Philosophical Explorations 21 (1):41-59 (2018)

Tom Stoneham
University of York
Embodiment is a fact of human existence which philosophers should not ignore. They may differ to a great extent in what they have to say about our bodies, but they have to take into account that for each of us our body has a special status, it is not merely one amongst the physical objects, but a physical object to which we have a unique relation. While Descartes approached the issue of embodiment through consideration of sensation and imagination, it is more directly reached by consideration of action and agency: whenever we act upon the world, we act by moving our bodies. So if we can understand what an immaterialist such as Berkeley thinks about agency, we will have gone a fair way to understanding what he thinks about embodiment. §1 discusses a recent flurry of articles on the subject of Berkeley’s account of action. I choose to present Berkeley as a causal-volitional theorist not because I think it is the uniquely correct interpretation of the texts, but because I find it more philosophically interesting as a version of immaterialism. In particular, it raises the possibility of a substantive account of human embodiment which is completely unavailable to the occasionalist. §2 articulates an apparent philosophical problem for Berkeley qua causal-volitional theorist and show that Locke was aware of a related problem and had a solution of which Berkeley would have known. §3 distinguishes two interpretations of Berkeley’s famous denial of blind agency – as the assertion of a weak representational condition or a strong epistemic one – and provide evidence that there was a well-established debate about blind powers in the seventeenth century which took the metaphor of blindness as indicating an epistemic rather than merely representational failing. What remains to do in §4 is to consider whether Berkeley, with his own peculiar commitments, could in fact accept this account of agency.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/13869795.2017.1421690
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,130
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

Actions.J. Hornsby - 1982 - Mind 91 (361):147-149.
Berkeley: An Interpretation.Kenneth P. Winkler - 1989 - Oxford University Press UK.
The Search After Truth.Nicholas Malebranche, Thomas M. Lennon & Paul J. Olscamp - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (1):146-147.
Actions.Gary Watson - 1982 - Journal of Philosophy 79 (8):464-469.

View all 23 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Berkeley, God and the Succession of Ideas.Brad Thomson - 2021 - Dissertation, University of Ottawa

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Berkeley’s Lockean Religious Epistemology.Kenneth L. Pearce - 2014 - Journal of the History of Ideas 75 (3):417-438.
Berkeley's Theory of Abstract Ideas.C. C. W. Taylor - 1978 - Philosophical Quarterly 28 (111):97-115.
Locke and Berkeley.C. B. Martin & David M. Armstrong (eds.) - 1968 - University of Notre Dame Press.
Locke.E. J. Lowe - 1993 - Routledge.


Added to PP index

Total views
50 ( #226,677 of 2,506,489 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,244 of 2,506,489 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes