DOCSLIB.ORG

Berkeley Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Berkeley Bibliography Berkeley Bibliography (1979-2011) Abad, Juan Vázques. “Observaciones sobre la noción de causa en el opusculo sobre el movimiento de Berkeley.” Analisis Filosofico 6 (1986): 35-44. Abelove, H. “George Berkeley’s Attitude to John Wesley: the Evidence of a Lost Letter.” Harvard Theological Review 70 (1977): 175-76. Ablondi, Fred. “Berkeley, Archetypes, and Errors.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 43 (2005): 493- 504. _____. “Absolute Beginners: Learning Philosophy by Learning Descartes and Berkeley.” Metascience 19 (2010): 385-89. Ackel, Helen. Über den Prozess der menschlichen Erkenntnis bei John Locke und George Berkeley. München und Ravensburg: Grin, 2008. Adamczykowa, Izabella. “The Role of the Subject in the Cognitive Process after George Berkeley: Passive for Active Subject?” Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie Sklodowska, Sectio 1 Philosophia-Sociologia 6 (1981): 43-57. Agassi, Joseph. “The Future of Berkeley’s Instrumentalism.” International Studies in Philosophy 7 (1975), 167-78. Airaksinen, Timo. “Berkeley and the Justification of Beliefs [Abstract].” Berkeley Newsletter 8 (1985), 9. _____. “Berkeley and the Justification of Beliefs.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 48 (1987), 235-56. _____. “The Chain and the Animal: Idealism in Berkeley’s Siris.” In Gersh and Moran (2006), 224- 43. _____. “The Path of Fire: The Meaning and Interpretation of Berkeley’s Siris.” In Daniel, New Interpretations (2007), 261-81. _____. “Berkeley and Newton on Gravity in Siris.” In Parigi (2010b), 87-106. _____. “Active Principles and Trinities in Berkeley’s Siris.” Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Ėtranger 135 (2010): 57-70. _____. “Rhetoric and Corpuscularism in Berkeley’s Siris.” History of European Ideas 37 (2011): 23-34. _____. “Light and Causality in Siris.” In Airaksinen and Belfrage (2011), 91-118. _____ and Belfrage, Bertil, eds. Berkeley’s Lasting Legacy: 300 Years Later. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011. Alejandra Manzo, Silvia. “Eter, espirito animal e causalidade no Siris de George Berkeley: uma visao imaterialista da analogia entre macrocosmo e microcosmo.” Scientiae Studia 2 (2004): 179-205. Alfonso, Louis, E. “The Notes on the Government and Population of the Kingdom of Naples and Berkeley’s Probable Route to Sicily.” Berkeley Newsletter 11 (1989/90): 20-27. Allaire, Edwin B. “Berkeley’s Idealism: Yet Another Visit.” In Muehlmann (1995), 23-38. Ameeri, Javed Iqbal. “Factors and Main Trends in Early British Empiricism. An Overview.” 1 Journal of European Studies 8 (1992): 78-93. Ameriks, Karl. “Idealism from Kant to Berkeley.” In Gersh and Moran (2006), 244-68. Anapolitanos, D. A. “The Continuous and the Discrete: Leibniz versus Berkeley and Locke.” Philosophical Inquiry 13 (1991): 1-24. Andersen, K. “One of Berkeley’s Arguments on Compensating Errors in the Calculus.” Historia mathematica 38 (2011): 219-31. Ariotti, Piero. “Benedetto Castelli and George Berkeley as Anticipators of Recent Findings on the Moon Illusion.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 9 (1973): 328-32. Armogathe, Jean-Robert. “Proofs of the Existence of God.” In Garber (1998), 305-30. Armstrong, D. M. “The Heart of Berkeley’s Metaphysics: a Reply to Ernest Sosa.” Hermathena 139 (1985): 162-64. Arsi’c, Branka. The Passive Eye: Gaze and Subjectivity in Berkeley (via Beckett). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003. Asfour, Amal and Williamson, Paul. “Splendid Impositions: Gainsborough, Berkeley, Hume.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 31 (1998): 403-32. Asher, W. O. “Berkeley on Absolute Motion.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 4 (1987): 447-66. Atherton, Margaret. “The Coherence of Berkeley’s Theory of Mind.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 43 (1983): 389-400. _____. Berkeley’s Revolution in Vision. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990. _____. “Corpuscles, Mechanism, and Essentialism in Berkeley and Locke.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 29 (1991): 47-67. _____. “Berkeley without God.” In Muehlmann (1995), 231-48. _____. “Lady Mary Shepherd’s Case against George Berkeley.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 4 (1996): 347-66. _____. “How to write the History of Vision: Understanding the Relationship between Berkeley and Descartes.” In Levin (1997), 139-66. _____, ed. The Empiricists: Critical Essays on Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. _____. “Apprendre à voir: les enseignements de la Défense de la Théorie de la vision.” In Berlioz (2003), 135-57. _____. “Comment Berkeley parvient à maintenir que la neige est blanche.” In Charles (2004), 127- 44. _____. “Berkeley’s Theory of Vision and Its Reception.” In Winkler (2005), 94-124. _____. “The Objects of Immediate Perception.” In Daniel, New Interpretations (2007), 107-19. _____. “ ‘The Books Are in the Study as Before’: Berkeley’s Claims About Real Physical Objects.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 16 (2008): 85-100. Ayers, Michael R. “Berkeley’s Immaterialism and Kant’s Transcendental Idealism.” In Idealism Past and Present, ed. Godfrey Vesey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, 51- 69. _____. “Berkeley and the Meaning of Existence.” History of European Ideas 7 (1986): 567-74. _____. “Theories of Knowledge and Belief.” In Garber (1998), 1003-61. 2 _____. “Ideas and Objective Being.” In Garber (1998), 1062-1107. _____. “Was Berkeley an Empiricist or a Rationalist?” In Winkler (2005), 34-62. _____. “Berkeley, Ideas, and Idealism.” In Daniel, Reexamining Berkeley (2007), 11-28. Ayers, Michael and Garber, Daniel. “Theories of Knowledge and Belief.” In Garber (1998), 1003- 1061. Baber, H. E. “Berkeley and the Tattletale Paradox.” Idealistic Studies 19 (1989): 79-82. Baier, Annette. “The Intentionality of Intentions.” Review of Metaphysics 30 (1977): 389-414. Baladi, Naguib. “Plotin et l’immatérialisme de Berkeley: témoignage de la Siris.” In Plotino e il neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente, ed. Enrico Cerulli. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1974, 597-604. Barber, Kenneth F. and Gracia, Jorge J. E., eds. Individuation and Identity in Early Modern Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994. Bardout, Jean-Christophe. “Berkeley et les métaphysiques de son temps.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (2008): 119-139. Bar-On, A. Z. “Husserl’s Berkeley.” Analecta Husserliana 16 (1983): 353-63. Barnouw, Jeffrey. “The Two Motives Behind Berkeley’s Expressly Unmotivated Signs: Sure Perception and Personal Providence.” In Daniel, New Interpretations (2007), 145-77. Baum, Robert J. “The Instrumentalist and Formalist Elements of Berkeley’s Philosophy of Mathematics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3 (1972): 119-34. Baxter, Donald. “Berkeley, Perception and Identity.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51 (1991): 85-98. _____. “Abstraction, Inseparability and Identity.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (1997): 307-30. Beal, M. W. “Berkeley’s Deletions.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 6 (1976): 455-78. Belfrage, Bertil. “A New Dating of Berkeley’s Draft Introduction.” Berkeley Newsletter 1 (1977): 10-11. _____. “Notes by Berkeley on Moral Philosophy.” Berkeley Newsletter 2 (1978): 4-7. _____. “Review of Berkeley, Philosophical Commentaries, edited by George Thomas.” Berkeley Newsletter 2 (1978): 10. _____. “Review of George Pitcher, Berkeley.” Berkeley Newsletter 2 (1978): 10. _____. “A Summary of Berkeley’s Metaphysics in a Hitherto Unpublished Berkeleian Manuscript.” Berkeley Newsletter 3 (1979): 1-4. _____. “Review of Berkeley, Philosophisches Tagebuch, translated by Wolfgang Breidert.” Berkeley Newsletter 3 (1979): 17-19. _____. “Review of Edwin S. Gaustad, George Berkeley in America.” Berkeley Newsletter 4 (1980): 16-17. _____. “Corrigenda to ‘A Summary of Berkeley’s Metaphysics’.” Berkeley Newsletter 4 (1980): 19. _____. “Review of Berkeley, Drei Dialogen zwischen Hulas und Philonous. Introduced by Wolfgang Breidert.” Berkeley Newsletter 4 (1980): 17. _____. “The Newport Extract of Berkeley’s Passive Obedience.” Berkeley Newsletter 5 (1981): 6-9. 3 _____. “An Obscure Supplement to Volume One of Berkeley’s Works.” Berkeley Newsletter 6 (1982/83): 17-21. _____. “Dating Berkeley’s Notebook B.” Berkeley Newsletter 7 (1984): 7-13. _____. “Facts Concerning Berkeley’s Notebooks.” Berkeley Newsletter 7 (1984): 17-22. _____. “Strata in Berkeley’s Notebooks [Abstract].” Berkeley Newsletter 8 (1985): 10-11. _____. “The Clash on Semantics in Berkeley’s Notebook A.” Hermathena 139 (1985): 117-26. _____. “The Order and Dating of Berkeley’s Notebooks.” Revue internationale de philosophie 154 (1985): 196-214. _____. “Berkeley’s Theory of Emotive Meaning (1708).” History of European Ideas 7 (1986): 643- 49. _____. “Development of Berkeley’s Early Theory of Meaning.” Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger (1986): 319-30. _____. “Une nouvelle édition de Berkeley.” Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger (1986): 367-72. _____, ed., George Berkeley’s Manuscript Introduction. An editio diplomatica transcribed and edited with introduction and commentary. Oxford: Doxa, 1987. _____. “A Response to M. A. Stewart’s ‘Berkeley’s Introduction Draft’.” Berkeley Newsletter 12 (1991/92): 1-10. _____. “The Constructivism of Berkeley’s New Theory of Vision.” In Cummins and Zoeller (1992): 167-86. _____. “Berkeley.” In The Dictionary of Eighteenth-Century British Philosophers, ed. J. W. Yolton, J. V. Price, and J. Stephens. Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1999, 84-90. _____. “Vers une nouvelle interprétation de la Théorie de la vision de Berkeley.” In Berlioz (2003),
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:1812.00226V2 [Math.HO] 11 Feb 2019 2010 EBI’ ELFUDDFCIN N THEIR and FICTIONS WELL-FOUNDED LEIBNIZ’S ..Bso W Prahs5 Approaches Two on Bos 130 1.2
    LEIBNIZ’S WELL-FOUNDED FICTIONS AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS JACQUES BAIR, PIOTR BLASZCZYK, ROBERT ELY, PETER HEINIG, AND MIKHAIL G. KATZ Abstract. Leibniz used the term fiction in conjunction with in- finitesimals. What kind of fictions they were exactly is a subject of scholarly dispute. The position of Bos and Mancosu contrasts with that of Ishiguro and Arthur. Leibniz’s own views, expressed in his published articles and correspondence, led Bos to distinguish between two methods in Leibniz’s work: (A) one exploiting clas- sical ‘exhaustion’ arguments, and (B) one exploiting inassignable infinitesimals together with a law of continuity. Of particular interest is evidence stemming from Leibniz’s work Nouveaux Essais sur l’Entendement Humain as well as from his correspondence with Arnauld, Bignon, Dagincourt, Des Bosses, and Varignon. A careful examination of the evidence leads us to the opposite conclusion from Arthur’s. We analyze a hitherto unnoticed objection of Rolle’s concern- ing the lack of justification for extending axioms and operations in geometry and analysis from the ordinary domain to that of infini- tesimal calculus, and reactions to it by Saurin and Leibniz. A newly released 1705 manuscript by Leibniz (Puisque des per- sonnes. ) currently in the process of digitalisation, sheds light on the nature of Leibnizian inassignable infinitesimals. In a pair of 1695 texts Leibniz made it clear that his incompa- rable magnitudes violate Euclid’s Definition V.4, a.k.a. the Archi- medean property, corroborating the non-Archimedean construal of the Leibnizian calculus. Keywords: Archimedean property; assignable vs inassignable quantity; Euclid’s Definition V.4; infinitesimal; law of continuity; arXiv:1812.00226v2 [math.HO] 11 Feb 2019 law of homogeneity; logical fiction; Nouveaux Essais; pure fiction; quantifier-assisted paraphrase; syncategorematic; transfer princi- ple; Arnauld; Bignon; Des Bosses; Rolle; Saurin; Varignon Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Stephen H. Daniel
    DR. STEPHEN H. DANIEL Department of Philosophy email: [email protected] Texas A&M University 979-845-5619/5660 (Office) College Station, Texas 77843-4237 979-324-4199 (Cell) CURRENT POSITION Texas A&M University Presidential Professor for Teaching Excellence (2007; permanent) Thaman University Professor in Undergraduate Teaching Excellence (2019–2022) Professor of Philosophy (1993- ) RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT 1983-present: Professor of Philosophy (1993- ), Associate Department Head (2017-2018, 1986-90), Murray and Celeste Fasken Chair in Distinguished Teaching (2007-2011); Associate Professor (1986-93); Assistant Professor (1983-86), Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 1978-1983: Assistant Professor of Philosophy; Department Chair (1982-83), Spring Hill College, Mobile, Alabama. (1979-1980) Visiting Scholar & NEH Fellow, University of Virginia, Department of English; Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Spring Hill College (on academic leave). 1977-1978: Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Mount St. Mary’s College, Los Angeles, California. 1973-1977: Graduate Instructor in Philosophy, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri. EDUCATION Ph.D., Philosophy, Saint Louis University, 1977; Dissertation: “The Philosophic Methodology of John Toland.” M.A., Philosophy, Saint Louis University, 1974; Thesis: “Individuation in Giordano Bruno.” B.A., magna cum laude, Philosophy (major), History (minor), St. Joseph Seminary College, St. Benedict, Louisiana, 1972 PUBLICATIONS (Philosophy) Books (Authored): George Berkeley and Early Modern Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2021. xii + 340 pp. How Berkeley’s philosophy—especially his novel philosophy of mind—engages views developed by his predecessors and contemporaries. Contemporary Continental Thought. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2005. xiii + 490 pp. A survey with readings in critical theory, hermeneutics, structuralism, deconstruction, psychoanalytic feminism, poststructuralism, postcolonialism, and postmodernism.
    [Show full text]
  • Bishop Berkeley Exorcises the Infinite
    TWELVE Bishop Berkeley Exorcises the Infinite It all began simply enough when Molyneux asked the wonderful question whether a person born blind, now able to see, would recognize by sight what he or she knew by touch (Davis 1960). After George Berkeley elaborated an answer, that we learn to perceive by means of heuristics, the foundations of contemporary mathematics were in ruins. Contemporary mathematicians waved their hands and changed the subject.1 Berkeley’s answer received a much more positive response from economists. Adam Smith, in particular, seized upon Berkeley’s doctrine that we learn to perceive distance to build an elabo- rate system in which one learns to perceive one’s self-interest.2 Perhaps because older histories of mathematics are a positive hindrance in helping us under- stand the importance of Berkeley’s argument against in‹nitesimals,3 its conse- quences for economics have passed unnoticed. If in‹nitesimal numbers are ruled 1. The mathematically decisive event that changed the situation and let historians appreciate the past was Abraham Robinson’s development of nonstandard analysis. “The vigorous attack directed by Berkeley against the foundations of the Calculus in the forms then proposed is, in the ‹rst place, a brilliant exposure of their logical inconsistencies. But in criticizing in‹nitesimals of all kinds, English or continental, Berkeley also quotes with approval a passage in which Locke rejects the actual in‹nite. It is in fact not surprising that a philosopher in whose system perception plays the central role, should have been unwilling to accept in‹nitary entities” (Robinson 1974, 280–81).
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Wisdom
    Modern Wisdom Jimmy Rising Philosophy is generally concerned with the nature of things: truths about reality, human nature, and why things are and do what they are and do. In this sense, philosophy fits its archaic name, “natural science.” Philosophy can also be described as the “pursuit or love of wisdom” (this is the origin of the word) and it is imagined that the philosophical life, a life characterized by contemplation and inquiry, is necessary to attain true wisdom. Modern philosophy, with its emphasis on breaking down old beliefs even more than con- structing new ones, is decidedly on the “science” side of philosophy. Nonetheless, I believe that all philosophers study the subject in part in hopes of understanding and gaining wis- dom. Every “advance” in philosophy as the natural science is associated with a refinement or change in the view of wisdom. For example, George Berkeley proclaims that philosophy is “nothing else but the study of wisdom and truth” in the introduction to his Principles, and then speaks hardly another word of the nature of wisdom. What is the wisdom of modern philosophy? More to the point, what is wisdom, according to various branches of modern philosophy, and to modern philosophy as a whole? 1 1 Definition of Wisdom To answer this question, even without trying to define wisdom before it’s definition is sought, we need to specify what we are looking for– that is, the indications of wisdom. Wisdom is: Knowledge – Wisdom, firstly, is a characteristic of the mind or the soul, not of the body. It is a kind of knowledge, skill, sense, or intuition the affects who one thinks.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Berkeley
    INTRODUCTION TO BERKELEY http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/ George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, was one of the great philosophers of the early modern period. He was a brilliant critic of his predecessors, particularly Descartes, Malebranche, and Locke. He was a talented metaphysician famous for defending idealism, that is, the view that reality consists exclusively of minds and their ideas. Berkeley's system, while it strikes many as counter-intuitive, is strong and flexible enough to counter most objections. His most- studied works, the Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (Principles, for short) and Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (Dialogues), are beautifully written and dense with the sort of arguments that delight contemporary philosophers. He was also a wide-ranging thinker with interests in religion (which were fundamental to his philosophical motivations), the psychology of vision, mathematics, physics, morals, economics, and medicine. Although many of Berkeley's first readers greeted him with incomprehension, he influenced both Hume and Kant, and is much read (if little followed) in our own day. 2. Berkeley's critique of materialism in the Principles and Dialogues In his two great works of metaphysics, Berkeley defends idealism by attacking the materialist alternative. What exactly is the doctrine that he's attacking? Readers should first note that “materialism” is here used to mean “the doctrine that material things exist”. This is in contrast with another use, more standard in contemporary discussions, according to which materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist. Berkeley contends that no material things exist, not just that some immaterial things exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses On some ancient and medieval roots of George Berkeley's thought Bradatan, Costica How to cite: Bradatan, Costica (2003) On some ancient and medieval roots of George Berkeley's thought, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4077/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk ON SOME ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL ROOTS OF GEORGE BERKELEY'S THOUGHT A thesis submitted by Costica Bradatan in accordance with the requirements of the University of Durham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy April 2003 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Declaration I declare that no part of this work has been submitted by me for any degree in this or any other university.
    [Show full text]
  • Perception, Realism and Materialism
    Perception, Realism and Materialism By Rob Hoveman Submitted to the Central European University Department of Philosophy in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts CEU eTD Collection Supervisor: Professor Howard Robinson Contents Contents ...................................................................................................................................... i Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter one: The Sense Datum Theory ..................................................................................... 4 Phenomenological direct realism (PDR) ............................................................................... 4 Five arguments against PDR .................................................................................................. 5 The causal argument .............................................................................................................. 9 The phenomenal principle and the spreading argument ...................................................... 10 The privacy of sense data ..................................................................................................... 12 Sense data and the problems of indeterminacy .................................................................... 16 Reality lost and restored? ..................................................................................................... 18 The very concept
    [Show full text]
  • PDF File Issue No 21
    Berkeley Studies No. 21 (2010) Editors Stephen H. Daniel, Senior Editor College Station, Texas, USA Marc A. Hight, Coordinating Editor Hampden-Sydney, Virginia, USA Silvia Parigi, Bibliographical Editor Cassino, Italy Laurent Jaffro, Book Review Editor Paris, France Tom Stoneham, News Editor York, UK Contents James Hill The Synthesis of Empiricism and Innatism in Berkeley’s Doctrine of Notions 3 Marc Hight New Berkeley Correspondence: A Note 16 Jacopo Agnesina Review: Laurent Jaffro, Geneviève Brykman, Claire Schwartz, eds, Berkeley’s Alciphron: English Text and Essays in Interpretation 22 Bertil Belfrage Review: C. George Caffentzis, Exciting the Industry of Mankind: George Berkeley’s Philosophy of Money 25 Ville Paukkonen Review: Talia Mae Bettcher, Berkeley: A Guide for the Perplexed 28 News and Announcements 32 Recent Works on Berkeley (2008-2010) 33 Berkeley Studies 21 (2010) 2 © Berkeley Studies and Contributors 2010 Berkeley Studies is sponsored by Hampden-Sydney College and the International Berkeley Society Berkeley Studies 21 (2010) 3 The Synthesis of Empiricism and Innatism in Berkeley’s Doctrine of Notions James Hill Abstract: This essay argues that Berkeley’s doctrine of notions is an account of concept-formation that offers a middle-way between empiricism and innatism, something which Berkeley himself asserts at Siris 308. First, the widespread assumption that Berkeley accepts Locke’s conceptual empiricism is questioned, with particular attention given to Berkeley’s views on innatism and ideas of reflection. Then, it is shown that Berkeley’s doctrine of notions comes very close to the refined form of innatism to be found in Descartes’ later writings and in Leibniz.
    [Show full text]
  • INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS
    INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS Volume 173 Robert Ginsberg Founding Editor Peter A. Redpath Executive Editor Associate Editors G. John M. Abbarno Matti Häyry Mary-Rose Barral Steven V. Hicks Gerhold K. Becker Richard T. Hull Raymond Angelo Belliotti Mark Letteri Kenneth A. Bryson Vincent L. Luizzi C. Stephen Byrum Alan Milchman H. G. Callaway George David Miller Robert A. Delfino Alan Rosenberg Rem B. Edwards Arleen L. F. Salles Andrew Fitz-Gibbon John R. Shook Francesc Forn i Argimon Eddy Souffrant William Gay Tuija Takala Dane R. Gordon Anne Waters J. Everet Green John R. Welch Heta Aleksandra Gylling Thomas F. Woods a volume in Cognitive Science CS Francesc Forn i Argimon, Editor INTENTIONALITY Past and Future Edited by Gábor Forrai and George Kampis Amsterdam - New York, NY 2005 Cover Design: Studio Pollmann The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 90-420-1817-8 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2005 Printed in the Netherlands CONTENTS Preface vii List of Abbreviations ix ONE The Necessity and Nature of Mental Content 1 LAIRD ADDIS TWO Reading Brentano on the Intentionality of the Mental 15 PHILIP J. BARTOK THREE Emotions, Moods, and Intentionality 25 WILLIAM FISH FOUR Lockean Ideas as Intentional Contents 37 GÁBOR FORRAI FIVE Normativity and Mental Content 51 JUSSI HAUKIOJA SIX The Ontological and Intentional Status of Fregean Senses: An Early Account of External Content 63 GREG JESSON
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Stephen H. Daniel
    DR. STEPHEN H. DANIEL Department of Philosophy email: [email protected] Texas A&M University 979-845-5619/5660 (Office) College Station, Texas 77843-4237 979-324-4199 (Cell) CURRENT POSITION Texas A&M University Presidential Professor for Teaching Excellence (2007; permanent) Thaman University Professor for Undergraduate Teaching Excellence (2019–2022) Professor of Philosophy (1993- ) RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT 1983-present: Professor of Philosophy (1993- ), Associate Department Head (2017-2018, 1986-90), Murray and Celeste Fasken Chair in Distinguished Teaching (2007-2011); Associate Professor (1986-93); Assistant Professor (1983-86), Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 1978-1983: Assistant Professor of Philosophy; Department Chair (1982-83), Spring Hill College, Mobile, Alabama. (1979-1980) Visiting Scholar & NEH Fellow, University of Virginia, Department of English; Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Spring Hill College (on academic leave). 1977-1978: Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Mount St. Mary’s College, Los Angeles, California. 1973-1977: Graduate Instructor in Philosophy, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri. EDUCATION Ph.D., Philosophy, Saint Louis University, 1977; Dissertation: “The Philosophic Methodology of John Toland.” M.A., Philosophy, Saint Louis University, 1974; Thesis: “Individuation in Giordano Bruno.” B.A., magna cum laude, Philosophy (major), History (minor), St. Joseph Seminary College, St. Benedict, Louisiana, 1972 PUBLICATIONS (Philosophy) Books (Authored): George Berkeley and Early Modern Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2021. xii + 338 pp. How Berkeley’s philosophy—especially his novel philosophy of mind—engages views developed by his predecessors and contemporaries. Contemporary Continental Thought. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2005. xiii + 490 pp. A survey with readings in critical theory, hermeneutics, structuralism, deconstruction, psychoanalytic feminism, poststructuralism, postcolonialism, and postmodernism.
