DOCSLIB.ORG

Aristotle and the Problem of Concepts by Gregory Salmieri B.A., The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aristotle and the Problem of Concepts by Gregory Salmieri B.A., The Aristotle and the Problem of Concepts by Gregory Salmieri B.A., The College of New Jersey, 2001 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The College of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2008 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH College of Arts and Sciences This dissertation was presented by Gregory Salmieri It was defended on June 3, 2008 and approved by James Allen, Professor, Philosophy Allan Gotthelf, Visiting Professor, History and Philosophy of Science Jessica Moss, Assistant Professor, Philosophy Dissertation Advisor: James Lennox, Professor, History and Philosophy of Science ii Aristotle and The Problem of Concepts Gregory Salmieri, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2008 Copyright © by Gregory Salmieri 2008 iii Aristotle and the Problem of Concepts Gregory Salmieri, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2008 Abstract By a “concept” , I mean a unitary thought (of the sort normally represented by a word) that applies to a plurality of differing objects, and by “The Problem of Concepts” I mean the pervasive philosophical questions of how such thoughts are to be explained and by what standards they are to be evaluated. Aristotle is generally held to have been a Moderate Realist, who held that a concept is a putative grasp of a mind-independent universal object that exist somehow in or derivatively on the many particular objects to which the concept applies. I argue that Aristotle rejected the posit of such universal objects and instead understood universality as a feature of thought, which has a basis in reality and a function in cognition. With some notable exceptions, concepts are based on relations of difference in “the more and the less” between their instances and on the causal relations between the various parts and characteristics of each instance. A concept’s function is to serve as a term in deductions which enable us to represent the necessity of causal connections. I go on, then, to explore the manner in which, on Aristotle’s view, concepts compose propositions and bodies of knowledge and the way in which they are formed. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................................ VII 1.0 THE PROBLEM...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF CONCEPTS ....................................................... 3 1.1.1 Concepts as unitary cognitions of indefinitely many differing objects ................................ 3 1.1.2 The Problem of Concepts: How can pluralities be unitarily cognized? ............................... 4 1.1.3 The normative import of the Problem .................................................................................... 7 1.2 SOCRATES, PLATO AND THE PROBLEM OF CONCEPTS ............................................. 12 1.2.1 Socrates’ “What is F?” question ............................................................................................ 14 1.2.2 The Socratic View of Concepts .............................................................................................. 23 1.2.3 Plato’s Theory of Forms as a theory of concepts ................................................................. 29 1.2.4 Aristotle on Platonic Forms and the need for universals .................................................... 35 1.3 THE PROBLEM OF CONCEPTS AS THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS ....................... 38 1.3.1 Competing construals of the Problem of Universals ............................................................ 40 1.3.2 Why speak of the Problem of Concepts rather than a Problem of Universals? ................ 43 1.3.3 Realism as a theory of concepts ............................................................................................. 44 1.3.4 Moderate Realism as a theory of concepts............................................................................ 48 1.3.5 Classifying theories of concepts ............................................................................................. 52 2.0 WAS ARISTOTLE A MODERATE REALIST? ............................................................................... 56 2.1 REFORMULATING OUR QUESTION IN ARISTOTELIAN TERMS ............................... 58 2.1.1 Concepts as simple thoughts of non-numerical unities ........................................................ 58 2.1.2 Five varieties of non-numerical unity recognized by Aristotle ........................................... 62 2.1.3 Moderate Realism and the five varieties ............................................................................... 67 2.1.4 Aristotle’s generic sense of “universal” ................................................................................ 68 2.2 ARISTOTLE’S REJECTION OF MODERATE REALISM ABOUT KINDS ..................... 71 2.2.1 Zoological kinds ...................................................................................................................... 71 2.2.2 Kinds as determinables .......................................................................................................... 76 2.2.3 The kind-form relationship as allowing for the unity of definition .................................... 82 2.3 ARISTOTLE’S ASSIMILATION OF KINDS TO MATTER ................................................ 86 2.3.1 Is something’s kind its physical matter? ............................................................................... 87 2.3.2 Kinds as intelligible matter .................................................................................................... 93 v 2.3.3 The ontological status of intelligible matter ......................................................................... 96 2.4 ARE ARISTOTELIAN FORMS PARTICULARS? ................................................................ 98 2.4.1 Balme’s embryological argument for particular forms ..................................................... 103 2.4.2 Balme and Lennox on the uncuttability of the uncuttable forms ..................................... 106 2.4.3 Sameness in kind revisited ................................................................................................... 108 2.4.4 An objection to the embryological argument ..................................................................... 109 2.4.5 Can any particular forms interpretation be maintained? ................................................. 112 2.5 UNIVERSALS AS INTELIGIBLE MATTER ....................................................................... 118 3.0 ARISTOTLE ON CONCEPTUAL COGNITION ........................................................................... 123 3.1 CONCEPTS AS UNITS OF THOUGHT ................................................................................ 125 3.1.1 Concepts as undivided thoughts .......................................................................................... 129 3.1.2 The Composition of thoughts and their objects ................................................................. 135 3.1.3 Indivisible thoughts .............................................................................................................. 139 3.2 ΓΝΩΣΙΣ AND INDIVISIBLE THOUGHTS .......................................................................... 145 3.2.1 Γνῶσις .................................................................................................................................... 145 3.2.2 Truth and error without division or combination ............................................................. 149 3.2.3 Indivisible thoughts as principles of ἐπιστήμη ................................................................... 158 3.3 CONCEPTS AS ΓΝΩΣΕΙΣ ...................................................................................................... 162 3.3.1 Discerning essence ................................................................................................................ 162 3.3.2 The universality of thought .................................................................................................. 170 3.3.3 Νοῦς and ἐπιστήμη as the highest degrees of γνῶσις ......................................................... 183 4.0 ARISTOTLE ON CONCEPTUALIZATION ................................................................................... 194 4.1 THE PROGRESSION TO ΝΟΥΣ IN POSTERIOR ANALYTICS II.19 ............................... 197 4.1.1 The meaning of “perception” in II.19 ................................................................................. 201 4.1.2 The nature of ἐμπειρία ......................................................................................................... 207 4.1.3 The advent of universals ...................................................................................................... 215 4.2 SEEKING AND PROVING WHAT SOMETHING IS ......................................................... 218 4.2.1 Varieties of εἴδησις that or what something is .................................................................... 222 4.2.2 Proving what it is by demonstrating that it is ...................................................................... 229 4.2.3 The primaries and how they are known ............................................................................. 233 4.3 FORMING NEW CONCEPTS ...............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • David Lewis on Convention
    David Lewis on Convention Ernie Lepore and Matthew Stone Center for Cognitive Science Rutgers University David Lewis’s landmark Convention starts its exploration of the notion of a convention with a brilliant insight: we need a distinctive social competence to solve coordination problems. Convention, for Lewis, is the canonical form that this social competence takes when it is grounded in agents’ knowledge and experience of one another’s self-consciously flexible behavior. Lewis meant for his theory to describe a wide range of cultural devices we use to act together effectively; but he was particularly concerned in applying this notion to make sense of our knowledge of meaning. In this chapter, we give an overview of Lewis’s theory of convention, and explore its implications for linguistic theory, and especially for problems at the interface of the semantics and pragmatics of natural language. In §1, we discuss Lewis’s understanding of coordination problems, emphasizing how coordination allows for a uniform characterization of practical activity and of signaling in communication. In §2, we introduce Lewis’s account of convention and show how he uses it to make sense of the idea that a linguistic expression can come to be associated with its meaning by a convention. Lewis’s account has come in for a lot of criticism, and we close in §3 by addressing some of the key difficulties in thinking of meaning as conventional in Lewis’s sense. The critical literature on Lewis’s account of convention is much wider than we can fully survey in this chapter, and so we recommend for a discussion of convention as a more general phenomenon Rescorla (2011).
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Aristotle's Concept of the State
    Page No.13 2. Aristotle's concept of the state Olivera Z. Mijuskovic Full Member International Association of Greek Philosophy University of Athens, Greece ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5950-7146 URL: http://worldphilosophynetwork.weebly.com E-Mail: [email protected] Abstract: In contrast to a little bit utopian standpoint offered by Plato in his teachings about the state or politeia where rulers aren`t “in love with power but in virtue”, Aristotle's teaching on the same subject seems very realistic and pragmatic. In his most important writing in this field called "Politics", Aristotle classified authority in the form of two main parts: the correct authority and moose authority. In this sense, correct forms of government are 1.basileus, 2.aristocracy and 3.politeia. These forms of government are based on the common good. Bad or moose forms of government are those that are based on the property of an individual or small governmental structures and they are: 1.tiranny, 2.oligarchy and 3.democracy. Also, Aristotle's political thinking is not separate from the ethical principles so he states that the government should be reflected in the true virtue that is "law" or the "golden mean". Keywords: Government; stat; , virtue; democracy; authority; politeia; golden mean. Vol. 4 No. 4 (2016) Issue- December ISSN 2347-6869 (E) & ISSN 2347-2146 (P) Aristotle's concept of the state by Olivera Z. Mijuskovic Page no. 13-20 Page No.14 Aristotle's concept of the state 1.1. Aristotle`s “Politics” Politics in its defined form becomes affirmed by the ancient Greek world.
    [Show full text]
  • THE THEORY of MATHEMATICAL SUBTRACTION in ARISTOTLE By
    THE THEORY OF MATHEMATICAL SUBTRACTION IN ARISTOTLE by Ksenia Romashova Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts at Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia August 2019 © Copyright by Ksenia Romashova, 2019 DEDICATION PAGE To my Mother, Vera Romashova Мама, Спасибо тебе за твою бесконечную поддержку, дорогая! ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. iv ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED ....................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 THE MEANING OF ABSTRACTION .............................................................. 6 2.1 Etymology and Evolution of the Term ................................................................... 7 2.2 The Standard Phrase τὰ ἐξ ἀφαιρέσεως or ‘Abstract Objects’ ............................ 19 CHAPTER 3 GENERAL APPLICATION OF ABSTRACTION .......................................... 24 3.1 The Instances of Aphairein in Plato’s Dialogues ................................................. 24 3.2 The Use of Aphairein in Aristotle’s Topics
    [Show full text]
  • What to Be Realist About in Linguistic Science
    What to be realist about in linguistic science Geoffrey K. Pullum School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences University of Edinburgh This paper was presented at a workshop entitled ‘Foundation of Linguistics: Languages as Abstract Objects’ at the Technische Universitat¨ Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig, Germany, June 25–28. At the end of his viva, Hilary Putnam asked him, “And tell us, Mr. Boolos, what does the analytical hierarchy have to do with the real world?” Without hesitating Boolos replied, “It’s part of it.” [From the Wikipedia article on the MIT logician George Boolos] Prefatory remarks on realism I need to begin by clarifying what is meant (or at least, what I and others have meant) by ‘realism’. That such clarification is necessary is indicated by the fact that the subtitle of this workshop (‘Lan- guages as Abstract Objects’) clearly pays homage to Katz (1981) (Language and Other Abstract Objects). What the late Jerrold J. Katz meant by the word ‘realism’ does not comport with the usage of most philosophers. Katz shows little interest in defining his terms. He barely even waves a hand in that direc- tion. The third page of Language and Other Abstract Objects book announces that he has had an epiphany: there is “an alternative to both the American structuralists’ and the Chomskian concep- tion of what grammars are theories of, namely, the Platonic realist view that grammars are theories of abstract objects (sentences)” (Katz 1981, 3). Neither ‘Platonic’ nor ‘realist’ are analysed, expli- cated, or even glossed at this point. ‘Platonic realism’ is thereafter abbreviated to ‘Platonism’ and simply assumed to be understood.
    [Show full text]
  • And Aristotle's Concept of Education in 'Politics' Plato'nun 'Cumhur
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE Eğitim ve Bilim Education and Science 2011, Cilt 36, Sayı 162 2011, Vol. 36, No 162 Plato’s Concept of Education in ‘Republic’ and Aristotle’s Concept of Education in ‘Politics’ Plato’nun ‘Cumhuriyet’ ve Aristo’nun ‘Politika‘ Adlı Eserlerinde Eğitim Kavramı Selahattin TURAN* Osmangazi Üniversitesi Abstract The purpose of this study was to analyze Plato’s and Aristotle’s concepts of education. The study focuses on Plato’s educational thoughts in Republic and Aristotle’s theory of education in Politics. Since Plato’s thoughts are rather philosophical in a way that they do not involve many practical applications to schooling, Aristotle’s thoughts on education are emphasized within the scope of this study. The results of the study indicate that virtue plays an important role in creating a virtuous society. In order to create a virtuous society, we need to educate the body, desires, soul and reason of the individual. Keywords: Philosophy of education, concept of education, history of thought. Öz Bu araştırmanın amacı, Plato’nun ‘Cumhuriyet’ ve Aristo’nun ‘Politika’ adlı eserlerinde yer alan eğitim ile ilgili temel kavramları ve görüşleri incelemektir. Teorik ve tarihsel karşılaştırmaya dayalı bu araştırmada, Aristo’nun ‘Politika’ adlı eserine vurgu yapılmış ve eğitim kavramı ana hatlarıyla irdelenmiştir. Çalışmada, erdemli bir toplum oluşturabilmek için erdemli insanlar yetiştirmek gerektiği ve bunu gerçekleştirmek için kişinin akıl, beden ve arzularının eğitilebileceği fikri tartışılmıştır. Anahtar Sözcükler: Eğitim felsefesi, eğitim kavramı, düşünce tarihi. Introduction The meaning and philosophical foundations of education have been analyzed from different perspectives over the years (Barrow, 1975; Chambliss, 1971; Ebenstein, 1969; Lodge, 1947; McClintock; Williams, 1903).
    [Show full text]
  • Citations in Classics and Ancient History
    Citations in Classics and Ancient History The most common style in use in the field of Classical Studies is the author-date style, also known as Chicago 2, but MLA is also quite common and perfectly acceptable. Quick guides for each of MLA and Chicago 2 are readily available as PDF downloads. The Chicago Manual of Style Online offers a guide on their web-page: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html The Modern Language Association (MLA) does not, but many educational institutions post an MLA guide for free access. While a specific citation style should be followed carefully, none take into account the specific practices of Classical Studies. They are all (Chicago, MLA and others) perfectly suitable for citing most resources, but should not be followed for citing ancient Greek and Latin primary source material, including primary sources in translation. Citing Primary Sources: Every ancient text has its own unique system for locating content by numbers. For example, Homer's Iliad is divided into 24 Books (what we might now call chapters) and the lines of each Book are numbered from line 1. Herodotus' Histories is divided into nine Books and each of these Books is divided into Chapters and each chapter into line numbers. The purpose of such a system is that the Iliad, or any primary source, can be cited in any language and from any publication and always refer to the same passage. That is why we do not cite Herodotus page 66. Page 66 in what publication, in what edition? Very early in your textbook, Apodexis Historia, a passage from Herodotus is reproduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuity and Mathematical Ontology in Aristotle
    Journal of Ancient Philosophy, vol. 14 issue 1, 2020. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v14i1p30-61 Continuity and Mathematical Ontology in Aristotle Keren Wilson Shatalov In this paper I argue that Aristotle’s understanding of mathematical continuity constrains the mathematical ontology he can consistently hold. On my reading, Aristotle can only be a mathematical abstractionist of a certain sort. To show this, I first present an analysis of Aristotle’s notion of continuity by bringing together texts from his Metaphysica and Physica, to show that continuity is, for Aristotle, a certain kind of per se unity, and that upon this rests his distinction between continuity and contiguity. Next I argue briefly that Aristotle intends for his discussion of continuity to apply to pure mathematical objects such as lines and figures, as well as to extended bodies. I show that this leads him to a difficulty, for it does not at first appear that the distinction between continuity and contiguity can be preserved for abstract mathematicals. Finally, I present a solution according to which Aristotle’s understanding of continuity can only be saved if he holds a certain kind of mathematical ontology. My topic in this paper is Aristotle’s understanding of mathematical continuity. While the idea that continua are composed of infinitely many points is the present day orthodoxy, the Aristotelian understanding of continua as non-punctiform and infinitely divisible was the reigning theory for much of the history of western mathematics, and there is renewed interest in it from current mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • On Moral Understanding
    COMMENTTHE COLLEGE NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO 147 | MAY 2003 TOM WHIPPS On Moral Understanding DNA pioneers: The surviving members of the King’s team, who worked on the discovery of the structure of DNA 50 years ago, withDavid James Watson, K Levytheir Cambridge ‘rival’ at the time. From left Ray Gosling, Herbert Wilson, DNA at King’s: DepartmentJames Watson and of Maurice Philosophy Wilkins King’s College the continuing story University of London Prize for his contribution – and A day of celebrations their teams, but also to subse- quent generations of scientists at ver 600 guests attended a cant scientific discovery of the King’s. unique day of events celeb- 20th century,’ in the words of Four Nobel Laureates – Mau- Orating King’s role in the 50th Principal Professor Arthur Lucas, rice Wilkins, James Watson, Sid- anniversary of the discovery of the ‘and their research changed ney Altman and Tim Hunt – double helix structure of DNA on the world’. attended the event which was so 22 April. The day paid tribute not only to oversubscribed that the proceed- Scientists at King’s played a King’s DNA pioneers Rosalind ings were relayed by video link to fundamental role in this momen- Franklin and Maurice Wilkins – tous discovery – ‘the most signifi- who went onto win the Nobel continued on page 2 2 Funding news | 3 Peace Operations Review | 5 Widening participation | 8 25 years of Anglo-French law | 11 Margaret Atwood at King’s | 12 Susan Gibson wins Rosalind Franklin Award | 15 Focus: School of Law | 16 Research news | 18 Books | 19 KCLSU election results | 20 Arts abcdef U N I V E R S I T Y O F L O N D O N A C C O M M O D A T I O N O F F I C E ACCOMMODATION INFORMATION - FINDING SOMEWHERE TO LIVE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy WARNING: Under no circumstances inshould the this University document be of taken London as providing legal advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquinas on Attributes
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by MedievaleCommons@Cornell Philosophy and Theology 11 (2003), 1–41. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright C 2004 Cambridge University Press 1057-0608 DOI: 10.1017/S105706080300001X Aquinas on Attributes BRIAN LEFTOW Oriel College, Oxford Aquinas’ theory of attributes is one of the most obscure, controversial parts of his thought. There is no agreement even on so basic a matter as where he falls in the standard scheme of classifying such theories: to Copleston, he is a resemblance-nominalist1; to Armstrong, a “concept nominalist”2; to Edwards and Spade, “almost as strong a realist as Duns Scotus”3; to Gracia, Pannier, and Sullivan, neither realist nor nominalist4; to Hamlyn, the Middle Ages’ “prime exponent of realism,” although his theory adds elements of nominalism and “conceptualism”5; to Wolterstorff, just inconsistent.6 I now set out Aquinas’ view and try to answer the vexed question of how to classify it. Part of the confusion here is terminological. As emerges below, Thomas believed in “tropes” of “lowest” (infima) species of accidents and (I argue) substances.7 Many now class trope theories as a form of nominalism,8 while 1. F. C. Copleston, Aquinas (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1955), P. 94. 2. D. M. Armstrong, Nominalism and Realism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 25, 83, 87. Armstrong is tentative about this. 3. Sandra Edwards, “The Realism of Aquinas,” The New Scholasticism 59 (1985): 79; Paul Vincent Spade, “Degrees of Being, Degrees of Goodness,” in Aquinas’ Moral Theory, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Univocity of Substance and the Formal Distinction of Attributes: the Role of Duns Scotus in Deleuze's Reading of Spinoza Nathan Widder
    parrhesia 33 · 2020 · 150-176 the univocity of substance and the formal distinction of attributes: the role of duns scotus in deleuze's reading of spinoza nathan widder This paper examines the role played by medieval theologian John Duns Scotus in Gilles Deleuze’s reading of Spinoza’s philosophy of expressive substance; more generally, it elaborates a crucial moment in the development of Deleuze’s philosophy of sense and difference. Deleuze contends that Spinoza adapts and extends Duns Scotus’s two most influential theses, the univocity of being and formal distinction, despite neither appearing explicitly in Spinoza’s writings. “It takes nothing away from Spinoza’s originality,” Deleuze declares, “to place him in a perspective that may already be found in Duns Scotus” (Deleuze, 1992, 49).1 Nevertheless, the historiographic evidence is clearly lacking, leaving Deleuze to admit that “it is hardly likely that” Spinoza had even read Duns Scotus (359n28). Indeed, the only support he musters for his speculation is Spinoza’s obvious in- terests in scholastic metaphysical and logical treatises, the “probable influence” of the Scotist-informed Franciscan priest Juan de Prado on his thought, and the fact that the problems Duns Scotus addresses need not be confined to Christian thought (359–360n28). The paucity of evidence supporting this “use and abuse” of history, however, does not necessarily defeat the thesis. Like other lineages Deleuze proposes, the one he traces from Duns Scotus to Spinoza, and subsequently to Nietzsche, turns not on establishing intentional references by one thinker to his predecessor, but instead on showing how the borrowings and adaptations asserted to create the connec- tion make sense of the way the second philosopher surmounts blockages he faces while responding to issues left unaddressed by the first.
