The worst argument in the world – defended

Think 16 (47):15-23 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that Berkeley’s master argument is not the worst argument in the world—more like third or fourth.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,164

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Berkeley's master argument.Andre Gallois - 1974 - Philosophical Review 83 (1):55-69.
Berkeley's Idealism: Arguments of the First Dialogue.Glen Woolcott - 1996 - Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario (Canada)
Prior, Berkeley, and the Barcan formula.James Levine - 2016 - Synthese 193 (11):3551-3565.
God and first person in Berkeley.George Botterill - 2007 - Philosophy 82 (1):87-114.
Berkeley and the Time-Gap Argument.Mykolas Drunga - 2011 - In Timo Airaksinen & Bertil Belfrage (eds.), Berkeley's Lasting Legacy: 300 Years Later. Cambridge Scholars Press.
The Relation Between Anti-Abstractionism and Idealism in Berkeley's Metaphysics.Samuel C. Rickless - 2012 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (4):723-740.
Berkeley's Argument for Idealism.Samuel Charles Rickless - 2013 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Lessons of Prior's Master Argument.Michael J. White - 1999 - History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis 2 (1):225-238.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-03-27

Downloads
76 (#209,950)

6 months
7 (#339,156)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Scott Stapleford
St. Thomas University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Problems from Kant by James Van Cleve.Rae Langton - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (1):211-218.
Berkeley's master argument.Andre Gallois - 1974 - Philosophical Review 83 (1):55-69.
Berkeley in logical form.A. N. Prior - 1955 - Theoria 21 (2-3):117-122.
Berkeley.Robert Cummins - 1979 - Philosophical Review 88 (2):299.

Add more references