Locke believes that every mental act, event or state essentially involves ideas and that our only access to the world is through ideas. The theory of ideas, thus, is central to his philosophy, and understanding the epistemological and metaphysical positions developed in the Essay requires addressing it. This chapter discusses the importance of recognizing the theory's status as a proposed contribution to natural science. It emphasizes that ideas are representational contents of states of consciousness; (...) this does not imply that they are something distinct from those states; rather, they are those aspects or features of mental states which point beyond themselves. The chapter focuses on Locke's thesis that all of one's ideas are derived from experience. It highlights that the operation of comparing is dependent upon the brute ability of discernment, one of the simplest mental operations. (shrink)

I try to show that Berkeley's theory of ideas is not a variant of Locke's. We can find such an interpretation of Berkeley in Thomas Reid. So, we could call this interpretation a 'traditional interpretation'. This traditional interpretation has an influence still now, for example, Tomida interprets Berkeley in this line (Tomida2002). We will see that this traditional interpretation gives a serious problem to Berkeley (section 1). And I am going to present an argument against this traditional interpretation (...) (section 2). (shrink)

Implicit in C. I. Lewis's conceptual pragmatism is an account of how our ideas undergo a process of social development. Lewis's account of that process resolves a problem with Josiah Royce's theory of ideas. Royce holds that there are both sensuous and symbolic ideas. It is, however, possible for someone to have only a sensuous idea of how middle C sounds and for another person to have only the symbolic idea that middle C is 261.63 Hz. (...) In what sense, if at all, can these two persons have the same idea, namely, the idea of middle C? On Lewis's account, while ideas in individual minds are typically constituted of both sensory correlates and pure concepts, ideas are also social products that individuals inherit through education and language acquisition. For two people to have the same idea is for them both to be heirs to the social development of the idea. (shrink)

In this article I analyze the issue of many levels of reality that are studied by natural sciences. Particularly interesting is the level of mathematics and the question of the relationship between mathematics and the structure of the real world. The mathematical nature of the world has been considered since ancient times and is the subject of ongoing research for philosophers of science to this day. One of the viewpoints in this field is mathematical Platonism. In contemporary philosophy it is (...) widely accepted that according to Plato mathematics is the domain of ideal beings that are eternal and unalterable and exist independently from the subject’s beliefs and decisions. Two issues seem to be important here. The first issue concerns the question: was Plato really a proponent of present-day mathematical Platonism? The second one is of greater importance: how mathematics influences our understanding of the nature of the world on its many ontological levels? In the article I consider three issues: the Platonic theory of “two worlds”, the method of building a mathematical structure, and the ontology of mathematics. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Martin Heidegger and OntologyEmmanuel Levinas (bio)The prestige of Martin Heidegger 1 and the influence of his thought on German philosophy marks both a new phase and one of the high points of the phenomenological movement. Caught unawares, the traditional establishment is obliged to clarify its position on this new teaching which casts a spell over youth and which, overstepping the bounds of permissibility, is already in vogue. For once, (...) Fame has picked one who deserves it and, for that matter, one who is still living. Anyone who has studied philosophy cannot, when confronted by Heidegger’s work, fail to recognize how the originality and force of his achievements, stemming from genius, are combined with an attentive, painstaking, and close working-out of the argument—with that craftsmanship of the patient artisan in which phenomenologists take such pride. In this study, it is important for us to understand, above all, the true intentions of our author, to illuminate what he thinks really needs to be said, and to surmise what is most critical for him.To get to the heart of Heidegger’s system, it seems fitting to begin with a problem that is generally familiar. We choose the problem of knowledge, a deeper understanding of which takes us to the very threshold of Heidegger’s thought. For this problem, central to modern philosophy, is one of the main obstacles of modern philosophy that Heidegger wishes to surmount. Neo-Kantianism, which takes knowledge as the philosophical problem of the first rank, is the movement against which Heidegger rebels with all his strength. We have, thus, every chance of gaining access to his thought by the main door, so to speak. Once inside the system we will try to trace its outlines, 2 reserving, for a second part of our work, the determination of Heidegger’s place in the history of ideas, especially in the phenomenological movement, as well as of his relations with the philosopher to whom he owes so much—Edmund Husserl. 31In its most general form, the problem of the theory of knowledge has a critical significance. It consists in delineating a domain where knowledge can be certain and in determining the criteria for the legitimate scope of knowledge. But this problem, as normal and as simple as it may appear, has deeper roots. That knowledge should need a criterion at all presupposes that truth is not identical to all that is known and that the course [End Page 11] of things can fail to correspond with the course of thought. “How does knowledge correspond to being?” is a more profound formulation of the problem of knowledge.But we are not going to touch anymore on the primordial phenomenon that generates the problem. The problem of correspondence between thing and thought presupposes a free activity of thought and its isolation in relation to the object. It is precisely this presupposition which renders their harmony and even their contact problematic. “How does the subject take leave of itself to attain the object?” is what the problem of knowledge, in the last analysis, boils down to. Its true source is thus the concept of “subject” as elaborated by modern philosophy. The cogito presided over the subject’s birth. The cogito was the affirmation of the privileged nature of the subject’s immanent sphere, of its unique place in existence; hence, the cogito was the specificity of the subject’s connection to the rest of reality, the sui generis nature which opens up the passage from immanence to transcendence, the passage from ideas contained in the thinking substance to 4 their “formal existence.”The concept of the subject, understood as a substance having a specific position in the entire domain of being, presents us with difficulties of two kinds. First, how do we understand this leave-taking from the self which the thinking substance brings about and which displays an entirely original aspect? Indeed, we could say that thought, in reaching out toward objects, does not actually take leave of itself, since its objects—considered as ideas and contents of thought—are, in a certain sense, already within it. In order to make sense of this paradox, Descartes... (shrink)

Alexander Broadie; X*—Medieval Notions and the Theory of Ideas, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 87, Issue 1, 1 June 1987, Pages 153–168, https:/.

Commentators divide on whether the basic elements of Hume’s philosophy—perceptions, their division into impressions and ideas, and their associative relation—should be construed as objects and relations between objects or as representations of objects and their relations. Although the latter reading is generally favored, in this chapter the author argues that the textual evidence favors the former and that Hume’s philosophy should be interpreted accordingly. The focus is on Part 1 of the first book of the Treatise but subsequent texts (...) are considered as well, particularly passages in Part 4, Sections 2 and 6. (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: Basic Distinctions Basic Principles References Further Reading.

The article deals with the problem of the divine light in the mystical works of St Symeon the New Theologian in the context of the Eastern Christian ascetical tradition. The author focuses on the passages referring to the divine light in the works of Evagrios Pontikos, St Isaac the Syrian, St Maximus the Confessor, and in the Makarian corpus. As is shown in the present contribution, none of these authors created a fully-developed theory of the vision of the divine (...) light. Being close to these writers in many ideas, St Symeon was generally independent of any of them in his treatment of the theme of vision of light, always basing himself primarily upon his own experience. (shrink)

In the wake of Wilfrid Sellars’ philosophy, John Locke’s theory of ideas is often taken to fall prey to the so-called Myth of the Given. The main charge is that Locke appeals to passively received sense impressions to justify knowledge claims and ultimately confuses natural processes with normative conceptual activity. In this paper, I will argue that the accusations are founded on a faulty reading and that Locke’s account does indeed circumvent Givenism without having to abandon the foundationalist (...) ambitions that drive his theory of ideas. I will begin by exploring the attractions and pitfalls of the Myth. Secondly, I will show how the Sellarsian objections can be launched against Locke’s theory of ideas. Thirdly, I will present my interpretation of Locke’s take on ideas and show how they fare in relation to the crucial features involved in the discussion of the Myth. By way of conclusion, I will discuss whether Locke’s way of avoiding the Myth limits his foundationalist approach. (shrink)

John Locke, Bishop Berkeley and David Hume are the pioneers of modern British Philosophy during 17th and 18th centuries. Among them, John Locke‟s epistemological work is one of the greatest defenses of modern empiricism. He attempts to determine the limits of human understanding and seeks to clear the ground for future developments by providing a theory of knowledge compatible with the study of human nature. In his discussion the term „ideas‟ plays an important role. To understand Locke‟s empiricism, (...) one must realize what he means by „ideas‟. For Locke, ideas are all signs which represent the external world of physical objects and the inner world of consciousness. However, in his book, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he discusses „ideas‟ in details but he does not provide a sufficiently clear account of the nature of ideas. This paper is an attempt to give a critical exposition of John Locke‟s theory of ideas in which I will try to show that his explanation about the nature of idea is not sufficient enough to establish the theory of ideas he presented. Philosophy and Progress, Vol#61-62; No#1-2; Jan-Dec 2017 P 133-146. (shrink)

In The German Ideology , Marx developed his notion of "the materialist view of the world," which differed from both the earlier 1844 Manuscripts and the later Grundrisse, Critique of Political Economy, and Capital. First, whereas Marx had distinguished human life from other forms of life as the result of an essence, Marx now argued that material conditions determine the human condition. Second, ideas can affect human life but they are themselves the product of material conditions. Third, though he (...) later reverses himself, he rejects not only the identification but the value of abstractions and categories. Fourth, Marx no longer considers man's history to be a radical self-creation through labor, but a natural self-consciousness modified by productive and social intercourse. Finally, Marx inverted his theory of language and now considered it the product rather than the source of material conditions. (shrink)

이 논문에서 나는 흄의 관념이론을 검토한다. 그렇게 하는 과정에서 우리는 흄이 『인성론』의 여러 장에서 ‘관념’이라는 말을 사용하고 있음을 알게 되고 흄의 ‘관념’에 관해 여러 가지 방식의 해석이 존재함을 알게 된다. 우선 우리는 표준적 해석으로서 관념을 ‘이미지(image)’로 보는 입장을 검토한다. 두 번째 해석은 관념을 ‘작용(act)’으로 보는 것이고, 세 번째 해석은 관념을 ‘대상(object)’으로 보는 것이다. 그리고 네 번째 해석은 관념을 ‘뇌의 인상(brain impression)’으로 보는 것이다. 네 번째 해석과 관련하여 몇몇의 주석가들은 흄이 지각을 표상이라고 설명하는 방식을 다루는데 있어서 신경생리학적 개념을 사용한 것에 주목한다.나는 (...) 흄을 실재론자로 해석하기 위해 최근의 논의와 관련하여 흄의 '관념들'에 관한 또 다른 의미를 보여주고자 한다. 실재론은 최근의 흄 학자들 사이의 주요 쟁점 중 하나이다. 최근에 많은 흄 학자들은 흄을 실재론자로 읽으려고 한다. 그들은 소위 '새로운 흄주의자들'이다. 흄의 '생각 가능한 것 (conceiving)'과 '가정 (supposing)'에 대한 개념과 외부 대상의 존재 및 원인에 관한 우리의 믿음에 관한 흄의 입장은 뉴 흄 (New Hume)의 논의와 여러 면에서 특별히 관련이 있다.이 논문에서 나는 흄의 회의론적 실재론의 경력을 지적함으로써 실재론을 지지하고자 한다. 흄은 자신의 경험주의적 관념이론에 따라 의미 이론의 개척자로서 출발한다. 그런 다음 그는 "지각 이외의 것들이 존재한다고 가정하는 것은 이해할 만하며 큰 힘을 가지고 우리가 그와 같은 것들의 본질에 대해 (확실한) 지식을 가질 수 없다는 점을 표명하는 것이 쉽다는 것을 인정하면서 멈춘다."(Strawson, 2000, p. 16). 이러한 점이 존라이트가 말하는 '회의주의적 실재론’의 핵심이며, 이 논문에서 나는 흄의 실재론은 이러한 의미의 실재론이라는 것을 보이고자 한다. (shrink)

The concept of an "idea" played a central role in 17th-century theories of mind and knowledge, but philosophers were divided over the nature of ideas. This book examines an important, but little-known, debate on this question in the work of Leibniz, Malebranche, and Descartes. Looking closely at the issues involved, as well as the particular context in which the debate took place, Jolley demonstrates that the debate has serious implications for a number of major topics in 17th-century philosophy.

The Light of the Soul examines the debate between Leibniz, Malebranche, and Descartes on the nature of ideas, which was crucial to the development of early modern thinking about the mind and knowledge. Nicholas Jolley guides the reader through the debate and considers its implications for a broad range of issues, such as innate ideas, self-knowledge, scepticism, the mind-body problem, and the creation of the eternal truths, which are as important to philosophy today as they were in the (...) seventeenth century. (shrink)