Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34 (1):1 - 24 (2004)

Authors
Walter Ott
University of Virginia
Abstract
Throughout his mature writings, Berkeley speaks of minds as substances that underlie or support ideas. After initially flirting with a Humean account, according to which minds are nothing but ‘congeries of Perceptions’, Berkeley went on to claim that a mind is a ‘perceiving, active being … entirely distinct’ from its ideas. Despite his immaterialism, Berkeley retains the traditional category of substance and gives it pride of place in his ontology. Ideas, by contrast, are ‘fleeting and dependent beings’ that must be supported by a mental substance. There is no doubt that Berkeley's conception of the relationship between minds and ideas is non-traditional, but that fact does not undercut his commitment to the traditional conception of substance.
Keywords Contemporary Philosophy  General Interest
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0045-5091
DOI 10.1080/00455091.2004.10716557
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,784
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Search After Truth.Nicholas Malebranche, Thomas M. Lennon & Paul J. Olscamp - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (1):146-147.
Berkeley's Christian Neoplatonism, Archetypes, and Divine Ideas.Stephen H. Daniel - 2001 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 39 (2):239-258.
Berkeley, Suárez, and the Esse-Existere Distinction.Stephen H. Daniel - 2000 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 74 (4):621-636.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Can the Berkeleyan Idealist Resist Spinozist Panpsychism?Graham Clay & Michael Rauschenbach - 2021 - History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis 24:296-325.
Berkeley’s Theory of Mind: Some New Models1.Talia Mae Bettcher - 2011 - Philosophy Compass 6 (10):689-698.
Incoming Editor’s Note.Stephen H. Daniel - 2006 - Berkeley Studies 17:3.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Cartesian Context of Berkeley's Attack on Abstraction.Walter R. Ott - 2004 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85 (4):407–424.
Berkeley and Bodily Resurrection.Marc A. Hight - 2007 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (3):443-458.
Descartes and Berkeley on Mind: The Fourth Distinction.Walter Ott - 2006 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 14 (3):437 – 450.
Defending Berkeley's Divine Ideas.Marc A. Hight - 2005 - Philosophia 33 (1-4):97-128.
Berkeley's Half-Way House.Marc Hight - 2006 - Philosophy Compass 1 (1):28–35.
Berkeley and Irish Philosophy.David Berman - 2005 - Thoemmes Continuum.
Why We Do Not See What We Feel.Marc A. Hight - 2002 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83 (2):148-162.
Berkeley's Philosophy of Religion.Kenneth L. Pearce - 2017 - In Richard Brook & Bertil Belfrage (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Berkeley. London: Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 458-483.
Meaning, Signification, and Suggestion: Berkeley on General Words.Timothy Pritchard - 2012 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 29 (3):301-317.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-05-29

Total views
54 ( #202,020 of 2,463,136 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,363 of 2,463,136 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes