Berkeley on Voluntary Motion: A Conservationist Account

Ruch Filozoficzny 74 (4):71–98 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
A plausible reading of Berkeley’s view of voluntary motion is occasionalism; this, however, leads to a specious conclusion against his argument of human action. Differing from an unqualified occasionalist reading, I consider the alternative reading that Berkeley is a conservationist regarding bodily motion by the human mind at will. That is, finite minds (spirits) immediately cause motions in their body parts, albeit under the divine conservation. My argument then comports with the conservationist reading from three perspectives: (i) theodicy that the human mind is held liable for sinful actions; (ii) an account of the human mind influencing other minds; and (iii) an improper but necessary directing principle of the human mind. This article is a stepping stone to grasping why the conservationist reading is more coherent than the occasionalist one.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
Reprint years
2019
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ODABOV
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-02-12
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Consequentialism.Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter
Stoicism.Baltzly, Dirk
Descartes on Causation.Schmaltz, Tad M.

View all 39 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2019-02-12

Total views
155 ( #25,909 of 50,149 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
27 ( #23,087 of 50,149 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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