Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:33:53.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Berkeley and Inferred Friends

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2010

Warren E. Steinkraus
Warren E. Steinkraus
Affiliation:
State University College, Oswego, N. Y.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes—Discussion
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1972 , pp. 592 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* Forth, D. S.: “Berkeley and Buber: An Epistemological Comparison.” Dialogue X, 1971, pp. 690–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

1 Price, H. H., “Our Evidence for the Existence of Other Minds”, Philosophy, 13 (1938), p. 428CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Ducasse, C. J., Nature, Mind and Death (LaSalle: Open Court, 1951), p. 437Google Scholar.

3 Berkeley opposes Deism because it separates persons from God and he points out the religious and ethical worth of his view in the passage from the Third Dialogue which begins: “Not to mention that the apprehension of a distant deity naturally disposes men to a negligence in their moral actions. …” (Works, II, p. 258).

4 As to the religious availability of Berkeley's God, T. E. Jessop eloquently speaks of the sensed world as “an hourly manifest Providence, with God immediately behind it. Philosophically, the inference to God is not a trudge along a line of innumerable causes and effects but simply a step or two … We have only to open our eyes to be confronted with the first-hand effects of divine power, wisdom, and benevolence.” (Jessop, T. E., “Berkeley as Religious Apologist” in my New Studies in Berkeley's Philosophy, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1966, p. 106.Google Scholar)

5 Works, II, p. 237.