ABSTRACTThis paper responds to two issues in interpreting George Berkeley’s Analyst. First, it explains why the text contains no discussion of religious mysteries or points of faith, despite the claims of the text's subtitle; I argue that the subtitle must be understood, and its success assessed, in conjunction with material external to the text. Second, it’s unclear how naturally the arguments of the Analyst sit with Berkeley’s broader views. He criticizes the methodology of calculus and conceptually problematic entities, and the (...) extent to which they require one to bend the rules of classical mathematics. Yet, elsewhere, Berkeley’s opinion of classical mathematics and its intelligibility is low, and he defends a pragmatic approach to word meaning that should not find fault with so functionally successful a theory. The ad hominem intention of the text makes it difficult to discern to what extent Berkeley is committed to the sincerity of these criticisms. This component of the text is rarely discussed, but I argue that when trying to decide what Berkeley’s true position is in the Analyst, we should treat its ad hominem component as its primary intention. (shrink)

Die leitende These der Untersuchung lautet, dass der von Berkeley inaugurierte und uneingeschränkt verteidigte Idealismus bei Kant und Schopenhauer eine spannungsreiche Bewegung der Problematisierung und Kritik freisetzt. In der bisherigen Forschung wurden die Positionen George Berkeleys, Immanuel Kants und Arthur Schopenhauers noch nicht systematisch miteinander verglichen. Die Entwicklungsgeschichte des Idealismus erstmals anhand dieser drei Referenzautoren zu dokumentieren, bildet das zentrale Thema der Untersuchung, das die detaillierten Einzeluntersuchungen organisch verbindet. Darüber hinaus ist es ein eminentes Beweisziel der vorliegenden Monographie, Berkeley als (...) einen beeindruckend konsequenten Denker zu erschließen, dessen Immaterialismus sowohl argumentationstheoretisch wie historisch rekonstruiert wird. Insgesamt möchte die Monographie dazu beitragen, die gängige Oppositionsbildung zwischen dem britischen Empirismus auf der einen Seite und der deutschsprachigen Transzendentalphilosophie auf der anderen Seite zu hinterfragen. Die Relevanz und Originalität des Buches beruht dabei nicht nur in der Zusammenführung dieser bislang separat behandelten Traditionslinien, sondern zugleich in der Profilierung einer idealistischen Metaphysik. (shrink)

Traditionally, religious doctrines and practices have been divided into two categories. Those that purport to be justified by natural reason alone are said to be part of natural religion, while those which purport to be justified only by appeal to supernatural revelation are said to be part of revealed religion. One of the central aims of Berkeley's philosophy is to understand and defend both the doctrines and the practices of both natural and revealed (Christian) religion. This chapter will provide a (...) survey of this aspect of Berkeley's thought. (shrink)

Hobbes’s interpreters have struggled to find a plausible semantics for evaluative language in his writings. I argue that this search is misguided. Hobbes offers neither an account of the reference of evaluative terms nor a theory of the truth-conditions for evaluative statements. Rather, he sees evaluative language simply as having the non-representational function of prescribing actions and practical attitudes, its superficially representational appearance notwithstanding. I marshal the evidence for this prescriptivist reading of Hobbes on evaluative language and show how it (...) sidesteps various textual and philosophical problems that bedevil the traditional interpretations. (shrink)

A quick introduction to my becoming the editor of *Berkeley Studies* in 2006.