Berkeley: Ideas

The paper advances two hypotheses concerning Thomas Reid’s reading of George Berkeley’s immaterialist system. First, it is argued that, on Reid’s view, Berkeley is skeptic about the existence of the objects of the material world, not in virtue of a doubt about the senses but for his adoption of the principle that ideas are the immediate objects of the operations of mind. On Reid’s view, that principle is a skeptical principle by its own nature. Secondly, it is argued that Berkeley (...) really accepts in his system the notion of ‘idea’ such as Reid understands it, namely, as an entity distinct from mind and its operations. (shrink)

This article aims to study George Berkeley's subjective concept of psychoism to analyze George Burley's subjective concept. The results of the study showed that in Berkeley's philosophy, the idea is not exactly what it really is. But the idea is the potential of the mind to make us aware of the outside world. The perception must therefore start from the mind to the outside world. Berkeley's philosophy is more focused on specific things than the general. The existence of the outside (...) world in Berkeley's perspective means existence as something that appears to our perception. And the perception of external things is therefore reached in the same way as access to God in our minds. Making God the most important absolute thing in George's subjective theory. Berkeley's philosophy believes in a genuine, spiritual identity, and that vision is the result of identity. Matter is present as a vision. Therefore, the world only exists with the manophage, his philosophy is purely the idea, meaning idea, which means that the idea means that the spirit is used instead of idealism, this cult is taught that the mind exists as one person, so it is called the Daemon God, so the true mind is god's mind only. (shrink)

Berkeley’s immaterialist philosophy has been frequently underestimated as a result of the misunderstanding of his ontological proposal, specifically because of the complexity of his concept of idea. The aim of this paper is then to clarify and explain that concept because from it depends the correct understanding of Berkeley’s ontological and immaterialist proposal. To do this, 1) I will show some examples of the misunderstanding that the berkeleian proposal has had, mainly due to his concept of idea; 2) I will (...) track how this notion was being developed in Berkeley’s early notes, known as Philosophical Commentaries; 3) I will analyze and explain the concept of idea from the published work of Berkeley, that is, from the Principles and Dialogues. -/- La filosofía inmaterialista de Berkeley ha sido muchas veces infravalorada por la mala comprensión de su propuesta ontológica, específicamente por la dificultad que presenta su concepto de idea. El propósito de este artículo es, entonces, esclarecer y explicar dicho concepto porque de ello depende entender correctamente la ontología y el inmaterialismo filosófico berkeleyano. Para realizar esto 1) mostraré algunos ejemplos de la mala comprensión que ha tenido la propuesta berkeleyana, debido principalmente a su concepto de idea; 2) rastrearé cómo se fue conformando dicho concepto en las notas de juventud conocidas como Comentarios Filosóficos; 3) analizaré y explicaré el concepto de idea a partir de la obra publicada de los Principios y los Diálogos. (shrink)

Both Reid and Berkeley reject ‘representationalism’, an epistemological position whereby we perceive things in the world indirectly via ideas in our mind, on the grounds of anti-scepticism and common sense. My aim in this paper is to draw out the similarities between Reid and Berkeley's ‘anti-representationalist’ arguments, whilst also identifying the root of their disagreements on certain fundamental metaphysical issues. Reid famously rejects Berkeley's idealism, in which all that exists are ideas and minds, because it undermines the dictates of common (...) sense. Reid also charges Berkeley with not only accepting but furthering the progress of ‘the Way of Ideas’, a longstanding tradition which has drawn philosophy away from true science and common sense. From Berkeley's perspective, Reid is a ‘materialist’; that is, he dogmatically accepts that mind-independent things exist. I argue that these important differences can be explained by both thinkers’ construal of certain ‘philosophical prejudices’. Finally, I conclude that despite these differences, both ought to be characterised as ‘anti-representationalists’ in light of their shared epistemological concerns. (shrink)

This chapter revisits three key disagreements between Locke and Berkeley. The disagreements relate to abstraction, the idea of substance, and the status of the primary/secondary quality distinction. The goal of the chapter is to show that these disagreements are rooted in a more fundamental disagreement over the nature of ideas. For Berkeley, ideas are tied very closely to perceptual content. Locke adopts a less restrictive account of the nature of ideas. On his view, ideas are responsible for both perceptual content (...) and non-perceptual mental content. Recognizing this allows for the following analysis of their disputes. Berkeley often appeals to introspection to suggest that we do not have some particular idea. But Locke’s arguments that we have a particular idea often appeal to the functional role the idea has in our cognitive economy rather than to facts about our immediate phenomenology. (shrink)

