The attack on abstract ideas
Can the mind form an idea of a triangle that is no particular triangle, of color that is no particular color? Berkeley says no, and blames much of philosophy's confusion on believing it can.
The Principles opens by attacking the doctrine of abstract general ideas — the supposed power to conceive a triangle that is neither scalene nor equilateral, or man in general apart from any particular man. Berkeley argues no such idea can actually be formed; we think with particular ideas that stand in for others, and general words mislead us into imagining general objects behind them. Aimed squarely at Locke, this is the ground-clearing for everything that follows: many of the errors he wants to expose, above all belief in inert matter, arise from mistaking an abstract word for a genuine idea.
- abstraction
- language
- logic
- geometry
- arithmetic
- causation
- immaterialism
Enter a dialogue
- The philosopher Locke says we form an idea of 'man' in general, with some colour but no particular one. Why can nobody picture that?
- Someone has long puzzled over what time could be apart from anything happening in it. What would you tell them about why the puzzle never yields?
- You conclude the soul always thinks, since time is only the succession of ideas in a mind. What, then, happens in dreamless sleep, when nothing is remembered?
- The same length is one yard, three feet or thirty-six inches. Why does that show, for you, that number exists only in how the mind counts?
- Nobody, you say, can picture motion that is neither swift nor slow, neither curved nor straight. What are people doing when they reason about motion in general?