    [Show full text]
  • Reason and Revelation in 19Th Century Philosophy
    Roots of analytic philosophy PHIL 3104 Winter 2010 David Matheson Tue & Thu 2:35-3:55 p.m. 3A45 Paterson Hall 129 Paterson Hall 613-520-2600 ext. 1928 [email protected] Office hours: Tue & Thu 1:00-2:00 p.m. Description In this course we will explore the roots of analytic philosophy by examining some central metaphysical, epistemological, and metaphilosophical themes from three of its founding figures: G.E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Background and context readings will be drawn from George Berkeley, F.H. Bradley, and Gottlob Frege. The main objectives are to engage the topics considered as live philosophical issues to be addressed in their own right, and to advance our own philosophical perspectives as a result. You should be prepared to do some philosophy for yourself in this course, not merely to memorize and regurgitate historical facts about what the philosophers we will consider said about the topics addressed. Readings and texts A number of readings for the course will be drawn from the following texts, which can be purchased at the university bookstore: Bertrand Russell, The philosophy of logical atomism (Chicago: Open Court, 1985) Ludwig Wittgenstein, The blue and brown books (New York: Harper & Row, 1960) The remaining readings, listed below, will for the most part be drawn from free online sources: George Berkeley, Introduction and §§1-33 of A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Berkeley%20-Treatise.txt F.H. Bradley, Introduction and Chapter IV of Appearance and reality http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Appearance_and_Reality G.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Samuel C. Rickless
    1 SAMUEL C. RICKLESS Philosophy Department, 0119 University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093-0119 Employment 2009- : Professor, Philosophy, University of California, San Diego 2003-2009: Associate Professor, Philosophy, University of California, San Diego 2001-2003: Assistant Professor, Philosophy, University of California, San Diego 1996-2001: Assistant Professor, Philosophy, Florida State University 1995-1996: Visiting Lecturer, Philosophy, Florida State University Affiliations 2003- : University of San Diego Institute for Law and Philosophy 2013- : University of San Diego Institute for Law and Religion 2016- : Affiliate Professor, University of San Diego School of Law 2014, 2015: Adjunct Professor, International Summer Campus, Korea University Education Ph.D., Philosophy, University of California, Los Angeles, 1996 Dissertation: “Sinn Without Guilt: A Theory of Content for Singular Terms” Committee: David Kaplan (chair), Kit Fine, Tim Stowell B.Phil., Philosophy, Oxford University, 1988 B.A., Philosophy, Harvard University, 1986 Areas of Research History of Modern Philosophy, Ethics, Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of Language, History of Ancient Philosophy Books 1. Plato’s Forms in Transition: A Reading of the Parmenides. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Reviewed in: Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2007), Rhizai: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science (2007), Classical Bulletin (2007), Journal of the History of Philosophy (2008), Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2008), Greece and Rome (2008), The Review of Metaphysics (2009), Mnemosyne (2009), Classical World (2010), Gnomon (2010), Etudes Platoniciennes (2010), Universa: Recensioni di Filosofia (2011), The Ancient World (2011). 1 2 2. Berkeley’s Argument for Idealism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Reviewed in: Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2013), Philosophical Quarterly (2013), Mind (2014), Philosophy in Review (2014), Journal of the History of Philosophy (2015), European Journal of Philosophy (2016), Hume Studies (forthcoming).
    [Show full text]