In the fourth book of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Locke hints that he could explain how God may have created matter exnihilo, but refrains from doing so. Leibniz, when he came upon this passage, pricked up his ears. There ensued a sequence of personal events which are not without charm and piquancy, and a sequence of philosophical events which are of some interest. In this paper we tell the tale.

Locke has been discussing the view that the creation of matter out of nothing is so inconceivable — it is so utterly impossible to think of how it might be done — that not even omnipotence could bring off such a feat, and matter must therefore be co-eternal with God.

Recent approaches to scepticism have followed a pattern which Descartes was the first modern to outline with anything approaching clarity. He is not often given credit for the best of his insights here largely because they are obscured by misleading theological assumptions, yet once these assumptions are removed we should be impressed by the subtle ring of the underlying account of rational belief. To demonstrate these claims the first section of this essay discusses the irrelevance of Descartes’ theology to his epistemology — the misère of the title — the second, devoted to the grandeur, expounds his operative theory of reasonable belief, and the remainder applies this theory to Descartes’ original sceptical problem and offers some comment both on its strength and its weakness.

Descartes is less careful than he might be in formulating the exact form of the most general sceptical doubt that he aims to rebut. On some occasions he appears to be asking the question (1) and, on others, the question (2).

The purpose of this paper is to show that the ‘simple natures’ which appear in the Regulae are those very ‘modes’ and ‘attributes’ of ‘substance’ which appear in all of Descartes’ later works. Contrary to the opinions of some critics, I hope to show that simple natures were not discarded by Descartes for being inconsistent with his later philosophy; that is, if they were discarded at all! I also hope to show that simple natures do not have such a “wide berth” that they are inadequate in dealing with Descartes’ “mature philosophy”. On the contrary, I hope to make it sufficiently clear that they are indispensable for our understanding of the relationship between his epistemology and ontology.

Descartes’ account of ‘simple natures’ is of utmost importance to his epistemology. His account of ‘substance’ constitutes the very essence of his ontology. We shall see that while ‘simple natures’ are all we can know, ‘ substance’ is all that exists. Hence the relationship of simple natures to substance should aid us in understanding the relationship of thought to being. This relationship serves to illustrate the correspondence between knowledge and existence which is the hallmark of Cartesian thought.

A puzzling feature of Spinoza's discussion of the good is that it takes place on two different levels whose compatibility seems uncertain. He advances a view of the nature of ascriptions of “good” to certain individual things, but he also devotes a large part of the Ethics to recommending a particular conception of the good person. The first theory appears to undermine the force of the second. For Spinoza's view of ascriptions of “good” to any objects apparently leads in the direction of subjectivism; what is good from one person's viewpoint may be bad for another's, and no viewpoint is privileged. Yet a subjectivist view of ascriptions of good would mix poorly with Spinoza's own presentation of a standard for human conduct; he himself voices a view of human good which he takes to be more than just another sound in the chorus of ethical opinions. Professor E.M. Curley expresses concern with such a difficulty in his recent article “Spinoza's Moral Philosophy: “

Leibniz’ principal doctrine of truth is an attempt to set out the truth-conditions for a certain syntactically-defined class of propositions. As such, it constitutes an attempt to provide at least one portion of a semantical theory. The doctrine itself is found for example in Elementa Calculi:

It is clear, from this work as well as from “First Truths” and “On Freedom”, that the doctrine is not restricted to universal affirmatives, but applies as well to particular affirmatives.

This paper is a defense of the “representative theory of perception” in general, and Locke's views about perception in particular. It is intended only as a limited defense, but one against those objections which recently have been taken thoroughly to discredit both the general theory and Locke's particular position. The chief of these objections is that the representative theory leads inevitably to skepticism about the existence of objective material things. George Pitcher finds this objection to the representative theory completely persuasive and so well established that it scarcely requires discussion:

In this paper I intend to discuss a series of views about substance. I take as my starting point certain things locke says about substance, argue that there are a number of logico-linguistic pecularities in his view, claim that the basic intuition is correct but that locke's final pronouncements are wrong, canvass three other possible but incorrect attempts to accommodate this correct intuition, and then sketch what I take to be the proper way to embrace the intuition. Finally I indicate what changes in lockean doctrine would be needed if Locke wanted to hold (what I think is) the correct doctrine of substance. My conclusion is: not many.

The places where Locke is most explicit about his views on substance are the Letters to Stillingfleet. The value of these letters as against Locke views in the Essay has been sometimes depreciated, but it seems clear that the views expressed in the Letters are merely a making explicit the views held in the Essay.

I intend to defend three claims in this paper: (1) Locke's position does imply a specious present theory, one which importantly resembles a version adopted by C. D. Broad. (2) Contrary to what some commentators think or imply, Locke does not make the ideas which occupy the specious present durationless and he does not confine the specious present to the duration of what we experience in reflection. (3) The theory he implies does create a serious problem for him, however, and in order to avoid the problem he must drop the reflective specious present.

The specious present theory in general holds that what we experience as a whole is never instantaneous and that at least part of the duration of what we experience as a whole at a given time is earlier than that time. The experienced present is always at least in part a bit of the past. For example, if at t I hear a sequence of sounds, then at least the first sound in the sequence is earlier than t, since I first heard it before t.

Berkeley's views on time are clearly expressed, succinctly stated, and quite untenable. In view of these facts it is strange to find him consistently misunderstood, and often praised. In particular, A.A. Luce, Berkeley's most committed commentator, gets him completely wrong, attributing to him a doctrine which he explicitly rejects.

Berkeley's views on time must be garnered from sparse references to the topic in the Philosophical Commentaries, in two sections of the Principles, in the correspondence with Johnson, and in the First Dialogue. Time is not discussed in De Motu, rather surprisingly, though this fact is seldom noticed. Thus, H.G. Alexander, in his introduction to the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, writes:

Like fish with chips, philosophical discussions of space usually consort with discussions of time, and there is a strong tendency to assume that argument patterns employed, and conclusions reached, in the one may be transferred, with minimal changes, to the other.

A fair question to ask of any philosopher is: What problems is he trying to solve or to circumvent? The relevance of his work to his readers depends upon how live those problems are for them; the merit of his work depends upon his success in dealing with them. The problems which concerned Berkeley were problems inherited from Cartesianism—problems arising from the dualism of mental and material substance, the Cartesian conception of causality, and the representative theory of ideas. How can mind and matter interact if they are two substances totally different in nature and like can only act upon like? How can matter be a cause at all if it is inert and a cause is by nature active? How can ideas represent material substance and its modes if representation is a matter of resemblance and ideas, being modes of mind, are unlike anything material? All such problems are circumvented if one denies the reality of material substance, if one claims that there are only minds and their ideas and that ideas are neither caused by nor representative of independently existing material objects. This, of course, is Berkeley's position.

In a well known paper, “Mind and Ideas in Berkeley” George Pitcher has argued that Berkeley's account of how minds are related to sensible ideas must be incoherent. Douglas Odegard has already criticized Pitcher's treatment of Berkeley, but the criticisms pertain to other questions. No one appears to have challenged Pitcher's most important argument. I hope to show that, while it is well worth analyzing, the argument fails to provide any effective reductio ad absurdum of Berkeley's real position.

Pitcher's argument trades on two logically independent versions of the adverbial analysis of ideas. The first is what I shall call “the identity version”. Its proponent asserts that the ideas are identical with sensings, with mental acts or states of sensing which are adverbially describable. The philosopher who follows the second or “constitutive” version asserts that ideas are sensa and exist as constituents of sensing states. For him ideas are not mental states but are constituents of such states. A sponsor of either version will hold that sensings are qualities of the mind.

In the first three parts of Book I of the Treatise Hume presents a sketch of the operations of the human mind. The human mind receives impressions which it may reproduce as ideas in memory or imagination. In memory the qualitative content as well as the order and relation of impressions is retained. In producing ideas, imagination need reproduce only simple impressions; it need not reproduce complex impressions or the order and relation of impressions. Nonetheless the mind, including the imagination, does have a propensity to associate ideas in accordance with the principles or relations of resemblance, contiguity in space or time, and cause and effect. The cognitive function of imagination becomes inexplicable without this propensity to associate ideas in accordance with these three principles.

In recent years renewed interest in Thomas Reid's philosophy has led to fruitful discussion of Reid's theories of sensation and perception. Although certain aspects of these topics can be discussed without setting out Reid's version of the primary-secondary quality distinction, the ultimate evaluation of Reid's work on both sensation and perception requires discussion of his views on primary and secondary qualities. Current Reid literature virtually ignores this important topic. This paper is an attempt to remedy this situation. In addition to setting out Reid's position on primary and secondary qualities I will discuss Reid's curious relation to the New Science of his day and will explain how Reid thought he could reintroduce the primary-secondary quality distinction despite Berkeley's attacks on the doctrine.

In both of his major works, An Inquiry Into The Human Mind (1764), and Essays On The Intellectual Powers Of Man (1785), Thomas Reid was intent upon examining the philosophical problems of human knowledge. In the Inquiry perception received his exclusive attention. In the Essays other cognitive operations were examined as well. The impetus for these investigations was provided by Reid's negative assessment of the achievements of his philosophical predecessors.