This paper discusses some key connections between Berkeley's reflections on language in the introduction to his Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge and the doctrines espoused in the body of that work, in particular his views on vulgar causal discourse and his response to the objection that his metaphysics imputes massive error to ordinary thought. I argue also that there is some mileage in the view that Berkeley's thought might be an early form of non-cognitivism.

The defense of common sense in Berkeley's Three Dialogues is, first and foremost, a defense of the gardener's claim to know this cherry tree, a claim threatened by both Cartesian and Lockean philosophy. Berkeley's defense of the gardener's knowledge depends on his claim that the being of a cherry tree consists in its being perceived. This is not something the gardener believes; rather, it is a philosophical analysis of the rules unreflectively followed by the gardener in his use of the (...) word 'exists'. It is by following these rules that the gardener gains knowledge of the cherry tree. Uncovering these deep connections between Berkeley's epistemology and his philosophy of language and placing them in the context of his critique of both Cartesian and Lockean philosophy will clarify Berkeley's strategy for bringing his reader back to common sense and practical engagement in the ordinary affairs of life. (shrink)

Les Principes de la connaissance humaine sont l'occasion pour Berkeley de nier l'existence des idées générales abstraites. Il admet cependant l'existence d'idées générales, plus exactement d'idées déterminées à signification générale. C'est ainsi qu'il peut rendre compte de la généralité de certaines démonstrations. L'exemple choisi est celui de l'idée de triangle dans le cadre d'une démonstration géométrique. Mais peut-on également rendre compte de cette manière des démonstrations et des idées algébriques et notamment celle de quantité? In the Principles of human knowledge, (...) Berkeley clearly denies the existence of abstract general ideas. He assumes, however, the existence of general ideas or, more exactly, of determinate ideas with a general meaning. In this way, he explains the generality of certain demonstrations. He chooses the example of the idea of a triangle within a geometrical demonstration. But can he likewise account for algebraic demonstrations and ideas, and in particular for the idea of quantity? (shrink)