Berkeley's stoic notion of spiritual substance

In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books (2008)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
For Berkeley, minds are not Cartesian spiritual substances because they cannot be said to exist (even if only conceptually) abstracted from their activities. Similarly, Berkeley's notion of mind differs from Locke's in that, for Berkeley, minds are not abstract substrata in which ideas inhere. Instead, Berkeley redefines what it means for the mind to be a substance in a way consistent with the Stoic logic of 17th century Ramists on which Leibniz and Jonathan Edwards draw. This view of mind, I conclude, is definitely not the bundle theory that some critics have portrayed it as being.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2013-07-24
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
495 ( #10,264 of 56,907 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
24 ( #31,125 of 56,907 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.