Authors
Thomas Holden
University of California at Santa Barbara
Abstract
Contrary to a popular reading of his modal epistemology, Berkeley does not hold that inconceivability entails impossibility, and he cannot therefore argue the impossibility of mind-independent matter by appealing to facts about what we cannot conceive. Berkeley is explicit about this constraint on his metaphysical argumentation, and, I argue, does respect it in practice. Popular mythology about the ‘master argument’ notwithstanding, the only passages in which he might plausibly seem to employ the principle that inconceivability entails impossibility are those that argue for the inseparability of primary from secondary qualities. However, an alternative reading of these texts is available that is both consistent with Berkeley's express modal epistemology and credible in its own right.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2005, 2019
DOI 10.1111/phpr.12432
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: 64,077
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.John Locke - 1979 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 169 (2):221-222.
Berkeley's Thought.George S. Pappas - 2018 - Cornell University Press.
The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne.George Berkeley, A. A. Luce & T. E. Jessop - 1954 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4 (16):353-353.
Berkeley's Master Argument.Andre Gallois - 1974 - Philosophical Review 83 (1):55-69.
Berkeley’s World: An Examination of the Three Dialogues.Tom Stoneham - 2004 - Philosophical Quarterly 54 (217):629-631.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Two Routes to Idealism: Collier and Berkeley.David Bartha - 2020 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 28 (6):1071-1093.
Can the Berkeleyan Idealist Resist Spinozist Panpsychism?Graham Clay & Michael Rauschenbach - forthcoming - History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis:1-30.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Relation Between Anti-Abstractionism and Idealism in Berkeley's Metaphysics.Samuel C. Rickless - 2012 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (4):723-740.
Berkeley's Two Concepts of Impossibility: A Reply to Mckim.Peter S. Wenz - 1982 - Journal of the History of Ideas 43 (4):673.
The Cartesian Context of Berkeley's Attack on Abstraction.Walter R. Ott - 2004 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85 (4):407–424.
Descartes and Berkeley on Mind: The Fourth Distinction.Walter Ott - 2006 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 14 (3):437 – 450.
Was Berkeley a Subjective Idealist?G. Callahan - 2015 - Collingwood and British Idealism Studies 21 (2):157-184.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-06-27

Total views
72 ( #150,336 of 2,454,542 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #117,366 of 2,454,542 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes