Berkeley`s "An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision” and his immaterialism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/szhf.2021.007Keywords
Berkeley, An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision, psychology of vision, philosophical commentaries, immaterialismAbstract
The article discuses George Berkeley’s An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision with respect to his immaterialism. The author concentrates on works written by Berkeley circa 1709: his Philosophical Commentaries, a work not meant for publication, and A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge published in 1710. The end of the article is to show, firstly, that it is beyond doubt that in 1709 Berkeley was a mature immaterialist, secondly, that the shape of his Essay, problematic for interpretation in the light of his later philosophy, derives indeed from the strategy adopted by him in order to prepare his readers for immaterialism. The author offers an interpretation, according to which technical parts of the Essay are subsidiary to Berkeley’s immaterialistic project and were intended to consolidate religion, and, moreover, notices that notions essential for Berkeley’s philosophy of 1710 are already present in the 1709 Essay. The author finally discusses Berkeley’s conception of the object as well as the problem of stability of experience, arising after the exclusion of external objects from the world.
References
Primary Sources
Berkeley George. 1948. “An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision”. In: The Works of George Berkeley Bishop of Cloyne. Eds. Arthur Aston Luce, Thomas E. Jessop. Vol. 1. London–Edinburg–Paris–Melbourne–Toronto–New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.
Berkeley George. 1948. “Philosophical Commentaries”. In: The Works of George Berkeley Bishop of Cloyne. Eds. Arthur Aston Luce, Thomas E. Jessop. Vol. 1. London–Edinburg–Paris–Melbourne–Toronto–New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.
Berkeley George. 1948. “The Theory of Vision Vindicated and Explained”. In: The Works of George Berkeley Bishop of Cloyne. Eds. Arthur Aston Luce, Thomas E. Jessop. Vol. 1. London–Edinburg–Paris–Melbourne–Toronto–New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.
Berkeley George. 1949. “A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge”. In: The Works of George Berkeley Bishop of Cloyne. Eds. Arthur Aston Luce, Thomas E. Jessop. Vol. 2, 1–263. London–Edinburg–Paris–Melbourne–Toronto–New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.
Berkeley George. 1949. “Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous”. In: The Works of George Berkeley Bishop of Cloyne. Eds. Arthur Aston Luce, Thomas E. Jessop. Vol. 2, 1–263. London–Edinburg–Paris–Melbourne–Toronto–New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.
Secondary Sources
Abbot Thomas K. 1904. “Fresh Light on Molyneux’ Problem. Dr Ramsay’s Case”. Mind 13: 543–554.
Armstrong David M. 1956. “Discussion: Berkeley’s New Theory of Vision”. Journal of the History of Ideas 17: 127–129.
Atherton Margaret. 2005. “Berkeley’s theory of vision and its reception”. In: The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Ed. Kenneth P. Winkler, 94–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ayer Alfred J. 1945. “The Terminology of Sense-Data”. Mind 54: 289–312.
Ayers Michael. 2005. “Was Berkeley an empiricist or a rationalist?”. In: The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Ed. Kenneth P. Winkler, 34–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baxter Donald L. M. 1991. “Berkeley, Perception, and Identity”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51: 85–98.
Berman David. 2005. “Berkeley’s life and works”. In: The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Ed. Kenneth P. Winkler, 13–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bracken Harry M. 1965. The Early Reception of Berkeley’s Immaterialism 1710–1733. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Brożek Bartosz. 2013. “Hipoteza umysłu normatywnego”. Studia z Kognitywistyki i Filozofii Umysłu 7: 36–51.
Grayling Anthony C. 2005. “Berkeley’s argument for immaterialism”. In: The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Ed. Kenneth P. Winkler, 166–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins Philip D. 1990. “Berkeley’s Manifest Qualities Thesis”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 28: 385–401.
Davis John W. 1960. “The Molyneux Problem”. Journal of the History of Ideas 21: 392–408.
Evans Gareth. 1985. “Molyneux’s Question”. In: Gareth Evans. Collected Papers, 364–399. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grush Rick. 2007. “Berkeley and the Spatiality of Vision”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 45: 413–442.
Hara Akira. 2004. “Depth and Distance in Berkeley’s Theory of Vision”. History of Philosophy Quarterly 21: 101–117.
High Marc, Ott Walter. 2004. “The New Berkeley”. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34: 1–24.
Hohwy Jakob. 2016. The Predictive Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Loaiza Juan. R. 2017. “Molyneux’s Question in Berkeley’s Theory of Vision”. Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 32: 231–247.
McKim Robert. 2005. “Berkeley’s Notebooks”. In: The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Ed. Kenneth P. Winkler, 63–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meltzoff Andrew N. 1999. “Molyneux’s babies: Cross-modal perception, imitation and the mind of preverbal infant”. In: Spatial representation: Problems in philosophy and psychology. Eds. N. Eilan, R. McCarty, B. Brewer, 219–235. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Moore George E. 1918. “Some Judgments of Perception”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: 1–29.
Muehlmann Robert G. 1991. “The Role of Perceptual Relativity in Berkeley’s Philosophy”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 29: 397–425.
Noë Alva. 2008. “Précis of Action in Perception: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76: 660–665.
Odegard Douglas. 1971. “Berkeley and the Perception of Ideas”. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1: 155–171.
Pappas George. 1987. “Berkeley and the Immediate Perception”. In: Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. Ed. Ernest Sosa, 195–213. Dodrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Park Desiree. 1969. “Locke and Berkeley on the Molyneux Problem”. Journal of the History of Ideas 30: 253–260.
Pirenne Maurice H. 1953. “Physiological Mechanism in the Perception of Distance by Sight and Berkeley’s Theory of Vision”. The British Journal for Philosophy of Science 4: 13–21.
Pitcher George. 1986. “Berkeley on the Perception of Objects”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 24: 99–105.
Price Henry H. 1964. Perception. London: Meuthen & Co. Ltd.
Roberts John R. 2007. A Metaphysics for the Mob: The Philosophy of George Berkeley. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russell Bertrand. 2001. The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sellars Wilfrid. 1991. Science, Perception and Reality. Atascadero: Ridgeview Publishing Company.
Spryszak Przemysław. 2004. Filozofia percepcji George’a Berkeleya. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Szymańska-Lewoszewska Marta. 2014. “Miejsce teorii widzenia w filozofii George’a Berkeleya”. Idea. Studia nad strukturą i rozwojem pojęć filozoficznych 26: 59–76.
Thomson Judith J. 1974. “Molyneux’s Problem”. The Journal of Philosophy 71: 637–650.
Turbayne Colin M. 1955. “Berkeley and Molyneux on Retinal Images”. Journal of the History of Ideas 16: 339–355.
Winkler Kenneth P. 2005. “Berkeley and the doctrine of signs”. In: The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Ed. Kenneth P. Winkler, 125–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Encyclopedias
Briscoe Robert, Grush Rick. “Action-based Theories of Perception”. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 edition). Ed. Edward N. Zalta.
Downing Lisa. “George Berkeley”. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition). Ed. Edward N. Zalta.
Huemer Michael. “Sense-Data”. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition). Ed. Edward N. Zalta.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 91
Number of citations: 0
