Berkeley Bibliography

Berkeley Bibliography

Berkeley Bibliography (1979-2019) 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. _____. “On the Ghosts of Departed Quantities.” Metascience 21 (2012): 681-83. _____. “Hutcheson, Perception, and the Sceptic’s Challenge.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (2012): 269-81. 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. Adar, Einat. “From Irish Philosophy to Irish Theatre: The Blind (Wo)Man Made to See.” Estudios Irlandeses 12 (2017): 1-11. Addyman, David and Feldman, Matthew. “Samuel Beckett, Wilhelm Windelband, and the Interwar ‘Philosophy Notes’.” Modernism/Modernity 18 (2011): 755-70. Agassi, Joseph. “The Future of Berkeley’s Instrumentalism.” International Studies in Philosophy 7 (1975), 167-78. Aichele, Alexander. “Ich Denke Was, Was Du Nicht Denkst, Und Das Ist Rot. John Locke Und George Berkeley Über Abstrakte Ideen Und Kants Logischer Abstraktionismus.” Kant- Studien 103 (2012): 25-46. 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. 1 _____. “Light and Causality in Siris.” In Airaksinen and Belfrage (2011), 91-118. _____. “Idealistic Ethics and Berkeley’s Good God.” In Farris et al. (2016), 218-36. _____. “In the Upper Room: Metaphysics and Theology in Berkeley’s Ethics.” Philosophy and Theology 27 (2015): 427-56. _____. “Vulgar Thoughts: Berkeley on Responsibility and Freedom.” In Charles 2015, 115-30. _____. “Berkeley’s Siris: An Interpretation.” In Belfrage and Brook (2017), 216-46. Airaksinen, Timo, and Belfrage, Bertil, eds. Berkeley’s Lasting Legacy: 300 Years Later. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011. Airaksinen, Timo, and Gylling, Heta. “A threat like no other threat, George Berkeley against the freethinkers.” History of European Ideas 43 (2017): 598-613. 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. Alves, Pedro. “A Proposta (I) Modesta de Berkeley. Um Mundo Sem Matéria.” Philosophica 38 (2011): 59-74. 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.” 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. Aramendia Muneta, Enrique. “La visión en Marr y Berkeley. El problema de perderse el principio de la película.” Daimon, Revista de Filosofia 59 (May-Aug 2013): 125-44. Arbour, Benjamin H. “God, Idealism, and Time: A Berkeleyan Approach to Old Questions.” In Cowan and Spiegel 2016, 127-152. Arbour, Benjamin H. and Trickett, Gregory E. “Evil Does Not Pose Any Special Problem for Berkeleyan Idealism: An Idealist Response to John DePoe.” Philosophia Christi 20 (2018): 567-80. 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. Ariso, José Marìa. “Sobre el riesgo de confundir el lenguaje cósmico de Kandinsky con el lenguaje divino del obispo Berkeley.” Agora 32 (2013): 95-106. 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. 2 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. Aston, Nigel. “Rationalism, the Enlightenment, and Sermons.” In The Oxford Handbook of the British Sermon 1689-1901, eds. Keith A. Francis, William Gibson, John Morgan-Guy, Bob Tennant, and Robert H. Ellison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Astore, Rocco A. “Doubting Descartes: How Berkeley’s Immaterialism Outshines the Cartesian System.” Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities 10 (2018): 111-117. 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. _____. “Doctor Johnson Kicks the Stone, or Can the Immaterialisms of the Principles and Three Dialogues Be Reconciled?” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 87 (Nov 2013): 44-59. _____. Review of Berkeley’s Idealism by Georges Dicker. Mind 122 (2013): 278-81. _____. “Berkeley and Skepticism.” In Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present, edited by Diego W. Machuca and Baron Reed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018. Pp. 369-79. _____. Berkeley. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2019. 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. _____. “Ideas and Objective Being.” In Garber (1998), 1062-1107. 3 _____. “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. Bahr, Fernando. Review of Siris: Empirismo e idealismo platónico en el siglo XVII, ed. and trans. by Jorge L. Martin. Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofía 38 (2012): 123-24. 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. Baldwin, Louis. Portraits of God: Word Pictures of the Deity from the Earliest Times through Today. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2012. 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

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    59 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us