George Berkeley. Alciphron/Siris. Tradução, apresentação e notas de Jaimir Conte. São Paulo: Editora da Unesp, 2022. O volume reúne traduções de duas obras de George Berkeley, “Alciphron, ou o filósofo minucioso” e “Siris”. “Alciphron” é estruturado como um diálogo filosófico entre quatro personagens, no qual Berkeley combate os argumentos dos chamados “livres-pensadores” (como Mandeville ou Shaftesbury), fazendo uma apologia do Cristianismo. Já “Siris” é tanto um tratado sobre as virtudes medicinais da água de alcatrão quanto uma visão (...) do filósofo das cadeias do ser, explorando a gradual ascensão que vai do mundo dos sentidos e da mente, até chegar ao sobrenatural e a Deus, a essência trina. (shrink)

My goal in this paper is to reconstruct Anthony Collins’ challenge to the authority of orthodox Anglican figures, which arises due to arguments Collins develops in his Vindication of the Divine Attributes (1710) and Discourse on Free-Thinking (1713). In addition to shedding light on a hitherto underappreciated argument by Collins, my reconstruction allows me to propose a solution to the interpretive problem posed by §§16–22 of the fourth dialogue of Berkeley’s Alciphron (1732). While it has been acknowledged that Collins (...) looms large in the background of these sections, Berkeley’s argumentative strategy has remained perplexing to commentators, particularly his references to several Scholastic thinkers. I argue that we can make sense of Berkeley’s strategy and references if we appreciate that these sections are intended to evade Collins’ challenge. (shrink)

For more than 200 years scholars have proceeded on the assumption that there was a controversy (in the sense of an argumentative exchange) between the bishop of Cork and Ross, Peter Browne (c. 1665–1735), and his nowadays more famous contemporary, the bishop of Cloyne, George Berkeley (1685–1753) about what we might call ‘the problem of divine attributes’. This problem concerns one of the most vexing issues for 17th /18th century Irish intellectuals. Simply put, it turns on two interconnected questions, namely (...) (1) an ontological question regarding God’s attributes and (2) a semantical question regarding the proper conception of analogy: -/- (1) Do God’s attributes only differ in degree or also in kind from their human counterparts? -/- (2) Is “analogical attribution” only concerned with the structure or the modus of the attribution? That is, is it a separate mode of speech (apart from the metaphorical and literal) or does it just mean we have to use analogies for our divine attributions? -/- In regard to the first question Berkeley argues the attributes of God and humans only differ in degree but not in kind (Alc. 4.22). Browne, on the other hand, is convinced that human and divine attributes differ in kind: “What Knowledge and Goodness are in the Nature of Man, that some inconceivable but correspondent Perfections are in the Nature of God […] which tho’ totally different in Kind from those Properties in us bearing the same Name” (Procedure, 138). Furthermore, Berkeley rejects the notion that analogical attribution is a separate mode of speech in addition to the literal and the metaphorical. Rather, it is an attribution made in the form of an analogy in which the words can be used literally or metaphorically (Alc. 4.21). By contrast, Browne repeatedly insists analogical attribution is more than just using analogies for attributing something to God. He thinks it is a separate mode of speech that ought to be distinguished from literal and metaphorical language (Procedure, 12, 23–29, 123–46). -/- Hence, there can be no doubt that Browne and Berkeley advance conflicting solutions to the problem of divine attributes. Yet, advancing disagreeing positions is not the same as having a (heated) argumentative exchange, i.e., a controversy. In contrast to the controversy-reading, I will defend the following view: Browne surely felt attacked by Berkeley’s elaborations in Alciphron (1732) and reacted to them in his Divine Analogy (1732/3). However, there was no argumentative exchange because Browne’s Procedure (1728) had virtually no influence on Berkeley when he was writing Alciphron. Furthermore, the available evidence suggests that Berkeley was indifferent to the (elaborate) criticisms of Alciphron found in Browne’s Divine Analogy. Thus, while the two bishops have differing positions and Browne reacted to Berkeley there is no reaction on Berkeley’s part and hence there is no argumentative exchange between the two at all, which is why their differing opinions are best described as such and not as a controversy. (shrink)

I love information upon all subjects that come in my way, and especially upon those that are most important. Thus boldly declares Euphranor, one of the defenders of Christian faith in Berkley’s Alciphron (Berkeley, (1732), Dialogue 1, Section 5, Paragraph 6/10). Evidently, information has been an object of philosophical desire for some time, well before the computer revolution, Internet or the dotcompandemonium (see for example Dunn (2001) and Adams (2003)). Yet what does Euphranor love, exactly? What is information? The (...) question has received many answers in different fields. Unsurprisingly, several surveys do not even converge on a single, unified definition of information (see for example Braman 1989, Losee (1997), Machlup and Mansfield (1983), Debons and Cameron (1975), Larson and Debons (1983)). (shrink)

This is a short scholarly note about my retrieval an original copy of the Daily Post-Boy issue no. 7024 from September 9th,1732 from a private seller. In this issue we find an anonymous letter addressed to Berkeley which gave rise to him writing the Theory of Vision Vindicated. While Berkeley Berkeley appended a copy of the anonymous critic’s letter to TVV, until now an original copy of The Daily Post-Boy issue had yet to be discovered. -/- I have donated the (...) original copy to the Marsh's Library in Dublin, but you will find a scan of the original document attached to the note. -/- . (shrink)

Este livro propõe uma nova maneira de olhar para a filosofia do bispo e filósofo irlandês George Berkeley (1685-1753), mais conhecido pela negação da existência da matéria e pela defesa do idealismo e de teses empiristas. O autor, Costica Bradatan, aborda o pensamento de Berkeley do ponto de vista de suas raízes e influências em vez de como ele passou a ser interpretado posteriormente. Como o título sugere, o livro constitui um retrato alternativo de Berkeley, diferente da imagem predominante formada (...) a partir de uma leitura de tendência analítica, que privilegia as suas obras da juventude, especialmente o Tratado sobre os princípios do conhecimento humano (1710) e os Três diálogos entre Hylas e Philonous (1713). Este outro retrato de Berkeley procura mostrar um filósofo que leu e escreveu livros sobre alquimia, que elaborou projetos utópicos e buscou as “ilhas felizes” e o “paraíso terrestre”. Bradatan procura mostrar que a nova atitude de Berkeley em relação ao mundo material ecoou a teologia dualista dos cátaros; que seu pensamento estava enraizado nas tradições platônicas, místicas e esotéricas; que ele via a filosofia como uma espécie de salvação e a ser praticada como um modo de vida. Bradatan retrata um Berkeley muito mais rico e realista, um pensador mais profundo e espetacular. Além de ser um estudo sobre o pensamento de Berkeley em particular, com análises das suas últimas grandes obras, Alciphron, ou o filósofo minucioso (1732) e Siris (1744), o livro é um excelente exemplo da compreensão do pensamento de um filósofo à luz da história da filosofia. Este livro é de interesse para estudiosos que trabalham em uma ampla variedade de campos do saber, desde filosofia e história das ideias até literatura comparada, estudos utópicos, estudos religiosos e medievais e teoria crítica. (shrink)