Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kl59c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T18:33:35.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acts, ideas, and objects in Berkeley's metaphysics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Melissa Frankel
Melissa Frankel*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Philosophy, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa Ontario K1S 5B6,
*
*Email: Melissa.Frankel@carleton.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Berkeley holds that objects in the world are constituted of ideas. Some commentators argue that for Berkeley, ideas are identical to acts of perception; this is taken to proceed from his view that ideas are like pains. In this paper, I evaluate the identity claim. I argue that although it does not follow from the pain analogy, nonetheless the texts suggest that Berkeley does think ideas and acts are identical. I show how Berkeley can account for objects persisting over time and being perceivable by multiple observers, even if the ideas that constitute them are intermittent and dependent on particular actors.

Keywords

Berkeleyperceptionmetaphysicsidentity

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 475 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atherton, Margaret. 1983. “The Coherence of Berkeley's Theory of Mind.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 43 (3): 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan. 1965. “Berkeley and God.” Philosophy 40 (153): 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkeley, George. 1948–1957. The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, edited by Luce, A. A. and Jessop, T. E.. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.Google Scholar
Cummins, Phillip D. 1975. “Berkeley's Ideas of Sense.” Nous 9 (1): 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fields, Keota. 2011. Berkeley: Ideas, Immaterialism, and Objective Presence. Plymouth: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Flage, Daniel E. 1987. Berkeley's Doctrine of Notions: a Reconstruction Based on his Theory of Meaning. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Frankel, Melissa. 2012. “Berkeley and God in the Quad.” Philosophy Compass 7 (6): 388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grave, S. A. 1968. “The Mind and Its Ideas: Some Problems in the Interpretation of Berkeley.” In Locke and Berkeley, edited by Martin, C. B. and Armstrong, D. M., 296–313. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquette, Dale. 1985. “Berkeley's Continuity Argument for the Existence of God.” The Journal of Religion 65 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, J. 1916. “Berkeley's Realism.” Mind, New Series 25 (3): 308–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, Thomas. 2001. “Locke and the Logic of Ideas.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 18 (2): 155–177.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1979. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, edited by Nidditch, P. H.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luce, A. A. 1963. The Dialectic of Immaterialism. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1903. “Refutation of Idealism.” Mind, New Series 12 (4): 433–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muehlmann, Robert G. 1992. Berkeley's Ontology. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Noe, Alva. 2005. “Real Presence.” Philosophical Topics 33 (1): 235–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappas, George S. 2000. Berkeley's Thought. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitcher, George. 1977. Berkeley. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas. 2000. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, edited by Brookes, and Haakonssen, . University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Tipton, I. C. 1974. Berkeley: The Philosophy of Immaterialism. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.Google Scholar
Thomas, George H. 1976. “Berkeley's God Does Not Perceive.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 14 (2): 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, K. P. 1989. Berkeley: an Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar