How Berkeley Redefines Substance

Berkeley Studies 24:40-50 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
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.
Keywords
PhilPapers/Archive ID
DANHBR
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-08-07
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2015-08-07

Total views
414 ( #6,461 of 39,663 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
120 ( #3,208 of 39,663 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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