Berkeley and Locke’s Substance–Person Distinction

Author(s):  
Stephen H. Daniel

Especially in his post-1720 works, Berkeley focuses his comments about Locke on general abstract ideas. He warns against using metaphysical principles to explain observed regularities, and he extends his account to include spiritual substances (including God). Indeed, by calling a substance a spirit, he emphasizes how a person is simply the will that ideas be differentiated and associated in a certain way, not some thing that engages in differentiation. In this sense, a substance cannot be conceived apart from its activity.

2009 ◽  
pp. 144-158
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Upham

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (S1) ◽  
pp. 27-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Brown

Many of the central theses of Hume's philosophy – his rejection of real relations, universals, abstract objects and necessary causal relations – had precedents in the later medieval nominalist tradition. Hume and his medieval predecessors developed complex semantic theories to show both how ontologies are apt to become inflated and how, if we understand carefully the processes by which meaning is generated, we can achieve greater ontological parsimony. Tracing a trajectory from those medieval traditions to Hume reveals Hume to be more radical, particularly in his rejection of abstraction and abstract ideas. Hume's denial of general, abstract ideas is consistent with his philosophical principles but fails to appreciate the more sophisticated nominalist approaches to abstraction, the result of which is a theoretically impoverished account of our capacity for generalization.


2009 ◽  
pp. 185-198
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Upham

1846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asa Mahan
Keyword(s):  

1973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Assagioli
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document