Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85 (4):407–424 (2004)

Authors
Walter Ott
University of Virginia
Abstract
I claim that Berkeley's main argument against abstraction comes into focus only when we see Descartes as one of its targets. Berkeley does not deploy Winkler's impossibility argument but instead argues that what is impossible is inconceivable. Since Descartes conceives of extension as a determinable, and since determinables cannot exist as such, he falls within the scope of Berkeley's argument.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2004.00208.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Berkeley on Inconceivability and Impossibility.Thomas Holden - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 98 (1):107-122.
Régis's Scholastic Mechanism.Walter Ott - 2008 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 39 (1):2-14.
Reply to Yenter: Spinoza, Number, and Diversity.Galen Barry - 2016 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 24 (2):365-374.
The Role of Visual Language in Berkeley’s Account of Generality.Katherine Dunlop - 2011 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (3):525-559.
Two Routes to Idealism: Collier and Berkeley.David Bartha - 2020 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 28 (6):1071-1093.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
361 ( #27,816 of 2,499,250 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
17 ( #48,590 of 2,499,250 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes