An interpretation of Berkeley’s theory of meaning must account for operative utility as well as Berkeley’s commitment to the truth of Christian scriptures. I argue that formalist and use-theoretic...

This book offers novel interpretations of several of Berkeley's most distinctive philosophical doctrines, including his theory of vision, heterogeneity thesis, anti-abstractionism, immaterialism, likeness principle, and the divine language thesis. Key to those interpretations is a focus on Berkeley's critical use of the Cartesian doctrine of objective presence, which demands causal explanations for the content of sensory ideas.

Commentators are divided over whether Berkeley holds that physical objects are immediately perceived by sense. As I read Berkeley, discrimination is necessary for perceiving physical objects by sense. Berkeley says that discrimination requires perceiving motion. Since motions can only be mediately perceived according to Berkeley, physical objects can only be mediately perceived by sense. I defend this reading against the following objections. First, that perception of physical objects is non-conceptual. Second, that physical objects are divinely instituted collections of ideas rather (...) than psychologically associated collections of ideas. Third, that some physical objects are small enough to be immediately perceptually discriminated by touch. I also propose a new objection to the claim that physical objects are immediately perceived for Berkeley. I argue that immediate perception of a subset of a physical object’s sensible qualities is neither necessary nor sufficient to perceive that object by sense, according to Berkeley. (shrink)

I propose to downgrade the Liar paradox from what Quine called an antinomy to a much weaker veridical paradox. I then apply Quine’s strategy of rejecting veridical paradoxes by exposing an unacceptable premise to the Liar. I argue that upon analysis the intension of a standard Liar sentence presupposes the existence of a non-empty empty set; and that since such an object is impossible this presupposition may be rejected, downgrading the Liar. I then briefly argue that Dialetheism can be motivated (...) without supposing the existence of a non-empty empty set. (shrink)