January 9, 2009

This Post is Old!

The post you are reading is years old and may not represent my current views. I started blogging around the time I first began to study philosophy, age 17. In my view, the point of philosophy is to expose our beliefs to rational scrutiny so we can revise them and get better beliefs that are more likely to be true. That's what I've been up to all these years, and this blog has been part of that process. For my latest thoughts, please see the front page.

Quote of the Day: A Summary of Berkeley's Mature Doctrine of Signs

Although the details are sketchy, Berkeley's basic point is clear: A sign may be significant not because it marks an idea, or even because it can be traced to something with which we are immediately acquainted, but because it is a working part of a system of signs that makes a genuine difference to our lives - to our thoughts, actions, and emotions. (Kenneth P. Winkler, "Berkeley and the Doctrine of Signs" in Winkler, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley, p. 151)
This is Winkler's summary of Berkeley's mature "doctrine of signs" as developed in Alciphron 7. By the way, I highly recommend this paper, especially for its insights about Berkeley's critique of abstraction. My principle complaint about this otherwise excellent paper (which I have not quite finished reading yet) is that Winkler's treatment of divine language is far too brief and what he does say is incorrect: specifically he claims (p. 138) that all the signs in the language of sense perception are what he calls 'marks' - what I, in "The Semantics of Sense Perception", called 'concrete terms'. For the reasons I discussed at length in that paper, this must be false. Winkler backpedals a little in a footnote, but not far enough. Posted by Kenny at January 9, 2009 4:20 PM
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.kennypearce.net/admin/mt-tb.cgi/458

Post a comment





Return to blog.kennypearce.net