Can the Berkeleyan Idealist Resist Spinozist Panpsychism?

In: History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA
  • 2 Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

Abstract

We argue that prevailing definitions of Berkeley’s idealism fail to rule out a nearby Spinozist rival view that we call ‘mind-body identity panpsychism.’ Since Berkeley certainly does not agree with Spinoza on this issue, we call for more care in defining Berkeley’s view. After we propose our own definition of Berkeley’s idealism, we survey two Berkeleyan strategies to block the mind-body identity panpsychist and establish his idealism. We argue that Berkeley should follow Leibniz and further develop his account of the mind’s unity. Unity—not activity—is the best way for Berkeley to establish his view at the expense of his panpsychist competitors.

  • PHK Berkeley, G. 1710. Of the Principles of Human Knowledge: Part 1. Luce & Jessop (eds.) 1948–1957. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3D Berkeley, G. 1713. Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. Luce & Jessop (eds.) 1948–1957. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.

  • DM Berkeley, G. 1721. De Motu, or The Principle and Nature of Motion and the Cause of the Communication of Motions. Luce & Jessop (eds.) 1948–1957. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • E Spinoza, B. 1677. Ethica Ordine Geometrico. Curley (tr.) 1994. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Adams, R. 2017. Idealism Vindicated. In: Goldschmidt, T. & Pearce, K. (eds.), Idealism: New Essays in Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allaire, E. 1963. Berkeley’s Idealism. Theoria 29, 229244.

  • Ariew, R. & Garber, D. (eds.). 1989. Philosophical Essays. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

  • Bennett, J. 1984. A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Hackett.

  • Berman, D. 1994. George Berkeley. Idealism and the Man. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Bettcher, T. 2007. Berkeley’s Philosophy of Spirit. Consciousness, Ontology, and the Elusive Subject. London: Continuum.

  • Bettcher, T. 2008. Berkeley on Self-Consciousness. In: Daniel, S. (ed.), New Interpretations of Berkeley’s Thought. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press Books.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brüntrup, G. & Jaskolla, L. (eds.). 2016. Panpsychism. Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Buras, T. & Dougherty, T. 2017. Parrying Parity. In: Goldschmidt, T. & Pearce, K. (eds.), Idealism. New Essays in Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chalmers, D. 2015. Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism. In: Alter, T. & Nagasawa, Y. (eds.), Consciousness and the Physical World. Perspectives on Russellian Monism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chalmers, D. 2016a. Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism. In: Brüntrup, G. & Jaskolla, L. (eds.), Panpsychism. Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chalmers, D. 2016b. The Combination Problem for Panpsychism. In: Brüntrup, G. & Jaskolla, L. (eds.), Panpsychism. Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Curley, E. & Walski, G. 1999. Spinoza’s Necessitarianism Reconsidered. In: Gennaro, R. & Huenemann, C. (eds.), New Essays on the Rationalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Daniel, S. 2001. Berkeley’s Pantheistic Discourse. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 49, 179194.

  • Daniel, S. 2008. Berkeley’s Stoic Notion of Spiritual Substance. In: Daniel, S. (ed.), New Interpretations of Berkeley’s Thought. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press Books.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Della Rocca, M. 1999. Representation and the Mind-Body Problem in Spinoza. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Della Rocca, M. 2002. Spinoza’s Substance Monism. In: Koistinen, O. & Biro, J. (eds.), Spinoza: Metaphysical Themes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Della Rocca, M. 2003. The Power of an Idea: Spinoza’s Critique of Pure Will. Nous 37(2), 200231.

  • Della Rocca, M. 2008. Spinoza. New York: Routledge.

  • Della Rocca, M. 2012. Rationalism, Idealism, Monism, and Beyond. In: Forster, E. & Melamed, Y. (eds.), Spinoza and German Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Di Poppa, F. 2013. Spinoza on Causation and Power. Southern Journal of Philosophy 51(3), 297319.

  • Downing, L. 2013. George Berkeley. In: Zalta, E. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 edition). URL: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/berkeley/>. Accessed: December 16, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Downing, L. 2018. Sensible Qualities and Secondary Qualities in the First Dialogue. In: Storrie, S. (ed.), Berkeley’s Three Dialogues: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Earle, W. 1951. The Ontological Argument in Spinoza. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 11(4), 549554.

  • Flage, D. 2018. George Berkeley. In: Fieser, J. & Dowden, B. (eds.), The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: <https://www.iep.utm.edu/berkeley/>. Accessed: December 16, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frankel, M. 2013. Acts, Ideas, and Objects in Berkeley’s Metaphysics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43(4), 475493.

  • Garrett, D. 1979. Spinoza’s Ontological Argument. The Philosophical Review 88(2), 198223.

  • Garrett, D. 2000. Spinoza’s Necessitarianism. In: Yovel, Y. (ed.), God and Nature: Spinoza’s Metaphysics. London: Brill.

  • Garrett, D. 2002. Spinoza’s Conatus Argument. In: Koistinen, O. & Biro, J. (eds.), Spinoza. Metaphysical Themes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Garrett, D. 2018a. Descartes, Spinoza, and Locke on Extended Thinking Beings. In: Garrett, D. (ed.), Nature and Necessity in Spinoza’s Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Garrett, D. 2018b. Postscript: Arguments for God’s Existence Revisited. In: Garrett, D. (ed.), Nature and Necessity in Spinoza’s Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goldschmidt, T. & Pearce, K. (eds.). 2017. Idealism. New Essays in Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Guyer, P. & Horstmann, R. 2018. Idealism. In: Zalta, E. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 edition). <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/>. Accessed: December 16, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hausman, D. & Hausman, A. 1995. A New Approach to Berkeley’s Ideal Reality. In: Muehlmann, R. (ed.), Berkeley’s Metaphysics. Structural, Interpretative, and Critical Essays. State College: Penn Station Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hight, M. & Ott, W. 2004. The New Berkeley. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34, 124.

  • Hill, J. 2018. The Active Self and Perception in Berkeley’s Three Dialogues. In: Storrie, S. (ed.), Berkeley’s Three Dialogues. New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holden, T. 2019. Berkeley on Inconceivability and Impossibility. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 98(1), 107122.

  • Jarrett, C.E. 1976. Spinoza’s Ontological Argument. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 6(4), 685692.

  • Kim, J. 2005. Physicalism, or Something Near Enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Laerke, M. 2011. Spinoza’s Cosmological Argument in the Ethics. Journal of the History of Philosophy 49(4), 439462.

  • Luce, A.A. & Jessop, T.E. (eds.) 1948–1957. The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons. 9 vols.

  • Marušić, J.S. 2018. Berkeley on the Objects of Perception. In: Storrie, S. (ed.), Berkeley’s Three Dialogues. New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Melamed, Y. 2013a. Spinoza’s Metaphysics of Thought: Parallelisms and the Multi-faceted Structure of Ideas. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 86(3), 636683.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Melamed, Y. 2013b. Spinoza’s Metaphysics. Substance and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Montero, B. 2016. What Combination Problem? In: Brüntrup, G. & Jaskolla, L. (eds.), Panpsychism. Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Muehlmann, R. 1992. Berkeley’s Ontology. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

  • Muehlmann, R. 1995. The Substance of Berkeley’s Philosophy. In: Muehlmann, R. (ed.), Berkeley’s Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretative, and Critical Essays. State College: Penn Station Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Newlands, S. 2012. Thinking, Conceiving, and Idealism in Spinoza. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 94, 3152.

  • Newlands, S. 2018. Reconceiving Spinoza. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Pearce, K. 2017. Language and the Structure of Berkeley’s World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Pitcher, G. 1969. Minds and Ideas in Berkeley. American Philosophical Quarterly 6(3), 198207.

  • Rickless, S. 2013. Berkeley’s Argument for Idealism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Roberts, J.R. 2018. A Puzzle in the Three Dialogues and Its Platonic Resolution. In: Storrie, S. (ed.), Berkeley’s Three Dialogues: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Roberts, J.R. 2007. A Metaphysics for the Mob. The Philosophy of George Berkeley. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Segal, A. & Goldschmidt, T. 2017. The Necessity of Idealism. In: Goldschmidt, T. & Pearce, K. (eds.), Idealism. New Essays in Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smithson, R. 2017. A New Epistemic Argument for Idealism. In: Goldschmidt, T. & Pearce, K. (eds.), Idealism. New Essays in Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Strawson, G. et al. 2006. Consciousness and Its Place in Nature. Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism?, Freeman (ed.), Charlottesville: Imprint Academic.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Strawson, G. 2016. Mind and Being. In: Brüntrup, G. & Jaskolla, L. (eds.), Panpsychism. Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Storrie, S. 2018. The Scope of Berkeley’s Idealism in the 1734 Edition of the Three Dialogues. In: Storrie, S. (ed.), Berkeley’s Three Dialogues. New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Watson, R. 1963. Berkeley in a Cartesian Context. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 63, 381394.

  • Wilson, F. 1995. On the Hausmans’ ‘A New Approach.’ In: Muehlmann, R. (ed.), Berkeley’s Metaphysics. Structural, Interpretative, and Critical Essays. State College: Penn Station Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilson, J. 2005. Supervenience Based Formulations of Physicalism. Nous 39(3), 426459.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 415 415 178
Full Text Views 2 2 1
PDF Downloads 1 1 1