Berkeley: General Ideas

Leibniz claims that Berkeley “wrongly or at least pointlessly rejects abstract ideas”. What he fails to realize, however, is that some of his own core views commit him to essentially the same stance. His belief that this is the best (and thus most harmonious) possible world, which itself stems from his Principle of Sufficient Reason, leads him to infer that mind and body must perfectly represent or ‘express’ one another. In the case of abstract thoughts he admits that this can (...) happen only in virtue of thinking of some image that, being essentially a mental copy of a brain state, expresses (and is expressed by) that state. But here he faces a problem. In order for a thought to be genuinely abstract, its representational content must differ from that of any mental image, since the latter can represent only particular things. In that case, however, an exact correspondence between the accompanying mental image and the brain state would not suffice to establish a perfect harmony between mind and body. Even on Leibniz’s own principles, then, it appears that Berkeley was right to dismiss abstract ideas. (shrink)

Les Principes de la connaissance humaine sont l'occasion pour Berkeley de nier l'existence des idées générales abstraites. Il admet cependant l'existence d'idées générales, plus exactement d'idées déterminées à signification générale. C'est ainsi qu'il peut rendre compte de la généralité de certaines démonstrations. L'exemple choisi est celui de l'idée de triangle dans le cadre d'une démonstration géométrique. Mais peut-on également rendre compte de cette manière des démonstrations et des idées algébriques et notamment celle de quantité? In the Principles of human knowledge, (...) Berkeley clearly denies the existence of abstract general ideas. He assumes, however, the existence of general ideas or, more exactly, of determinate ideas with a general meaning. In this way, he explains the generality of certain demonstrations. He chooses the example of the idea of a triangle within a geometrical demonstration. But can he likewise account for algebraic demonstrations and ideas, and in particular for the idea of quantity? (shrink)

Berkeley’s “selective attention” account of how we establish general conclusions without abstract ideas—particularly in light of his denial of abstract ideas and rejection of the legitimacy of several subjects of scientific and philosophic study on the grounds that they presuppose abstract ideas—yields a puzzle: Why can’t we begin with ideas and use the method of selective attention to establish conclusions about qualities and material objects independently of their being perceived, even though we do not have ideas of these entities? I (...) argue that Berkeley’s reply depends partly on two doctrines that he suggests but does not develop explicitly: “Existing only when perceived” and “being inactive” are essential properties of ideas, and their status as essential means that they are included in the content of every idea. When conjoined with his account of representation, these doctrines leave us with no consistent cognitive surrogate that will allow us to think of qualities or material objects. (shrink)