Throughout his mature writings, Berkeley speaks of minds as substances that underlie or support ideas. After initially flirting with a Humean account, according to which minds are nothing but ‘congeries of Perceptions’, Berkeley went on to claim that a mind is a ‘perceiving, active being... entirely distinct’ from its ideas. Despite his immaterialism, Berkeley retains the traditional category of substance and gives it pride of place in his ontology. Ideas, by contrast, are ‘fleeting and dependent beings’ that must be supported (...) by a mental substance. There is no doubt that Berkeley’s conception of the relationship between minds and ideas is non-traditional, but that fact does not undercut his commitment to the traditional conception of substance. A robust literature has grown up around the thorny issue of reconciling Berkeley’s endorsement of mental substance with his rejection of its material counterpart. (shrink)

A number of early modern philosophers deny that corporeal non-minded nature contains efficient or strict causes. For Berkeley the passivity of ideas (hence PI) expresses this view. My aim is to look at two possible arguments – I call them strategy 1, and strategy 2 – Berkeley makes, or others make in his behalf, for PI. I conclude that they are unsatisfactory. I’m particularly interested whether Berkeley’s distinctive doctrine that objects of sense are mind-dependent, i.e., that no corporeal object can (...) exist unperceived, supports PI. I argue it doesn’t. (shrink)

[ES] El objetivo de este artículo es el de ofrecer una introducción práctica y esquemática al concepto de idea en la filosofía de George Berkeley. Es éste un punto teórico central en la especulación del filósofo irlandés, imprescindible para la comprensión de sus aportaciones peculiares a la tradición empirista moderna. A través de un análisis de la evolución del concepto de idea en las tres obras mayores de este filósofo, trataré de delinear los rasgos característicos y el recorrido evolutivo de (...) aquel contenido teórico. Finalmente, dedicaré el último apartado a algunas reflexiones a propósito de las ideas abstractas. [EN] The aim of this article is to offer a practical and schematic introduction to the concept of idea in George Berkeley’s philosophy. This is a central theoretical point in the speculation of the Irish philosopher, essential to understand his peculiar contributions to the modern empiricist tradition. By means of an analysis of the evolution of the concept of idea in the three major works of this philosopher, I shall try to outline the characteristic features and the evolutionary process of that theoretical content. Finally, I shall focus in the last paragraph on a few reflections about the status of abstract ideas. (shrink)

The doctrine of matter, mind/body interaction, the primary/secondary quality distinction, the doctrine of absolute time: these are just some of the tenets of early modern philosophy that are vigorously attacked by George Berkeley , the Anglo-Irish bishop and philosopher who offered his own theory of immaterialism to replace the problematic dualistic philosophies of his day. In this study it is argued that Berkeley's rejection of abstract ideas underscores his strongest attacks on all of these tenets. The first five chapters give (...) an account of how Berkeley's rejection of abstract ideas plays a pivotal role in his most famous and powerful arguments--arguments like the "Master Argument" and the "Inseparability Thesis." These arguments, it is maintained, are just as tight and convincing today as they were back then. ;In a critical vein, however, the final chapter of this study attacks Berkeley for his failure to distinguish adequately the conditions under which minds can be said to own ideas. Berkeley's failure to do this, it is maintained, reintroduces the possibility of skepticism and the problem of explaining how finite minds can be free in a world determined by God's will. It is concluded that, in the absence of such criteria, Berkeley cannot give an adequate account of the apparent uniqueness of the experiential perspective of each finite mind such that the personal identity of the finite mind is reduced to being just one part of God's mind which is infinite. This interpretation is in accord with Berkeley's understanding of God as "that in Whom we live and move and have our being.". (shrink)

The dissertation is divided into two parts. In Part One, Locke's theory of abstract general ideas is introduced and it is explained how it is to be used in giving an account of how certain common nouns refer. In the second chapter, Berkeley's attack on the theory of abstract ideas is described. In the third chapter, a defense of the doctrine proposed by J. L. Mackie is considered. It is argued that this fails as it stands, but the chapter goes (...) on to suggest how Mackie's account can be revised so as to overcome these shortcomings. In Part Two, some aspects of current thinking concerning one of Berkeley's central arguments for Esse is Percipi is discussed. In the chapter following this discussion, another interpretation of the argument for Esse is Percipi is proposed and an attempt is made to explain how this interpretation overcomes some of the problems connected with other interpretations. In the last chapter, an attempt is made to show that there is a direct connection between the doctrine of abstract ideas and the Esse is Percipi thesis. More exactly, it is argued that if there are abstract ideas, then the Esse is Percipi thesis is false. (shrink)

Immaterialism is typically associated with George Berkeley, but Berkeley's philosophy is one of four distinct versions of immaterialism that developed in the early eighteenth century. To the extent that attention has been given to the lesser known proponents of immaterialism, the basic differences in their views have not been adequately explicated and appreciated. I show that one of the most important differences between the several proponents of immaterialism is found in their different approaches to the problem of divine ideas, the (...) question of the nature of God's ideas and their relation to human perception. My study of the problem of divine ideas in the philosophies of George Berkeley, Samuel Johnson, Arthur Collier and Jonathan Edwards provides the basis for an informed interpretation of eighteenth century immaterialism, its essential tenets, its sources, its cultural significance, its flexibility and its philosophical strengths and weaknesses. (shrink)

This dissertation situates Berkeley's "master argument" for idealism in the context of Descartes' theory of ideas, and seeks to show that within that context the argument is convincing. In addition, the dissertation argues that Descartes' theory of ideas was not representationalist., as is often supposed, but a kind of direct realism; Cartesian ideas render intelligible individuals directly present to the intellect. In this respect Cartesian idea theory is very similar to a theory of species expounded by Antonio Rubio and other (...) Jesuit philosophers at the turn of the seventeenth century; Jesuit writings of this period include several interesting anticipations of Cartesian doctrine. Finally, the dissertation discusses the relationship between Berkeley's master argument and the semantic paradoxes of Berry, Koenig and Richard, and suggests that all these arguments commit a fallacy of vicious circularity, related to but distinct from the fallacy signaled by Bertrand Russell. (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).

São variadas as interpretações da crítica berkeleyana às idéias abstratas, mas elas costumam concordar na tese de que essa crítica gira em torno da natureza das “idéias”. Isto é, se “idéia” for o mesmo que “imagem”, então a abstração lockeana é impossível, caso contrário, não. Neste artigo eu procuro mostrar que essa crítica não depende de idéia ser ou não uma imagem e que Locke está parcialmente consciente do problema levantado por Berkeley. Locke's general triangle and Berkeley's partial considerationThere are (...) many different interpretations of Berkeley's attack on abstract ideas, but they usually agree in sustaining that this attack depends on the nature of "ideas". That is, if "idea" is the same as "image", then lockean abstraction is impossible, but otherwise not. In this paper I show that this attack on abstract ideas does not depend on the issue concerning the nature of idea as image, and that Locke is partially aware of the problem raised by Berkeley. (shrink)

George Berkeley maintains both anti-abstractionism (that abstract ideas are impossible) and idealism (that physical objects and their qualities are mind-dependent). Some scholars (including Atherton, Bolton, and Pappas) have argued, in different ways, that Berkeley uses anti-abstractionism as a premise in a simple argument for idealism. In this paper, I argue that the relation between anti-abstractionism and idealism in Berkeley's metaphysics is more complex than these scholars acknowledge. Berkeley distinguishes between two kinds of abstraction, singling abstraction and generalizing abstraction. He then (...) rests his case for idealism, not on the denial of the possibility of generalizing abstraction, but rather on the denial of the possibility of singling abstraction. Moreover, Berkeley's argument does not rest on a blanket rejection of all forms of singling abstraction. Rather, the fundamental anti-abstractionist assumption, for his purposes, is the claim that primary qualities cannot be mentally singled out from secondary qualities. Crucially, the claim that the existence of physical objects cannot be mentally singled out from their being perceived is not a premise in, but rather a consequence of, Berkeley's argument for idealism. Berkeley's argument therefore avoids circularity inasmuch as it appeals to the impossibility of singly abstracting one idea in order to establish the impossibility of singly abstracting another. (shrink)

Draft. Berkeley denied the existence of abstract ideas and any faculty of abstraction. At the same time, however, he embraced innate ideas and a faculty of pure intellect. This paper attempts to reconcile the tension between these commitments by offering an interpretation of Berkeley's Platonism.

It is important to try to understand Berkeley's exact position on what it is for someone to perceive an idea. He is frequently presented as holding that to perceive an idea is to be confronted by an object which is in some sense mind-dependent and private, and, if taken in a certain way, such a remark is not inaccurate. But the interpretation which renders it accurate needs to be specified and this is a task which awaits completion. Until it is (...) completed, questions like ‘Can Berkeley account for everything we, as plain men, legitimately want to say?’, ‘Are his arguments against the possibility of mind-independent material substances sound?’, and ‘Is he right to hold that the ideas involved in different sense modalities are always different?’, cannot be finally resolved.George Pitcher, in “Minds and Ideas in Berkeley”, makes a good start on the problem, but he does not consider a sufficient number of alternative analyses of ‘So and so perceives such and such an idea’. As a result he fails to pinpoint the exact analysis which Berkeley himself would favour. (shrink)

Berkeley asserts that (a) the mind perceives ideas, (b) the mind is wholly distinct from its ideas, and (c) the alleged distinction between (i) the perceiving of an idea and (ii) the idea perceived, is a bogus one. in this paper, the author does the following. first, he gives textual justification for his claim that berkeley did in fact hold each of the theses (a)-(c). he then shows that (a), (b), and (c) together constitute an inconsistent triad of propositions. then (...) he gives berkeley's reasons for asserting (b) and (c) and assesses the merits of these reasons. finally, he indicates the most plausible moves berkeley might make to extricate himself from inconsistency. (shrink)

I argue that Berkeley's distinctive idealism/immaterialism can't support his view that objects of sense, immediately or mediately perceived, are causally inert. (The Passivity of Ideas thesis or PI) Neither appeal to ordinary perception, nor traditional arguments, for example, that causal connections are necessary, and we can't perceive such connections, are helpful. More likely it is theological concerns,e.g., how to have second causes if God upholds by continuously creating the world, that's in the background. This puts Berkeley closer to Malebranche than (...) to Hume. -/- As far the what I call the "first strategy;" defending the passivity of ideas by ordinary introspection, I refer to the work of the French psychologist Albert Michotte,(1940) and those now extending his experiments, to show that (1) there is an immediate and quite robust visual impression of causality, (admitted in fact by Berkeley, Malebranche and Hume) and (2) of more importance, the impression isn't due to projecting into nature expectations gained from experienced regularities. (shrink)

Berkeley argues that our ideas cannot represent external objects, because only an idea can resemble an idea. But he does not offer any argument for the claim that an idea can represent only what it resembles - a premise essential to his argument. I argue that this gap can be both historically explained and filled by examining the debates between Cartesians and sceptics in the late seventeenth century. Descartes held that representation involves two relations between an idea and its object (...) ? resemblance and causation ? and that these relations are very closely linked to each other. I look at variations upon this claim in later Cartesians, especially Desgabets and Régis. I also examine the critics who attacked this claim, especially Huet, Foucher, and Du Hamel, who developed arguments similar to Berkeley's but concluded that (Cartesian) representation is simply impossible. I also argue that Malebranche, although an adherent of the Cartesian theory of intentionality, used a modified version of this argument to argue for his claim that ideas do not exist in the mind at all. These thinkers, and especially Malebranche, provide the context in which we should understand Berkeley. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ: Moore attribuait l’idéalisme de Berkeley à sa négligence de la distinction entre l’acte d’appréhension et son objet. Bien que Berkeley ait justement tracé cette distinction dans le premier Dialogue, et l’ait rejetée, peu s’en sont aperçu, et ceux qui l’ont remarqué lui reprochent habituellement de confondre l’acte d’appréhension avec une action. La thèse ici développée est que Berkeley n’est pas coupable de cette confusion et qu’il rejette la distinction, en fait, pour de bonnes raisons à caractère empiriste, qui ont (...) à voir avec ce que l’on tient pour son argument principal. (shrink)