Advertisement

Locke, Berkeley, and Hume

  • Richard A. Watson
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 250)

Abstract

Suppose we set aside the Cartesian view that mind and matter are two essentially distinct substances. We need not deny that they appear to have contrary natures, mind as active unextended thinking, and matter as passive unthinking extension. As such, matter is said not to be capable of being modified by perceptions, either sensible or cognitive, and mind is said not to be capable of being modified by size, shape, position, and motion or rest. John Locke, examining this tradition, suggests that thinking and extension are merely the nominal essences of mind and matter, and that in fact we may not know their real essences.1 For all we know, mind could have a place and matter could think.2 The modes, ways of being, or properties we call ideas might as well be modifications of real matter as much as of real mind. Perhaps there are not even two substances but only one that manifests both thinking and extension, as Spinoza’s God expresses Himself through the attributes both of thinking and of extension.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding [ 1690], collated and annotated, with prolegomena, biographical, critical, and historical, by Alexander Campbell Fraser, 2 volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891 ). Cited as follows as to book, chapter, and paragraph, plus volume number and page: IV VI 6, II 252; II XIII 22-23,I 409-410.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    IV III 6, II 192.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    II VIII 9, I 170.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    II VIII 15,II 173Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    II VIII 15, II 173.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    II VIII 13, II 172-173.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    George Berkeley, Essay Towards A New Theory of Vision [1709], in The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, volume 1, edited by A. A. Luce (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1948), pp. 141–279. Cited as to title and page (paragraph numbers are included in the quotations) asfollows:NT 188.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    George Berkeley, The Principles of Human Knowledge [1710], in The Works of George Berkelely, Bishop ofCloyne, volume 2, edited by T. E. Jessop (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1949), pp. 1–113. Cited as to title and page (paragraph numbers included in the quotations) as follows: P 51-52.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    George Berkeley, Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous [ 1713], in The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, volume 2, edited by T. E. Jessop (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1949), pp. 147–263. Cited as to title, dialogue, and page as follows: TDI 206.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    NT 228-229.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    P 69—70.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    TD III 237.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature [1739], edited, with an analytical index, by L. A. Selby-Bigge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888). Cited as to book, Part, Section, and Page as follows: I I I, 1.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    II III III, 415.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    II IV V, 233.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    I IV V, 241.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    I III IX, 108.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    I IV V, 233.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    I IV II, 207.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    I II III, 219.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    III III 7, II 17.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    III III 7, II 18.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    III III 9, II 18-19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard A. Watson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyWashington UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations