No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 January 2010
Ever since its first publication critics of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason have been struck by certain strong formal resemblances between transcendental idealism and Berkeley's immaterialism. Both philosophers hold that the sensible world is mind-dependent, and that from this very mind-dependence we can draw a refutation of scepticism of the senses.
1 Principles of Human Knowledge, I, 87–91.Google Scholar
2 Principles, I, 30–34.Google Scholar
3 Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Smith, N. Kemp (New York: St Martin's Press, 1965), A376.Google Scholar
4 Principles, I, 90.Google Scholar
5 Principles, I, 56.Google Scholar
6 Critique, A373.Google Scholar
7 Turbayne, C. M., ‘Kant's Refutation of Dogmatic Idealism’, Philosophical Quarterly (1955)Google Scholar; republished as ‘Kant's Relation to Berkeley’ in Kant Studies Today, Beck, L. W. (ed.) (La Salle: Open Court, 1969).Google Scholar
8 Justin, G. D., ‘On Kant's Analysis of Berkeley’, Kant Studien (1974)Google Scholar; Allison, H. E., ‘Kant's Critique of Berkeley’, Journal of the History of Philosophy (1973)Google Scholar. Margaret Wilson, in ‘Kant and the Dogmatic Idealism of Berkeley’, Journal of the History of Philosophy (1971)Google Scholar, had argued that Kant's criticisms do correspond to important differences from Berkeley but also indicate that Kant did not know Berkeley's theory well.
9 Critique, B70f.Google Scholar
10 Critique, H274f.Google Scholar
11 Siris, 271.Google Scholar
12 Cf. Principles, I, 7, 73f, etc.Google Scholar
13 Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, trans. Lucas, P. G. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962), 374Google Scholar. Numerical reference follows the pagination of the Berlin Academy edition of the Collected Works.
14 The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, Luce, A. and Jessop, T. (eds) (London: Nelson, 1953), V, 14ff.Google Scholar
15 For explicit mention of ‘pure intellect’ in earlier works cf. Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, I (Works, II, 153Google Scholar) and De Motu, 53Google Scholar. But the wellknown theory of ‘notions’ is also endorsement of a quasi-Cartesian pure intellect (without innate ideas). Cf. Principles, I, 27fGoogle Scholar., 89, 140 and 142; Three Dialogues, III, 232f.Google Scholar
16 Principles of Philosophy, II, trans. Haldane, E. and Ross, G. (New York: Dover, 1955), 10f.Google Scholar
17 Elements of Philosophy, II, vii, 2.Google Scholar
18 Elements, II, viii, 1.Google Scholar
19 Syntagma, Second Part, I, ii, 1, as translated by Brush, C., Selected Works of Pierre Gassendi (New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1972).Google Scholar
20 Cf. Divine Dialogues, I.Google Scholar
21 Principia Mathematica, Def. VIII Schol.
22 Op. cit., II, xiii, 10.
23 Principles, I, 110–116, etc.Google Scholar
24 Optics, qu. 28.Google Scholar
25 Prolegomena, 374fGoogle Scholar., quoted by Allison, , 60.Google Scholar
26 Prolegomena, 286.Google Scholar
27 Prologomena, 289.Google Scholar
28 Critique, A51 (B75). In Kemp Smith's translation, ‘intuitions without concepts are blind’.
29 Essay towards a New Theory of Vision, 45Google Scholar et passim.
30 Cf. Essay, IV, xi, 2Google Scholar, etc. I do not mean to imply that it is not also helpful towards understanding Berkeley to consider Descartes' rather different account of perceptual beliefs, and in fact Principles of Philosophy, II, 1Google Scholar, seems to set the scene rather neatly for the Berkeleyan theory. But Berkeley does allude specifically to the features of Locke's account described here.
31 Cf. Essay, II, xxx, 2Google Scholar; II, xxxi, 2; etc.
32 Cf. Three Dialogues, III, 239Google Scholar; Theory of Vision Vindicated, 11ffGoogle Scholar.; Philosophical Commentaries, 80, 112.Google Scholar
33 Prolegomena, 374.Google Scholar
34 Cf. Historical and Critical Dictionary, article ‘Leucippus’.
35 See Turbayne, , 226.Google Scholar
36 Clavis Universalis, II, iii.Google Scholar
37 Bayle, , DictionaryGoogle Scholar, article ‘Zeno’; Collier, Clavis, II, iv.Google Scholar
38 On the one hand, in the early notebooks known as Philosophical Commentaries; on the other, in The Analyst and A Defence of Free-Thinking in Mathematics.
39 Three Dialogues, I, 188ff.Google Scholar
40 Three Dialogues, I, 189Google Scholar. Cf. Locke, , Essay, II, viii, 21.Google Scholar
41 Principles, I, 11.Google Scholar
42 Arnauld, and Nicole, , Logic, or the Art of Thinking, IV, iGoogle Scholar, as translated by J. Dickoff and P. James (Indianapolis 1964).
43 Search After Truth I, viGoogle Scholar, as translated by T. Lennon and P. Olscamp (Columbus: Ohio State University Press 1980).
44 Dictionary, article ‘Zeno’.
45 Principles, I, 47.Google Scholar
46 Essay, II, xv, 9.Google Scholar
47 New Theory of Vision, 85Google Scholar; cf. Three Dialogues, III, 245.Google Scholar
48 Critique, A439 (B467).Google Scholar
49 Critique, A487fGoogle Scholar. (B515f.) and A505 (B533).
50 Essay, II, xiii, 4.Google Scholar
51 New Essays on Human Understanding, II, xiii, 4Google Scholar, trans. P. Remnant and J. Bennett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
52 Cf. Putnam, H., ‘Meaning and Reference’ in Mind, Language and Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53 Essay, II, xiv.Google Scholar
54 Principles of Philosophy, I, 55ff.Google Scholar
55 Cf. Gassendi, , Objections to Descartes' Meditations, II, 6, 9Google Scholar; Malebranche, , Search after Truth, III, ii, 7Google Scholar; Locke, , Essay, IV, iii, 16fGoogle Scholar.; IV, iii, 29; IV, vi, 14.
56 Three Dialogues, I, 190.Google Scholar
57 Principles, I, 98.Google Scholar