Skip to main content

Berkeley: Scepticism, Matter and Infinite Divisibility

  • Chapter
Scepticism in the History of Philosophy

Abstract

In rejecting the philosophical view that there was a material substance, Berkeley takes it that he can also get rid of some other problems he considered (at least at an early stage of his philosophical development) to be closely linked to the belief in the existence of such a substance: those of the infinite divisibility of matter and of the existence of an extended God. So in his PC he writes:

The Philosophers lose their Matter, The Mathematicians lose their insensible sensations, the Profane their extended Deity Pray wt do the Rest of Mankind lose, as for bodies &c we have them still. N.B. the future Philosophy: & Mathem: get vastly by ye bargain. (PC 391)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. I argue for this in chapter 1, “El ataque al descriptivismo,” in José antonio Robles, Estudios berkeleyanos, Instituto de Investigaciones Filosoficas ( Mexico: UNAM, 1990 ).

    Google Scholar 

  2. In J.A. Robles, “Malebranche, la infinitud y el argumento del microscopio” (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cf. Robles, Estudios berkeleyanos, Ch. 1, pp. 19–21.

    Google Scholar 

  4. I add here a passage by John Keill in which clearly appears the descriptivist fallacy to which I referred above: They [the Philosophers “who distinguish betwixt a Mathematical and a Physical Body”] readily allow that a Mathematical Body may be divisible in infinitum; but they deny that a Physical Body can be always resolved into still farther divisible Parts. But what, I would know, is a Mathematical Body, but something extended into a Triple Dimension. Does not Divisibility belong to a Mathematical Body, by the reason it is extended. But a Physical Body is Extended after the same manner: wherefore since Divisibility depends on the Nature and Essence of Extension itself, and owes to it is Origin, it is necessary that it must agree to all Extensions, whether Physical or Mathematical. For, to use a Logical Expression, whatever is predicated of any Genus, is predicated of all the Species contained under that Genus. An Introduction to natural philosophy; or Philosophical Lectures Read in the University of Oxford, Anno Dom. 1700 (London; 1726), pp. 30–31; quoted in Edward W. Strong, “Mathematical Reasoning and its Objects,” in George Berkeley Lectures delivered before the Philosophical Union of the University of California: In Honor of the Two Hundreth Anniversary of the Death of George Berkeley, ed. George P. Adams (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1957), p. 68, note 8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cf. Robles, Estudios berkeleyanos,passim, esp. pp. 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cf. Galileo Galilei, Dialogues Concerning the New Sciences, trans. Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio (New York: Dover Publications, 1954), pp. 20–24 for what Galileo has to tell us about concentric circles and infinite points.

    Google Scholar 

  7. On these points, see Robles, Estudios berkeleyanos, Ch. 2, “Minima sensibilia,” pp. 34–53.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See arguments for this view in Robles, Estudios berkeleyanos.

    Google Scholar 

  9. But it is worthwhile to consider two recent additions to the literature on this subject: Martha B. Bolton, “Berkeley’s Objections to Abstract Ideas and Unconceived Objects,” in Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley,ed. Ernest Sosa (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1987), pp. 61–81; and Kenneth P. Winkler, Berkeley: An Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), Ch. 1, and my conclusions at several points are quite similar to Winkler’s...

    Google Scholar 

  10. I have discussed this point in Robles, Estudios berkeleyanos,Ch. 2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Robles, J.A. (1996). Berkeley: Scepticism, Matter and Infinite Divisibility. In: Popkin, R.H. (eds) Scepticism in the History of Philosophy. International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Idées, vol 145. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2942-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2942-0_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4629-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2942-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics