2014 - Res Philosophica 91 (1):29-46.
A Reiding of Berkeley's Theory of Vision.Hannes Ole Matthiessen - 2022 - Journal of Scottish Philosophy 20 (1):19-40.
Similar books and articles
The Passive Eye: Gaze and Subjectivity in Berkeley (Via Beckett).Branka Arsi? - 2003 - Stanford University Press.
Berkeley's Theory of Vision: A Critical Examination of Bishop Berkeley's Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision.David Malet Armstrong - 1960 - Garland.
Berkeley's Theory of Vision and its Reception.Margaret Atherton - 2005 - In Kenneth Winkler (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Cambridge University Press. pp. 94.
Strong and Weak Heterogeneity in Berkeley's New Theory of Vision.Robert Muehlmann - 2008 - In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books.
On the Status of Visuals in Berkeley's 'New Theory of Vision'.Phillip D. Cummins - 1987 - In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
The Main Part and Pillar of Berkeley's Theory: Idealism and Perceptual Heterogeneity.Thomas M. Lennon - 2011 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (2):91-115.
George Berkeley : Critical Assessments. 2. Qualities, General Ideas and Perception.Walter E. Creery (ed.) - 1991 - London: Routledge.