Podcast appearances and mentions of George Berkeley

George Berkeley (1685-1753), filósofo irlandés, defendió el idealismo subjetivo, afirmando que la realidad existe solo en la percepción de las mentes. Para él, "ser es ser percibido". Rechazó el materialismo y consideró que todo depende de Dios como el observador eterno. Su obra clave es Tratado sobre los principios del conocimiento humano.

Embrace the unknown as we explore the essential role of uncertainty in our lives. Just as a game of Clue becomes exhilarating with the element of surprise, our lives become richer when we don't know what's coming next. By delving into the principles of quantum mechanics and the dual slit experiment, we reveal how your intentions can shape reality. Delve into the interconnection of mind and matter, revisiting George Berkeley's idealism and contrasting it with materialism. Discover how your thoughts and intentions have the power to mold the world around you.By documenting your experiences, you can track your growth and realize how far you've come. Life mirrors your chosen perspective, affirming our ability to see it as abundant and full of blessings. Don't forget to join us at DG MindFest and embrace the power of perspective in shaping your reality.Get your tickets for DG MindFest 2024Join The Conscious Evolution Community Here to gain access to exclusive podcasts, unreleased content, a free journal, and live weekly calls with DG! Life Is Mental University Courses and More! 2024 DG Mindset Experience Retreat Schedule

Acquista il mio nuovo libro, “Anche Socrate qualche dubbio ce l'aveva”: https://amzn.to/3wPZfmCIniziamo a parlare di Berkeley, un empirista molto particolare: basti dire che presenta una posizione immaterialista.

"With Me in Paradise"I rewatched the great animated movie Coco this past week. Studying Jesus' Famous Last Words in Luke 23, I just couldn't get the main song out of my head: “Remember Me.” In the film, that refrain is an expression of a major plot point: those who die can live on and revisit us as long as we are faithful to honor their memory. Metaphor becomes reality for a young man who accidentally reverses direction (guided by a certain “Dante”), visiting his great grandfather in the underworld instead. There, everyone is either enjoying the gifts that come with being remembered, or anxiously awaiting the second death that comes when the last candle held for them is extinguished. The theme seems a bit macabre for a family film, but they really manage to pull it off.  This idea that existence depends on the attention or memory of another mind was championed by the philosopher George Berkeley in the early 1700's. He was an Irish Episcopal bishop, very concerned about the materialism arising within Enlightenment rationalism. Some called his idealism silliness because, for example, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, it does, of course, still make a sound! Berkeley's response was that the only reason there is so much stability in the world is because it is all held together – remembered – in the mind of God. Good comeback. I don't know if that's how it all works or not, but I do know that his theory complements the constant prayers in Scripture that God would remember us in death. “For in him we live and move and have our being.”   Let's take this further. A couple of years ago, I read a novel called The Secret Life of Addie LaRue. A young French villager facing an unwanted arranged marriage strikes a Faustian bargain with one of “the gods who answer after dark.” Her request is simple: “I want more time to be young, and I want my life to be my own.” The request is granted, but the awful catch is that she will be henceforth unable to make any lasting impression on anyone she meets for the rest of her supernaturally long life. No matter how notable the exchange, people simply forget they ever encountered her. It's a tragic but logical implication: because we deeply affect and influence one another's lives, we belong to one another. Therefore, the only way to belong to one's self alone is to be alone, and have no effect on anyone else. Which is basically to cease to exist. Fortunately for us, and for that thief on the cross, the Heidelberg Catechism begins right where these philosophical ponderings and pleas for remembrance leave us:  Q: “What is your only comfort in life and death?”A: “That I am not my own, but belong, with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful savior Jesus Christ.”- js

"With Me in Paradise"I rewatched the great animated movie Coco this past week. Studying Jesus' Famous Last Words in Luke 23, I just couldn't get the main song out of my head: “Remember Me.” In the film, that refrain is an expression of a major plot point: those who die can live on and revisit us as long as we are faithful to honor their memory. Metaphor becomes reality for a young man who accidentally reverses direction (guided by a certain “Dante”), visiting his great grandfather in the underworld instead. There, everyone is either enjoying the gifts that come with being remembered, or anxiously awaiting the second death that comes when the last candle held for them is extinguished. The theme seems a bit macabre for a family film, but they really manage to pull it off.  This idea that existence depends on the attention or memory of another mind was championed by the philosopher George Berkeley in the early 1700's. He was an Irish Episcopal bishop, very concerned about the materialism arising within Enlightenment rationalism. Some called his idealism silliness because, for example, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, it does, of course, still make a sound! Berkeley's response was that the only reason there is so much stability in the world is because it is all held together – remembered – in the mind of God. Good comeback. I don't know if that's how it all works or not, but I do know that his theory complements the constant prayers in Scripture that God would remember us in death. “For in him we live and move and have our being.”   Let's take this further. A couple of years ago, I read a novel called The Secret Life of Addie LaRue. A young French villager facing an unwanted arranged marriage strikes a Faustian bargain with one of “the gods who answer after dark.” Her request is simple: “I want more time to be young, and I want my life to be my own.” The request is granted, but the awful catch is that she will be henceforth unable to make any lasting impression on anyone she meets for the rest of her supernaturally long life. No matter how notable the exchange, people simply forget they ever encountered her. It's a tragic but logical implication: because we deeply affect and influence one another's lives, we belong to one another. Therefore, the only way to belong to one's self alone is to be alone, and have no effect on anyone else. Which is basically to cease to exist. Fortunately for us, and for that thief on the cross, the Heidelberg Catechism begins right where these philosophical ponderings and pleas for remembrance leave us:  Q: “What is your only comfort in life and death?”A: “That I am not my own, but belong, with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful savior Jesus Christ.”- js

Si te gusta lo que escuchas y deseas apoyarnos puedes dejar tu donación en PayPal, ahí nos encuentras como @IrvingSun   --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/irving-sun/message

