Talk:George Berkeley

I just tossed a couple quotes up from the first dialogue between hyl. and phil.

Does anyone know whether the quote "What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind", widely attributed to him in the net, is really his?

This quote seems to contain a typographical mistake:

"Berkeley’s argument consists of two parts. On the one hand, he argues that we do not perceive material things, but only colours, sounds, etc., and that these are “mental” or “in the mind.” His reasoning is completely cogent as to the first point, but as to the second it suffers from the absence of any definition of the word “mental.” He relics, in fact, upon the received view that everything must be either material or mental, and that nothing is both."

Isn't that suppose to say 'He relies, in fact, upon...' and not he 'He relics, in fact, upon...'?

I don't have the book it was taken from, but if anyone does then it would be good to check this word out.


 * ✅, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there really a point in handing people a quote from Skousen as a key for interpreting Berkeley, as if that was some serious scholarship? Skousen was no Berkeleyologist nor an ANE scholar, and his opinion in that matter was a bit less relevant and informed than a cat's. There's no lack of actual academic writing on Berkeley, why not quote that instead? --Ehitaja (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)