    [Show full text]
  • INTUITION .THE PHILOSOPHY of HENRI BERGSON By
    THE RHYTHM OF PHILOSOPHY: INTUITION ·ANI? PHILOSO~IDC METHOD IN .THE PHILOSOPHY OF HENRI BERGSON By CAROLE TABOR FlSHER Bachelor Of Arts Taylor University Upland, Indiana .. 1983 Submitted ~o the Faculty of the Graduate College of the · Oklahoma State University in partial fulfi11ment of the requirements for . the Degree of . Master of Arts May, 1990 Oklahoma State. Univ. Library THE RHY1HM OF PlllLOSOPHY: INTUITION ' AND PfnLoSOPlllC METHOD IN .THE PHILOSOPHY OF HENRI BERGSON Thesis Approved: vt4;;. e ·~lu .. ·~ests AdVIsor /l4.t--OZ. ·~ ,£__ '', 13~6350' ii · ,. PREFACE The writing of this thesis has bee~ a tiring, enjoyable, :Qustrating and challenging experience. M.,Bergson has introduced me to ·a whole new way of doing . philosophy which has put vitality into the process. I have caught a Bergson bug. His vision of a collaboration of philosophers using his intuitional m~thod to correct, each others' work and patiently compile a body of philosophic know: ledge is inspiring. I hope I have done him justice in my description of that vision. If I have succeeded and that vision catches your imagination I hope you Will make the effort to apply it. Please let me know of your effort, your successes and your failures. With the current challenges to rationalist epistemology, I believe the time has come to give Bergson's method a try. My discovery of Bergson is. the culmination of a development of my thought, one that started long before I began my work at Oklahoma State. However, there are some people there who deserv~. special thanks for awakening me from my ' "''' analytic slumber.
    [Show full text]
  • Berkeley's Case Against Realism About Dynamics
    Lisa Downing [Published in Berkeley’s Metaphysics, ed. Muehlmann, Penn State Press 1995, 197-214. Turbayne Essay Prize winner, 1992.] Berkeley's case against realism about dynamics While De Motu, Berkeley's treatise on the philosophical foundations of mechanics, has frequently been cited for the surprisingly modern ring of certain of its passages, it has not often been taken as seriously as Berkeley hoped it would be. Even A.A. Luce, in his editor's introduction to De Motu, describes it as a modest work, of limited scope. Luce writes: The De Motu is written in good, correct Latin, but in construction and balance the workmanship falls below Berkeley's usual standards. The title is ambitious for so brief a tract, and may lead the reader to expect a more sustained argument than he will find. A more modest title, say Motion without Matter, would fitly describe its scope and content. Regarded as a treatise on motion in general, it is a slight and disappointing work; but viewed from a narrower angle, it is of absorbing interest and high importance. It is the application of immaterialism to contemporary problems of motion, and should be read as such. ...apart from the Principles the De Motu would be nonsense.1 1The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, ed. A.A. Luce and T.E. Jessop (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1948-57), 4: 3-4. In this paper, all references to Berkeley are to the Luce-Jessop edition. Quotations from De Motu are taken from Luce's translation. I use the following abbreviations for Berkeley’s works: PC Philosophical Commentaries PHK-I Introduction to The Principles of Human Knowledge PHK The Principles of Human Knowledge DM De Motu A Alciphron TVV The Theory of Vision Vindicated and Explained S Siris 1 There are good general reasons to think, however, that Berkeley's aims in writing the book were as ambitious as the title he chose.
    [Show full text]