Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:09:55.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Can An Idea Be Like Nothing But Another Idea? A Conceptual Interpretation of Berkeley's Likeness Principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2021

PETER WEST
PETER WEST*
Affiliation:
TRINITY COLLEGE [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Berkeley's likeness principle is the claim that ‘an idea can be like nothing but an idea’. The likeness principle is intended to undermine representationalism: the view (that Berkeley attributes to thinkers like Descartes and Locke) that all human knowledge is mediated by ideas in the mind that represent material objects. Yet, Berkeley appears to leave the likeness principle unargued for. This has led to several attempts to explain why Berkeley accepts it. In contrast to metaphysical and epistemological interpretations available in the literature, in this essay I defend a conceptual interpretation. I argue that Berkeley accepts the likeness principle on the basis of (1) his commitment to the transparency of ideas and (2) his account of resemblance, which he sets out in his works on vision. Thus, I provide an explanation for Berkeley's reasons for accepting the likeness principle that, appropriately, focuses on his views concerning ideas and likeness.

Keywords

Berkeleyresemblancerepresentationideaslikeness principlerelations
Type
Article
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , Winter 2021 , pp. 530 - 548
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Philosophical Association

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.)

Footnotes

Thanks to Kenny Pearce, Manuel Fasko, Katia Saporiti, Peter Kail, and several anonymous reviewers for providing constructive feedback on versions this essay.

References

Berkeley, George. (1733) The Theory of Vision, or Visual Language, Shewing the Immediate Presence and Providence of a Deity, Vindicated and Explained. London: J. Tonson.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George. (1949) The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne. Vol. 1: Philosophical Commentaries, Essay towards a New Theory of Vision. Theory of Vision Vindicated. Edited by Luce, A. A.. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George. (2008a) ‘An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision’. In Clarke, Desmond M. (ed.), Philosophical Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1–66.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George. (2008b) ‘Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous’. In Clarke, Desmond M. (ed.), Philosophical Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 151–242.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George. (2008c) ‘A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge’. In Clarke, Desmond M. (ed.), Philosophical Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 67–149.Google Scholar
Bolton, Martha Brandt (1987) ‘Berkeley's Objection to Abstract Ideas and Unconceived Objects’. In Sosa, Ernest (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley (Dordrecht: D. Reidel), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, Phillip D. (1963) ‘Perceptual Relativity and Ideas in the Mind’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 24, 202–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, Phillip D. (1966) ‘Berkeley's Likeness Principle’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 4, 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, Phillip D. (1990) ‘Berkeley's Manifest Qualities Thesis’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 28, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicker, Georges. (2011) George Berkeley's Idealism: A Critical Examination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hight, Marc A., ed. (2013) The Correspondence of George Berkeley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holden, Thomas. (2019) ‘Berkeley on Inconceivability and Impossibility’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 98:1, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacovides, Michael. (2009) ‘How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive’. Philosophia, 37, 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. (1975) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Nidditch, Peter H.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ott, Walter. (2015) ‘Review of Berkeley's Argument for Idealism, by Samuel Rickless’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 53, 162–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappas, George. (1995) ‘Berkeleian Idealism and Impossible Performances’. In Muehlmann, Robert G. (ed.), Berkeley's Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretive, and Critical Essays (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press), 127–48.Google Scholar
Pearce, Kenneth L. (forthcoming) ‘Berkeley's Theory of Language’. In Rickless, Samuel (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Berkeley (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas. (1785) Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. London: John Bell.Google Scholar
Rickless, Samuel. (2013) Berkeley's Argument for Idealism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Todd. (2006) ‘A New Account of Berkeley's Likeness Principle’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 14, 561–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfred. (1997) Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shepherd, Mary. (1827) Essays on the Perception of an External Universe, and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation. London: John Hatchard and Son.Google Scholar
Winkler, Kenneth. (1989) Berkeley: An Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yolton, John W. (1984) Perceptual Acquaintance: From Descartes to Reid. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Yolton, John W. (1996) Perception and Reality: A History from Descartes to Kant. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar