How Berkeley Redefines Substance

Berkeley Studies 24:40-50 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In several essays I have argued that Berkeley maintains the same basic notion of spiritual substance throughout his life. Because that notion is not the traditional (Aristotelian, Cartesian, or Lockean) doctrine of substance, critics (e.g., John Roberts, Tom Stoneham, Talia Mae Bettcher, Margaret Atherton, Walter Ott, Marc Hight) claim that on my reading Berkeley either endorses a Humean notion of substance or has no recognizable theory of substance at all. In this essay I point out how my interpretation does not assume that Berkeley adopts a bundle theory of mind, but instead redefines what it means for a simple substance to be the principle by which ideas are perceived.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-08-07
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Berkeley.Atherton, Margaret

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
582 ( #6,659 of 50,280 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
33 ( #18,812 of 50,280 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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