Abordamos en este episodio el pensamiento de George Berkeley, uno de los autores más sorprendentes de la historia del pensamiento. Con su lema "SER ES SER PERCIBIDO" negó la existencia de la materia afirmando que solo existen las consciencias y sus percepciones. Su concepción de la realidad es compatible con la actual hipótesis teórica del universo como holograma o simulación.  Recordad que también hay contenidos extras para subscriptores de pago mensual de iVoox y Ko-fi (   ⁠https://ko-fi.com/anaideiafm⁠ ), y que podéis disfrutar también de la actividad en las redes sociales del proyecto ANAIDEIA, tanto en Instagram como en Twitter y sobre todo en Tiktok, donde casi cada día publico videos de divulgación filosófica, en las tres plataformas con el mismo usuario: ANAIDEIAFM. Además, os invito a ver el recientemente inaugurado canal de Twitch ANAIDEIA_PODCAST, donde hago streamings cada lunes y jueves a las 21:30 hora española y donde podréis interaccionar conmigo, y en cada stream desarrollo también en la parte central un tema interesante de filosofía. TODOS LOS LINKS: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Anaideiafm⁠ ⁠Anaideia.es⁠   Twitter: ⁠@anaideiafm⁠    Instagram: ⁠@anaideiafm ⁠ Tiktok: ⁠@anaideiafm⁠       anaideiafm@gmail.com Twitch: ⁠https://www.twitch.tv/anaideia_podcast⁠ MUSIC: -Hall of the metal king, Metalicious, Solnegdag, Cocktail and Lobster, Space ambient, Through the Mist, Construction, Pure Rock and Roll, Reaching de sky  by Alexander Nakarada (⁠www.serpentsoundstudios.com⁠) Licensed under Creative Commons BY Attribution 4.0 License.

This episode delves into the life and philosophy of George Berkeley, discussing his contributions to philosophical thought such as his exploration of perception, idealism, immaterialism, and his critique of John Locke's theory of matter. Source: https://iep.utm.edu/george-berkeley-british-empiricist/

An in-depth exploration of the life and philosophical contributions of George Berkeley, including his theories on perception, reality, and existence, and his influence on modern philosophy and the American Mind. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

In April, it was announced that Trinity College Dublin would 'dename' its Berkeley Library, because of the links to slavery of its current namesake, the 18th century philosopher George Berkeley. The news sparked renewed debate about when it is right to change the historic name of a building or institution, with Irish Times columnist Fintan O'Toole arguing, for example, that the dozen or so GAA clubs named after 19th century Irish nationalist John Mitchel should rename themselves, also due to Mitchel's support for slavery and his trenchant racism. But once we start renaming things, how far should we go? When is it necessary and when is it simply impractical? And why was John Mitchel such a racist, anyway?Fintan O'Toole talks to Bernice Harrison. This episode was originally published in May 2023. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For those who don't know, I've been working on a truly epic History of Philosophers series - I'm on episode 21, which I've decided to release to everyone.If you would like to access the whole History of Philosophers feed, please subscribe below:https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022

It was recently announced that Trinity College Dublin will 'dename' its Berkeley Library, because of the links to slavery of its current namesake, the 18th century philosopher George Berkeley.The news has sparked renewed debate about when it is right to change the historic name of a building or institution, with Irish Times columnist Fintan O'Toole arguing, for example, that the dozen or so GAA clubs named after 19th century Irish nationalist John Mitchel rename themselves, also due to Mitchel's support for slavery and his trenchant racism.But once we start renaming things, how far should we go? When is it necessary and when is it simply impractical? And why was John Mitchel such a racist, anyway?Fintan O'Toole talks to Bernice Harrison. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We are joined again by Dr Joshua Rasmussen (PhD, Notre Dame), associate professor of philosophy at Azusa Pacific University, for an in-depth—and, at times, somewhat mind-bending—conversation on his latest book, Who Are You, Really? : A Philosopher's Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Persons. In the book, published by InterVarsity Press (2023), Dr Rasmussen takes a deep—though very approachable—dive into the almost unfathomable waters of philosophy of mind and fundamental ontology, and invites the reader (as he does here the listener) to embark upon a journey of discovery towards possible understandings of Who We Really Are. "What does it mean to be human? Philosopher Joshua Rasmussen offers a step-by-step examination into the fundamental nature and origin of persons. Using accessible language and clear logic, he argues that understanding what it means to be a person sheds light not only on our own nature but also on the existence of the One who gave us life."—(IVPress.com) Joshua Rasmussen, who joined us in 2019 to talk about his book How Reason Can Lead to God, is also author of Defending the Correspondence Theory of Truth and The Bridge of Reason, coauthor of Necessary Existence and Is God the Best Explanation of Things?, and coeditor of A New Theist Response to the New Atheists. He lives in Azusa, California, with his wife Rachel and their five children. [For show notes please visit https://themindrenewed.com]

George Berkeley es uno de los tres grandes empiristas británicos del siglo XVIII, junto a John Locke y David Hume, o ¿no lo es? ... Porque desde el principio ha habido quien no lo ha considerado como realmente perteneciente a esta corriente filosófica. En este episodio lo analizamos. Si quieres acceder a la versión extendida de este episodio ayudar a la continuidad de este podcast, resolver dudas u obtener material exclusivo, visítanos en Patreon https://www.patreon.com/laTravesia Para contenido gratuito adicional https://www.youtube.com/c/LaTravesía

Bishop George Berkeley was one of the three great British Empiricists.  His view, Esse Est Percipi (To be is to be perceived), is as infamous as Descartes' view, Cogito Ego Sum (I think, I am).  In this episode we imbibe the thoughts of one of the most peculiar philosophers of all-time.  Drink up!

I would like to thank everyone that has donated or otherwise supported Nature is my Jam by liking, following, sharing and/or subscribing to the podcast. Your support goes directly to creating future episodes and allows this podcast to be ad-free and 100% listener supported. Your kindness means the world to me and I hope you might feel inspired to explore the natural areas where you live.“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” - Dr. George Berkeley.“My heart's in the Highlands, my heart is not here; My heart‘s in the Highlands a-chasing the deer.” - Robert Burns.“Poetry is an echo, asking a shadow to dance.” - Carl Sandburg.Crash, stomp and snort. All three sounds will become abundantly apparent as you listen to this week's episode. I left a couple of clues in the quotes above. Success always finds the patient and prepared field recordist. I made that up. It's no secret that the last few weeks have not been great for recording wildlife and nature sounds. My goal this week was to get back into the forest and feature an episode where the primary theme was not the sound of water.I had a mild collision on my way to record last night, which caused some delay in getting to the recording location. I'm fine, the truck is fine, but a group of saplings sacrificed themselves in order to bring this recording to you. It was late when I arrived and because I had a mile to hike to the recording location; I prepared a drop rig setup. A drop rig is the name given by field recordists for recording equipment left unattended for an extended period without being monitored. This style of recording is useful for nocturnal activities or where wildlife is not used to human presence. With signs of beaver activity, animal prints (deer, fox), and hearing coyotes across the wide creek, hopes were high for a successful recording. I am thrilled with this recording. It starts off with the answer to the age old question, proffered by Berkeley in the 1600s and then follows a very curious and excitable deer as it comes across my recording gear in the middle of the night. A deer will stomp its hooves when it senses danger and you can hear it rush towards the microphone and then come back with piqued curiosity. It does not leave the area and eventually beds down a few feet from the microphone.Finally, the echoes in this recording are breathtaking. I hope you enjoy this episode and I'll see you next week.Recording Details:Date and Time: 1/26/2023 | 2:45 AMLocation: Sleeping Bear Dunes National LakeshoreLandscape/Feature: Near Otter Creek in a Densely Wooded ForestConditions: 28F (-2C), Heavy Snow, Moderate Wind, Dense FogRecording Device: Zoom F3 Field RecorderMicrophone(s): Audio Technica BP 4025Digital Audio Workstation: Adobe AuditionSupport the showThanks for listening! ❤️ Your support means the world to me. Follow me on Instagram and Twitter for daily updates.

Jeśli kiedykolwiek chcieliście posiąść ułamek wiedzy, który złamałby arogancję Platona, nadkruszył pychę myślicieli Oświecenia, zabił ćwieka współczesnym akademikom, a nawet wstrząsnął spokojem ducha Papy Arystotelesa – to trafiliście na dobry odcinek! Oto intelektualna broń wykuta z metalu Reardena, która przecina gordyjski węzeł odwiecznego konfliktu: sporu o uniwersalia. Wojny filozofów są równie niszczycielskie i brzemienne w skutkach co konflikty zbrojne. Nawet jeśli w starciach wpływowych myślicieli nie leje się krew, a pól bitew nie zaściełają truchła poległych żołnierzy – to konsekwencje zwycięstwa jednej idei i zepchnięcia w cień innej odbijają się echem nawet stulecia później i rzutują na rozwój cywilizacji. Jedną z najżarliwszych bezkrwawych wojen między filozofami był wielowiekowy spór o uniwersalia – czyli bitwa o zrozumienie natury pojęć, relacji między rzeczywistością a ideami oraz sposób tworzenia i gromadzenia wiedzy przez człowieka. Czym jest spór o uniwersalia i dlaczego jest ważny? Tym zajmiemy się w dzisiejszym odcinku Klasy Atlasa! W ostatnich odcinkach zgłębialiśmy temat tworzenia wiedzy pojęciowej, ale pójdźmy o krok dalej. Czym są pojęcia? Gdzie się znajdują: czy są inherentną częścią bytów w obiektywnej rzeczywistości, istnieją jedynie w oku patrzącego, są umowną konwencją przyjętą przez społeczeństwo czy trzeba ich szukać gdzieś indziej? Jaki jest status ontologiczny pojęć: są realnymi elementami otaczającego nas świata, a może arbitralnymi pomysłami opartymi na skojarzeniach, albo w ogóle wykraczają poza tak rozumianą prostą dychotomię? Kto miał rację w sporze o uniwersalia: Platon? Arystoteles? William Ockham? George Berkeley? Edmund Husserl? A może… nikt z powyższych? Dlaczego spór jest tak ważny, toczył się przez stulecia i nadal rzuca się długim cieniem nie tylko na współczesną filozofię, lecz także na naukę, dyskurs publiczny i potoczne rozumienie świata przez miliardy ludzi? Wreszcie: co na to wszystko Ayn Rand? O tym wszystkim rozmawiają Ziemowit i Mateusz w dzisiejszym odcinku Klasy Atlasa. To piąty odcinek z epistemologicznego bloku tematycznego poświęconego teorii pojęć. Zapraszamy! ________________________________________ życie | rozum | wolność Podoba Ci się nasz content? Wesprzyj nas na Patronite! http://patronite.pl/podcastyatlasa Słuchaj nas na Spotify i innych platformach streamingowych! http://www.podcast.obiektywizm.pl ObiektywizmPL – Polskie centrum sympatyków myśli Ayn Rand --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/laissezfairepl/message

Kali ini ngomongin bagaimana kita tahu akan hal di dunia ini? ada tokoh yang akan kita bahas di episode ini: John Locke, George Berkeley, & David Hume. Cover: Image by jcomp on Freepik

73. EPIZÓDA / Je francúzsky filozof a matematik René Descartes otcom subjektivizmu? O čom hovorí jeho myšlienkový experiment o démonovi a čo s tým má do činenia Boh? A ako nadväzuje na Descartesa írsky filozof George Berkeley s jeho experimentom o padajúcom strome? Aj dnes vás do diskusie pozýva vedec Jaro a filozof Jakub.----more---- + + aktuálna extra časť odomknutá pre VŠETKÝCH!!!

Trinity College Dublin is confronting some uncomfortable legacies from its 430-year history. The college is inviting submissions on whether the Berkeley Library, named after slave-owner George Berkeley, should be renamed. Changing these names, is it erasing history or is it making progress? To debate Newstalk Breakfast spoke to John McGuirk, Editor of Gript Media and also Dr. Ebun Joseph Founder of the Institute of Antiracism & Black Studies in Dublin.

Trinity College Dublin is confronting some uncomfortable legacies from its 430-year history. The college is inviting submissions on whether the Berkeley Library, named after slave owner George Berkeley, should be renamed. Changing these names, is it erasing history or is it making progress? To discuss Newstalk Breakfast spoke to John McGuirk, Editor of Gript Media & Dr. Ebun Joseph Founder of the Institute of Antiracism & Black of Studies in Dublin.

Trinity College Dublin is confronting some uncomfortable legacies from its 430-year history. The college is inviting submissions on whether the Berkeley Library, named after slave-owner George Berkeley, should be renamed. Changing these names, is it erasing history or is it making progress? To debate Newstalk Breakfast spoke to John McGuirk, Editor of Gript Media and also Dr. Ebun Joseph Founder of the Institute of Antiracism & Black Studies in Dublin.

Trinity College Dublin is confronting some uncomfortable legacies from its 430-year history. The college is inviting submissions on whether the Berkeley Library, named after slave owner George Berkeley, should be renamed. Changing these names, is it erasing history or is it making progress? To discuss Newstalk Breakfast spoke to John McGuirk, Editor of Gript Media & Dr. Ebun Joseph Founder of the Institute of Antiracism & Black of Studies in Dublin.

James Tunney, LLM, is an Irish barrister who has lectured on legal matters throughout the world. He is a poet, a scholar, and author of The Mystery of the Trapped Light: Mystical Thoughts in the Dark Age of Scientism plus The Mystical Accord: Sutras to Suit Our Times, Lines for Spiritual Evolution; also Empire of … Continue reading "The Life and Philosophy of Bishop George Berkeley with James Tunney"

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The sense of a start, published by Gavin on September 28, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Some attempts to feel the size of the future: ChronoZoom: [woosh] Will Macaskill: Imagine living, in order of birth, through the life of every human being who has ever lived... Your life lasts for almost four trillion years in total. For a tenth of that time, you're a hunter-gatherer, and for 60 percent you're an agriculturalist. You spend a full 20 percent of your life raising children, a further 20 percent farming, and almost 2 percent taking part in religious rituals. For over 1 percent of your life you are afflicted with malaria or smallpox. You spend 1.5 billion years having sex and 250 million giving birth. You drink forty-four trillion cups of coffee. As a colonizer, you invade new lands; as the colonized, you suffer your lands taken from you. You feel the rage of the abuser and the pain of the abused. For about 10 percent of your life you are a slaveholder; for about the same length of time, you are enslaved. But now imagine that you live all future lives, too. Your life, we hope, would be just beginning. Even if humanity lasts only as long as the typical mammalian species (one million years), and even if the world population falls to a tenth of its current size, 99.5 percent of your life would still be ahead of you. On the scale of a typical human life, you in the present would be just five months old. And if humanity survived longer than a typical mammalian species—for the hundreds of millions of years remaining until the earth is no longer habitable, or the tens of trillions remaining until the last stars burn out — your four trillion years of life would be like the first blinking seconds out of the womb. Carl Sagan: If history were a football field, all of human history would occupy an area the size of my hand. Bryan Magee: There are always some human beings who live to be a hundred. More do so today than ever before, but there have always been some... It comes as a shock to realise that the whole of civilisation has occurred within the successive lifetimes of sixty people -- which is the number of friends I squeeze into my living room when I have a drinks party. Twenty people take us back to Jesus, twenty-one to Julius Caesar. Samuel Arbesman: "Me (b. 1981) Harold C. Urey, American chemist, Nobel Prize laureate (b. 1893) Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, U.S. Supreme Court justice (b. 1825) William Waldegrave, 1st Baron Radstock, Governor of Newfoundland (b. 1753) George Berkeley, Irish philosopher (b. 1685) King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland (b. 1630) Johannes Kepler, German astronomer (b. 1571) Shimazu Takahisa, Japanese samurai and warlord (b. 1514) Donato Bramante, Italian architect (b. 1444) Leonardo Bruni, Italian humanist (b. 1374) Petrarch, Italian poet (b. 1304) Emperor Go-Fukakusa of Japan (b. 1243) Hubert de Burgh, 1st Earl of Kent (b. circa 1160) Eric Jedvardsson, king of Sweden since 1156 (b. c. 1120) Gerard Thom (The Blessed Gerard), founder of the Knights Hospitaller (b. c. 1040) King Duncan I of Scotland (b. 1001)" Andri Snær Magnason: 262 years. That's the length of time you connect across. You'll know the people who span this time. Your time is the time of the people you know and love, the time that molds you, and your time is the time of the people you will know and love, the time that you will shape. You can touch 262 years with your bare hands. Your great grandma taught you, you will teach your great granddaughter, you can have a direct impact on the future right up to the year 2186. Sydney Trent: The whipping post. The lynching tree. The wagon wheel. They were the stories of slavery, an inheritance of fear and dread, passed down from father to son. The boy, barely 5, would listen, awed, as his father spoke of life in Virgini...

Can we be sure there is a physical reality? Our philosophers and scientists debate.Looking for a link we mentioned? It's here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimes No-one who has ever stepped on a Lego brick could doubt the reality of physical objects. Yet from Heraclitus to George Berkeley, many philosophers claimed to have disproven the existence of things. Now even high-energy particle physicists are inclined to agree and describe material stuff as energy, or even as mathematical constructs. Could the world truly be made up of fields and processes, rather than physical stuff? Or is science trapped in a philosophical fantasy from which it needs to escape?Chemist and Fellow of Lincoln College Peter Atkins, Philosopher of Science at the University of Bristol James Ladyman and author of A Field Guide to Reality Joanna Kavenna debate whether the everyday objects that surround us are an illusion. Julian Baggini hosts.There are thousands of big ideas to discover at IAI.tv – videos, articles, and courses waiting for you to explore. Find out more: https://iai.tv/podcast-offers?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=a-world-of-illusionsSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Que certeza podemos ter de que o mundo que percebemos à nossa volta realmente existe? Se respondermos dizendo que podemos ver, sentir ou ouvir coisas que parecem externas à nossa própria consciência, isso levanta outra pergunta: seriam os nossos sentidos uma fonte segura de conhecimento?Faça sua inscrição em nosso curso de introdução à filosofia: https://www.udemy.com/course/introducao-a-filosofia-dos-pre-socraticos-a-sartre/?couponCode=81803A603384B1B2F4CBApoia.se: seja um de nossos apoiadores e mantenha este trabalho no ar: https://apoia.se/filosofiavermelhaNossa chave PIX: filosofiavermelha@gmail.comAdquira meu livro: https://www.almarevolucionaria.com/product-page/pr%C3%A9-venda-duvidar-de-tudo-ensaios-sobre-filosofia-e-psican%C3%A1liseA pergunta pela existência do mundo é essencialmente filosófica no sentido de que suscita inúmeras outras questões relevantes presentes também em vários outros problemas teóricos. Neste episódio nos apoiamos nas reflexões de René Descartes, George Berkeley, Immanuel Kant e Arthur Schopenhauer sobre o tema. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This is the first episode in a once monthly series exploring the top philosophy quotes of all time.  In this episode, we discuss Berkeley's To Be Is To Be Perceived, and Leibniz's This Is The Best Of All Possible Worlds.  

Introductory note on George Berkeley (Volume 37, Harvard classics)  

You would doubtless like to know how to hold your own in any argument. Read what Leslie Stephen declares the finest specimen in our language of the conduct of argument. (Volume 37, Harvard Classics)  

Este es el segundo episodio de nuestra serie sobre el empirismo, sobre el filósofo irlandés George Berkeley. Berkeley lleva el principio fundamental del empirismo—no hay conocimiento posible que no esté justificado en última instancia por la experiencia sensorial—a sus extremos lógicos, al punto de negar la existencia de las sustancias materiales del mundo.

Introductory note on George Berkeley (Volume 37, Harvard classics)  

Berkeley believed in a great religious future for America. He lived three years in Rhode Island, and made plans for a college in Bermuda. (Volume 37, Harvard Classics) Bishop Berkeley born March 12, 1685.  

Dr. Michael Egnor and Dr. Bruce Gordon discuss quantum mechanics, the nature of reality, idealism and how to interpret the finding of modern neuroscience. Prepare to cover a lot of ground on this Mind Matter News Bingecast. Show Notes 00:00:43 | Introducing Dr. Bruce Gordon 00:02:00 | Idealism 00:03:37 | Plato’s theory of forms 00:05:08 | Kantian idealism 00:09:17 |… Source

My daughter sent this Existential Comic to me. It shows three ancient philosophers competing in the Philosophy event at the Greek Olympics: Thales, who declares everything is water. Zeno, who declares motion is impossible. Socrates, who declares they're full of bulls***.Socrates won.But of course, he didn't really win: he refuted nothing.His refutation was even worse than Samuel Johnson's stone-kicking “refutation” of George Berkeley.It's a well-worn anecdote: Samuel Johnson and his companion, James Boswell, stood outside church in 1763, talking about George Berkeley's startling philosophical conclusion that matter doesn't exist.Here's how it works: We only perceive matter's characteristics. That green thing has four legs, a flat surface, and a horizontal surface. Our mind then combines those things to declare “chair.” But we don't perceive chair. We only perceive the things that comprise the chair and, therefore, the chair itself doesn't really exist. Since all things are mere combinations of other things that we perceive in their relation to other things, nothing really exists. Everything is just our ideas. All is mind. There is no matter.Boswell said, though it can't be true, it's impossible to refute.“Johnson,” Boswell wrote in his famous biography, “answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone . . . ‘I refute it thus.'”That ended the discussion, but Boswell concluded the story by noting that he would've loved to have seen a genius like Johnson contend with Berkeley since Berkeley's ideas could not be “answered by pure reasoning.” David Hume reached a similar conclusion about Berkeley's ideas: “they admit of no answer and produce no conviction.”They cannot be answered by pure reasoningZeno: There is no motion. Berkeley: There is no matter. We could add a few other philosophers into this tradition: Parmenides: There is no change. Derrida: There is no reality.None of them could be refuted but none of them convinced anyone with a shred of ingenuousness or common sense. They probably didn't even believe their own conclusions, and I can guaran-freakin'-tee to you that they didn't live by their own conclusions.But they couldn't be refuted.Why?I think that lecher (and tosspot) Boswell hit on the answer: they could not “be answered by pure reasoning.”There is something about reality that transcends reason: something not subject to reason, something that can't be defined, something that defies capture by words.Enter the realm beyond language and reasonThis piece is a follow-up of sorts to last week's post: “Are You Engaged in the Act of Existence? Then You're a Man of the Tao.”The “Act of Existence,” I pointed out last week, is prior to all else. The Act of Existence is prior to essence and attributes, which are prior to existence itself. Because the Act of Existence is prior to all else, it informs all else.Importantly, all else doesn't inform it. The part doesn't capture the whole, the son doesn't define the father.So the world of essence and existence isn't going to define the Act of Existence.Words and reason are the tools of the world of essence. Essence is prior to existence, so essence's tools paint existence as well.But the Act of Existence is prior to it all.That's how Berkeley and Zeno and Derrida can be 100% logical and 100% wrong at the same time.Ah, a paradox! Now we're getting someplaceIt's a paradox.Get used to it.Everything informed by reality (the “Reality Spectrum,” I called it last week) is a paradox. I remember listening to an interview with Ian McGilchrist last year. He was describing a roundtable discussion with other heavyweight intellectuals that hit upon two contradictory statements that were both true. One of the participants lit up and said, “Ah, a paradox! Now we're getting someplace.”Exactly.The Reality Spectrum is someplace. It's everyplace. If you deny it, you'll never get anyplace. You'll reach conclusions: but nothing will be concluded. You'll be right: but you'll be wrong.If you deny the Reality Spectrum, you're playing poker without the face cards. You might draw a straight flush, 6 through 10, and reach for the pot, then the other guy will lay down four kings. You'll see that you lost, but you won't understand why. The full deck of the Reality Spectrum transcends your partial deck of essence/existence only. The partial deck can win hands, but in the long game, the full deck will win.Maniacs are commonly great reasonersIn Chapter II of his classic book, Orthodoxy, G.K Chesterton describes “the maniac.”“Maniacs,” GKC observed, “are commonly great reasoners.”But they're still maniacs because they reason within a very closed circle.The maniac's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory.If the maniac says six guys have a conspiracy against him, then you tell him, “I spoke to each one of them. They assure me they don't,” the maniac says, “That's what conspirators would say.”And he'd be right.The argument itself can't be broken. In order to get anywhere with the maniac, you have to break open his little world.For the maniac who relies solely on reason, you have to break open his reality of essence à existence only. You have to get him to see the Act of Existence: the Tao. You need to get him on the Reality Spectrum.But you can't use reason to do it.Something else is needed.It's sometimes humor. When you juxtapose something next to the maniac's stilted reality that he didn't expect, he might laugh and inadvertently let in more reality.But sometimes something harsher is needed. A jolt of sorts. Maybe a near-death experience. Maybe the birth of a child.Or maybe someone wise just telling him he's full of bulls*** and kicking a rock at him.

Aká filozofia a teológia sa skrýva za kultovým filmom Matrix - teda trilógiou ako aj novým pokračovaním? Ako je v ňom chápaná realita a ako sa toto chápanie naprieč filmami mení? Je v Matrixe nejaký Boh? Je Neo mesiáškou postavou a pracujú tieto filmy s konceptom hriechu? ----more---- Použitá a odporúčaná literatúra: The Matrix (1999), https://bit.ly/3A5QguQ   Matrix Reloaded (2003), https://bit.ly/3FDqBL1  Matrix Revolutions (2003), https://bit.ly/3AbytlL  The Matrix Resurrections (2021), https://bit.ly/34PGNfs Jakubova recenzia/reflexia The Matrix Resurrections, https://bit.ly/3Ke592K  Súvisiace dávky: PD#119: Rozhovor s J. Malíčkom o popkultúre a Hviezdnych vojnách PD#91: Realita a Thomas Reid, http://bit.ly/davka91 PD#89: Realita a Immanuel Kant, http://bit.ly/davka89 PD#85: Realita a David Hume, http://bit.ly/davka85 PD#83: Realita a George Berkeley, http://bit.ly/davka83 PD#81: Realita a Gottfried Locke, http://bit.ly/davka81 PD#79: Realita a John Locke, http://bit.ly/davka79  PD#77: Realita - kto je na koho odkázaný?, http://bit.ly/davka77 PD#26: Zdanie, realita a Platónová jaskyňa, http://bit.ly/davka26 PD#21: Matrix, Descartes a spekticizmus, http://bit.ly/davka21    *** Baví ťa s nami rozmýšľať? ❤️ Podpor našu tvorbu ľubovoľným darom, https://bit.ly/PDdar, alebo cez Patreon, https://bit.ly/PDtreon, a čo tak štýlový merch, https://bit.ly/mercPD? Ďakujeme za podporu!

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is Cartesian Frames, Part 3: Generalizing From One Example, published by Alicorn. Related to: The Psychological Unity of Humankind, Instrumental vs. Epistemic: A Bardic Perspective "Everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do." -- Vlad Taltos (Issola, Steven Brust) My old professor, David Berman, liked to talk about what he called the "typical mind fallacy", which he illustrated through the following example: There was a debate, in the late 1800s, about whether "imagination" was simply a turn of phrase or a real phenomenon. That is, can people actually create images in their minds which they see vividly, or do they simply say "I saw it in my mind" as a metaphor for considering what it looked like? Upon hearing this, my response was "How the stars was this actually a real debate? Of course we have mental imagery. Anyone who doesn't think we have mental imagery is either such a fanatical Behaviorist that she doubts the evidence of her own senses, or simply insane." Unfortunately, the professor was able to parade a long list of famous people who denied mental imagery, including some leading scientists of the era. And this was all before Behaviorism even existed. The debate was resolved by Francis Galton, a fascinating man who among other achievements invented eugenics, the "wisdom of crowds", and standard deviation. Galton gave people some very detailed surveys, and found that some people did have mental imagery and others didn't. The ones who did had simply assumed everyone did, and the ones who didn't had simply assumed everyone didn't, to the point of coming up with absurd justifications for why they were lying or misunderstanding the question. There was a wide spectrum of imaging ability, from about five percent of people with perfect eidetic imagery1 to three percent of people completely unable to form mental images2. Dr. Berman dubbed this the Typical Mind Fallacy: the human tendency to believe that one's own mental structure can be generalized to apply to everyone else's. He kind of took this idea and ran with it. He interpreted certain passages in George Berkeley's biography to mean that Berkeley was an eidetic imager, and that this was why the idea of the universe as sense-perception held such interest to him. He also suggested that experience of consciousness and qualia were as variable as imaging, and that philosophers who deny their existence (Ryle? Dennett? Behaviorists?) were simply people whose mind lacked the ability to easily experience qualia. In general, he believed philosophy of mind was littered with examples of philosophers taking their own mental experiences and building theories on them, and other philosophers with different mental experiences critiquing them and wondering why they disagreed. The formal typical mind fallacy is about serious matters of mental structure. But I've also run into something similar with something more like the psyche than the mind: a tendency to generalize from our personalities and behaviors. For example, I'm about as introverted a person as you're ever likely to meet - anyone more introverted than I am doesn't communicate with anyone. All through elementary and middle school, I suspected that the other children were out to get me. They kept on grabbing me when I was busy with something and trying to drag me off to do some rough activity with them and their friends. When I protested, they counter-protested and told me I really needed to stop whatever I was doing and come join them. I figured they were bullies who were trying to annoy me, and found ways to hide from them and scare them off. Eventually I realized that it was a double misunderstanding. They figured I must be like them, and the only thing keeping me from playing their fun games was that I was too shy. I figured they must be like me, and that the onl...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is Cartesian Frames, Part 3: Generalizing From One Example, published by Alicorn. Related to: The Psychological Unity of Humankind, Instrumental vs. Epistemic: A Bardic Perspective "Everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do." -- Vlad Taltos (Issola, Steven Brust) My old professor, David Berman, liked to talk about what he called the "typical mind fallacy", which he illustrated through the following example: There was a debate, in the late 1800s, about whether "imagination" was simply a turn of phrase or a real phenomenon. That is, can people actually create images in their minds which they see vividly, or do they simply say "I saw it in my mind" as a metaphor for considering what it looked like? Upon hearing this, my response was "How the stars was this actually a real debate? Of course we have mental imagery. Anyone who doesn't think we have mental imagery is either such a fanatical Behaviorist that she doubts the evidence of her own senses, or simply insane." Unfortunately, the professor was able to parade a long list of famous people who denied mental imagery, including some leading scientists of the era. And this was all before Behaviorism even existed. The debate was resolved by Francis Galton, a fascinating man who among other achievements invented eugenics, the "wisdom of crowds", and standard deviation. Galton gave people some very detailed surveys, and found that some people did have mental imagery and others didn't. The ones who did had simply assumed everyone did, and the ones who didn't had simply assumed everyone didn't, to the point of coming up with absurd justifications for why they were lying or misunderstanding the question. There was a wide spectrum of imaging ability, from about five percent of people with perfect eidetic imagery1 to three percent of people completely unable to form mental images2. Dr. Berman dubbed this the Typical Mind Fallacy: the human tendency to believe that one's own mental structure can be generalized to apply to everyone else's. He kind of took this idea and ran with it. He interpreted certain passages in George Berkeley's biography to mean that Berkeley was an eidetic imager, and that this was why the idea of the universe as sense-perception held such interest to him. He also suggested that experience of consciousness and qualia were as variable as imaging, and that philosophers who deny their existence (Ryle? Dennett? Behaviorists?) were simply people whose mind lacked the ability to easily experience qualia. In general, he believed philosophy of mind was littered with examples of philosophers taking their own mental experiences and building theories on them, and other philosophers with different mental experiences critiquing them and wondering why they disagreed. The formal typical mind fallacy is about serious matters of mental structure. But I've also run into something similar with something more like the psyche than the mind: a tendency to generalize from our personalities and behaviors. For example, I'm about as introverted a person as you're ever likely to meet - anyone more introverted than I am doesn't communicate with anyone. All through elementary and middle school, I suspected that the other children were out to get me. They kept on grabbing me when I was busy with something and trying to drag me off to do some rough activity with them and their friends. When I protested, they counter-protested and told me I really needed to stop whatever I was doing and come join them. I figured they were bullies who were trying to annoy me, and found ways to hide from them and scare them off. Eventually I realized that it was a double misunderstanding. They figured I must be like them, and the only thing keeping me from playing their fun games was that I was too shy. I figured they must be like me, and that the onl...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Generalizing From One Example, published by Scott Alexander on LessWrong. Related to: The Psychological Unity of Humankind, Instrumental vs. Epistemic: A Bardic Perspective "Everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do." -- Vlad Taltos (Issola, Steven Brust) My old professor, David Berman, liked to talk about what he called the "typical mind fallacy", which he illustrated through the following example: There was a debate, in the late 1800s, about whether "imagination" was simply a turn of phrase or a real phenomenon. That is, can people actually create images in their minds which they see vividly, or do they simply say "I saw it in my mind" as a metaphor for considering what it looked like? Upon hearing this, my response was "How the stars was this actually a real debate? Of course we have mental imagery. Anyone who doesn't think we have mental imagery is either such a fanatical Behaviorist that she doubts the evidence of her own senses, or simply insane." Unfortunately, the professor was able to parade a long list of famous people who denied mental imagery, including some leading scientists of the era. And this was all before Behaviorism even existed. The debate was resolved by Francis Galton, a fascinating man who among other achievements invented eugenics, the "wisdom of crowds", and standard deviation. Galton gave people some very detailed surveys, and found that some people did have mental imagery and others didn't. The ones who did had simply assumed everyone did, and the ones who didn't had simply assumed everyone didn't, to the point of coming up with absurd justifications for why they were lying or misunderstanding the question. There was a wide spectrum of imaging ability, from about five percent of people with perfect eidetic imagery1 to three percent of people completely unable to form mental images2. Dr. Berman dubbed this the Typical Mind Fallacy: the human tendency to believe that one's own mental structure can be generalized to apply to everyone else's. He kind of took this idea and ran with it. He interpreted certain passages in George Berkeley's biography to mean that Berkeley was an eidetic imager, and that this was why the idea of the universe as sense-perception held such interest to him. He also suggested that experience of consciousness and qualia were as variable as imaging, and that philosophers who deny their existence (Ryle? Dennett? Behaviorists?) were simply people whose mind lacked the ability to easily experience qualia. In general, he believed philosophy of mind was littered with examples of philosophers taking their own mental experiences and building theories on them, and other philosophers with different mental experiences critiquing them and wondering why they disagreed. The formal typical mind fallacy is about serious matters of mental structure. But I've also run into something similar with something more like the psyche than the mind: a tendency to generalize from our personalities and behaviors. For example, I'm about as introverted a person as you're ever likely to meet - anyone more introverted than I am doesn't communicate with anyone. All through elementary and middle school, I suspected that the other children were out to get me. They kept on grabbing me when I was busy with something and trying to drag me off to do some rough activity with them and their friends. When I protested, they counter-protested and told me I really needed to stop whatever I was doing and come join them. I figured they were bullies who were trying to annoy me, and found ways to hide from them and scare them off. Eventually I realized that it was a double misunderstanding. They figured I must be like them, and the only thing keeping me from playing their fun games was that I was too shy. I figured they must be like me, and that the only re...

Monday, 11 October 2021, 4 – 5pm 'Rethinking George Berkeley's legacy' a seminar by Scott Breuninger (Virginia Commonwealth University) as part of the Trinity Centre for Early Modern History Research Seminar Series in association with Trinity Long Room Hub. The Trinity Centre for Early Modern History promotes understanding of the culture, society, economy, religion, politics and warfare of early modern Europe. The Centre organises seminars, conferences and public lectures on the early modern history of Ireland, Britain and Continental Europe, as well as on relations between European and non-European states and cultures.

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? George Berkeley would say that if a tree falls in a forest, and no one perceives the tree, then the tree didn't even exist in the first place. Berkeley is often known as the father of Idealism. Berkeley believed that there is no such thing as physical matter. All that exists, according to Berkely, are ideas. In this episode, we discuss Berkeley's surprisingly powerful arguments in defense of Idealism. As always, send your emails to TPSpodcast420@gmail.com. (previously posted the wrong description for this episode, apologies!)

When asking ourselves what is empiricism in philosophy we cannot help but speak of the  Empiricism vs. Rationalism debate that began with Descartes's cogito ergo sum of and ended with Immanuel Kant. The Empiricism of John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume — known as the British Empiricists — developed in the 17th and 18th centuries and was a very influential movement. In contrast to the Rationalists (who believed that knowledge was only possible through reason and the mind), the Empiricists maintained that experience was the only origin of knowledge. Their challenge was to show why it was not unreliable in light of Descartes's investigations in Discourse on the Method.  So in this episode, we explore all this ground as we seek to answer the question: what is empiricism?_________________

Savez-vous que les vampires ont été popularisés par un moine savant et qu'ils incarnent une sorte d'inversion du Christ ? Ne vous êtes-vous jamais aperçu de l'influence des figures religieuses dans le film fantastique ? Savez-vous que le film « Matrix » pose les questions relatives à l'apparence et la réalité à peu près dans les mêmes termes que George Berkeley, un évêque anglican du XVIIe siècle ? Ou encore, aviez-vous relevé que l'univers des « Robots » reprend à nouveaux frais les vieilles questions théologiques soulevées par la Bible sur les rapports entre le créateur et ses créatures et ses ambitions prométhéennes ? Les soi-disant « mauvais genres » littéraires que sont le fantastique, le policier, la science-fiction portent aussi à réfléchir sur la religion, la vérité, la conscience. Pour en parler, Régis Burnet reçoit les journalistes et écrivains François Angelier et Elise Lépine.

Wednesday, 19 May 2021, 1 – 2pm May 2021 marks the publication of a major new intellectual biography of Bishop George Berkeley by Tom Jones (University of St Andrews), George Berkeley: A Philosophical Life (Princeton University Press, 2021). Trinity Long Room Hub is pleased to host a conversation with Dr Jones that will centre on Berkeley's life, connections to Trinity and Ireland, and his relationship to colonialism as he moved between the ‘new' world and the ‘old'. The event is free and all are welcome. The event will be chaired by Dr Clare Moriarty. Speakers Tom Jones (St Andrews) is Reader in the School of English at the University of St Andrews. His books include Pope and Berkeley: The Language of Poetry and Philosophy and an edition of Pope's Essay on Man (Princeton). He lives in Dundee, Scotland. Kenneth Pearce (TCD) is Ussher Assistant Professor and a historian of modern philosophy and philosopher of religion at Trinity College Dublin. His historical work focuses on issues at the intersection of metaphysics, theology, and philosophy of science in 17th and 18th century philosophy, especially the work of George Berkeley Clare Moriarty (TCD) is an Irish Research Council postdoctoral fellow at the Philosophy Department and The Long Room Hub. Her work focuses on early modern philosophy and mathematics.

We can't prove if anything exists or not, and that's either really scary or does not matter at all! On this episode of Unlimited Opinions, Mark and Adam break down more of the Early Modern Philosophers from Descartes to Berkeley, as the name would suggest. They discuss Descartes' massive influence on all of modern philosophy, John Locke's brilliant political ideas, Baruch Spinoza's examination of Scripture, and George Berkeley's perception of non-existence. Also, please forgive the two moments in the podcast where the audio drops out! We would fix it, but we truthfully have very little idea how to work recording equipment, as is probably evident by this point. 

Voltaire, CandideAlexander Pope, Jonathan Swift, Willian Congreve, George Berkeley and Samuel ClarkeShakespeareUshttp://www.thebibliophiledailypodcast.carrd.cohttps://twitter.com/thebibliodailythebibliophiledailypodcast@gmail.comRoxiehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAfdi8Qagiiu8uYaop7Qvwhttp://www.chaoticbibliophile.comhttp://instagram.com/chaoticbibliophilehttps://twitter.com/NewAllegroBeat

A panel discussion with the Global Irish Network in partnership with the Trinity Long Room Hub for Arts and Humanities Research This panel will address recent debates over Ireland's links to the legacies of Empire, including the transatlantic slave economy, networks of cultural appropriation, and embedded financial inheritances, from the perspective of the Irish university and related institutions. The discussion will take its lead from current disputes over racial and imperial representations in the UK university system, notably, the controversy over the Rhodes Statue at Oriel College, Oxford, and extend these to an Irish context. In hosting this conversation, Trinity College, the oldest university on the island of Ireland, will foreground its own paradoxical allegiances: in the naming of its 1960s library building it pays tribute to philosopher George Berkeley, a one-time slave owner, but simultaneously it celebrates its association with prominent abolitionist Edmund Burke, whose statue flanks the front gate of the College. In these architectural gestures Trinity provides a springboard for wider questions: how should Irish educational and public institutions acknowledge their various imperial and colonial alliances, and to what extent should their current operations-- from capital to the curriculum -- be brought under continued scrutiny?

Locke maintained that all knowledge is acquired and initially from the senses. All forms of nature can be explained mechanically by matter in motion and the impact of one body on another. Berkeley opposed this by denying the existence of inanimate matter and demonstrating that nothing exists save spiritual activity in God's infinite mind and in human minds. Hume is the supreme sceptic. All our ideas are copied from our impressions. It is not reason which connects our ideas buts habits of mind. However hard we try we can never get away from ourselves and our perceptions.

The Art + Science Reading Group is now a virtual gathering of thinkers, researchers and the incurably curious. Organised by PhD candidates Amelia McConville (School of English and Institute of Neuroscience) and Autumn Brown (School of Education and Science Gallery Dublin) and supported by Science Gallery Dublin and the Trinity Long Room Hub, the series will explore the evolutionary and revolutionary kinship between two approaches to understanding the universe and our place within it. During the discussion Dr Moriarty reference images which you can view here while listening. https://www.tcd.ie/trinitylongroomhub/assets/documents/Mathsartandscience.pdf Last week we navigate the swerves and curves of Euclidian geometry, the language of primary colours, and some truly vicious smackdown poetry. Leading us into the deep dark world of satire and maths is philosopher extraordinaire Dr Clare Moriarty. Clare will provide an introduction to Euclid's geometry through the eyes of an Irish mathematician and rabble rouser, Oliver Byrne. Described as the 'Matisse of Mathematics', Byrne ascribed primary colours to geometry diagrams in his gorgeous edition of Euclid's Elements (link below). Byrne was a contentious fellow (firearms enthusiast trained in close hand combat) and sought to further the work of another conspicuous and disruptive mathematician, George Berkeley. Bishop Berkeley discusses the nature of a line as “breadthless length” and attempts to upend our understanding of basic geometry. We'll be examining Byrne's diagrams in contrast to the paintings of Piet Mondrian exploring the parallels between their use of primary colours, their transgressive treatment of lines and geometrical realities.

Whilst George Berkeley's visit to Livorno in 1714 may seem relatively unremarkable at first look, the content of the sermons he preached there appear significant to the attitudes and behaviours of his later life. Chief among these is Berkeley's project to establish a university or college on Bermuda, and his interest in economic reform, particularly in Ireland in the 1730s. In this paper, Tom Jones identifies the early association of missionary Anglicanism and commerce as pivotal to our understanding of the history of Berkeley's later thought.