Authors
David Mwakima
University of California, Irvine
Abstract
Berkeley, arguing against Barrow, claims that the infinite divisibility of finite lines is neither an axiom nor a theorem in Euclid The Thirteen Books of The Elements. Instead, he suggests that it is rooted in ancient prejudice. In this paper, I attempt to substantiate Berkeley’s claims by looking carefully at the history and practice of ancient geometry as a first step towards understanding Berkeley’s mathematical atomism.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
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: 54,676
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Atomism and Infinite Divisibility.Ralph Edward Kenyon - 1994 - Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Hume on Infinite Divisibility and Sensible Extensionless Indivisibles.Dale Jacquette - 1996 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 34:61-78.
Hume on Infinite Divisibility.Donald L. M. Baxter - 1988 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 5 (2):133-140.
Hume on Infinite Divisibility and Sensible Extensionless Indivisibles.Dale Jacquette - 1996 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 34 (1):61-78.
Infinite Divisibility.J. N. Shearman - 1908 - Mind 17 (67):394-396.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-05-15

Total views
7 ( #989,091 of 2,386,586 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #554,109 of 2,386,586 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes