Manuel Fasko

The expression ‘rationalism’ is a historiographical category that refers to a set of views more or less shared by a number of philosophers active in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This period saw the heyday of metaphysical system-building, but the expression ‘rationalism’, as the term is understood in this entry, connotes primarily epistemological commitments. Since the early twentieth century, ‘rationalism’ has typically been presented in contrast with ‘empiricism’. By contrast to so-called ‘empiricism’, which traces (all) knowledge to sensory experience, ‘rationalists’ tend to rely upon the powers of reason to explain and justify what we know. This entry provides an account of the traditional narrative of early modern ‘rationalism’ while also extending that narrative to cover figures from typically under-represented backgrounds who hold commitments that can also plausibly be characterized as ‘rationalist’. The entry thus covers René Descartes (1596–1650), Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), alongside Anton Wilhelm Amo (1703–1759), Margaret Cavendish (1623–1673), and Anne Conway (1631–1679). The entry also concludes by briefly suggesting future directions for scholarship on early modern rationalism involving the application of rationalist principles in topics such as social and political philosophy, as illustrated through the writings of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz (1645–1695) and François Poulain de la Barre (1647–1723).

It may come as a surprise to those familiar with Berkeley scholarship, but Steve Daniel’s excellent George Berkeley and Early Modern Philosophy is his first monograph on a philosopher on which he has published extensively over the last two decades. Drawing from this body of work Daniel takes his reader through 18 chapters which cover a variety of issues, ranging from representation (Ch. 4) and free will (Ch. 10) to various aspects of Berkeley’s theism (Ch. 9, 14–17) and authors including Hobbes (Ch. 6), Leibniz (Ch. 13), and Spinoza (Ch. 8)

In this article, I argue in three steps that Mary Somerville changed her views on induction because of Mary Shepherd, with whom Somerville corresponded. First, I demonstrate how Somerville reworks the “induction passage” between the first and third editions of Connexion of the Physical Sciences (1834–36). Second, I introduce the fundamentals of Shepherd’s understanding of causation and the “causal likeness principle” (CLP)—that is, like causes must have like effects. In the fourth section, I argue that two of Somerville’s changes are the result of Shepherd’s criticism. First, Somerville ceases to characterize the CLP as an intuitive belief—consistent with Shepherd’s commitment to the demonstrability of the CLP. Second, Somerville stops to write in a way that suggests she is equating the CLP with induction, tout court. Finally, I emphasize the exchange’s significance, which contains a still rare example in the history of philosophy of science of two women thinkers engaged in a conversation about their own views. Furthermore, their exchange gives further credence to the notion that Somerville should be taken seriously as a (natural) philosopher.

In this paper we provide the first in-depth analysis of Anton Wilhelm Amo’s 1734 Tractatus de Arte Sobrie et Accurate Philosophandi by examining the fundamental role that intention plays in this work. Specifically, we argue that the ‘Intentional Principle’, which states that everything that exists (except for God) is the effect of an intentional action, is key to understanding his account of the operations of human and divine spirits and his account of what exists (and why). In doing so, we demonstrate that Amo was a systematic thinker with intention underpinning his philosophical system. Furthermore, we show that intentions are key to understanding Amo’s views on what the ends of philosophy are and how philosophical inquiry ought to be pursued.

This paper considers the question whether the Scottish philosopher Mary Shepherd (1777–1847) endorses a form of nonconceptualism about mental states or their content. While the paper does not arrive at a definitive answer to the question, it paves the way to answering it in the future by demonstrating that there are prima facie promising ways to relate Shepherd to either of the previously mentioned forms of nonconceptualism – although I tentatively conclude that, ultimately, it will be more profitable to consider her views in the context of content nonconceptualism. In arguing the way it does, this paper, then, also aims to bridge the often-lamented gap between the history of philosophy and our contemporary debates.

In this paper, I argue for a novel interpretation of Shepherd's notion of selfhood. In distinction to Deborah Boyle's interpretation, I contend that Shepherd differentiates between the mind and the self. The latter, for Shepherd, is an effect arising from causal interactions between mind and body—specifically those interactions that give rise to our present stream of consciousness, our memories, and that can unite these two. Thus, the body plays a constitutive role in the formation of the self. The upshot of this interpretation is that it can dissolve the problem of individuating mind that Boyle identifies. Briefly, the problem consists in Shepherd seemingly individuating minds in terms of their associated bodies and bodies in terms of the minds they are united with. My interpretation, however, allows to see that Shepherd neither wants nor needs to individuate the mind in isolation of the body and to read the passages, in which the problem seems to arise, as being about what makes living beings individual—with mind and body both playing a crucial role in this context.

My goal in this paper is to reconstruct Anthony Collins’ challenge to the authority of orthodox Anglican figures, which arises due to arguments Collins develops in his Vindication of the Divine Attributes (1710) and Discourse on Free-Thinking (1713). In addition to shedding light on a hitherto underappreciated argument by Collins, my reconstruction allows me to propose a solution to the interpretive problem posed by §§16–22 of the fourth dialogue of Berkeley’s Alciphron (1732). While it has been acknowledged that Collins looms large in the background of these sections, Berkeley’s argumentative strategy has remained perplexing to commentators, particularly his references to several Scholastic thinkers. I argue that we can make sense of Berkeley’s strategy and references if we appreciate that these sections are intended to evade Collins’ challenge.

Manuel Fasko argues for a twofold thesis. First, he shows that, across Berkeley’s writings, there is evidence of a commitment to several different groups of resemblance relation: relations of generic likeness (between two things of the same genus); relations of specific likeness (between two ideas of the same sense modality); and natural resemblance or identity of nature (between ideas of the imagination and the ideas of sense of which they are copies). Second, Fasko argues that the third kind of resemblance relation, natural resemblance or identity of nature, is a necessary and sufficient condition for one thing (an idea of imagination) to represent another (an idea of sensation). Thus, albeit indirectly, Fasko pushes back on Bartha’s thesis that for Berkeley, representation does not depend on resemblance. For Fasko clarifies the necessary and sufficient conditions required for resemblance-based mental representation.

This volume focuses on Berkeley's doctrine of signs. The 'doctrine of signs' refers to the use that Berkeley makes of a phenomenon that is central to a great deal of everyday discourse: one whereby certain perceivable entities are made to stand in for (as 'signs' of) something else. Things signified might be other perceivable entities or they might also be unperceivable notions - such as the meanings of words. From his earliest published work, A New Theory of Vision in 1710, to those works written towards the end of life, including Alciphron in 1732, Berkeley is at pains to emphasise the crucial role that sign-usage, particularly (but not only) in language, plays in human life. Berkeley also connects sign-usage to our (human) relationship with God: an issue that was right of the heart of his philosophical project. The contributions in this volume explore the myriad ways that Berkeley built on such insights to better understand a range of philosophical issues - issues of epistemology, language, perception, mental representation, mathematics, science, and theology. The aim of this volume is to establish that the doctrine of signs can be seen as one of the unifying themes of Berkeley's philosophy. What's more, this theme is one which spans his whole philosophical corpus; not just his best-known works like the Principles and the Three Dialogues, but also his works on science, mathematics, and theology.

We examine Margaret Cavendish’s ecological views and argue that, in the Appendix to her final published work, Grounds of Natural Philosophy (1668), Cavendish is defending a normative account of the way that humans ought to interact with their environment. On this basis, we argue that Cavendish is committed to a form of what, for the purposes of this paper, we call ‘deep ecology,’ where that is understood as the view that humans ought to treat the rest of nature as something of intrinsic value. The reading of Cavendish we defend in this paper also commits her to a naturalistic account of ‘moral facts’ about how humans ought to interact with their environment. That is, on our reading of Cavendish, ‘moral facts’ (i.e., facts about how we ought and ought not to behave, and what it is right or wrong for us to do) are grounded in facts about nature—and, in Cavendish’s case, its (ir)regularity. Such facts are hypothetical, rather than categorical: they are facts about how we ought to act if we wish to attain happiness or flourishing. We thus contend that Cavendish anticipates, at least loosely speaking, movements in both deep ecology and in naturalistic meta-ethics that came to prominence well after the time in which she was writing.

‘British Empiricism’ is a name traditionally used to pick out a group of eighteenth-century thinkers who prioritised knowledge via the senses over reason or the intellect and who denied the existence of innate ideas. The name includes most notably John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. The counterpart to British Empiricism is traditionally considered to be Continental Rationalism that was advocated by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, all of whom lived in Continental Europe beyond the British Isles and all embraced innate ideas. This article characterizes empiricists more broadly as those thinkers who accept Locke’s Axiom that there is no idea in the mind that cannot be traced back to some particular experience. It includes British-Irish Philosophy from the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century. As well as exploring the traditional connections among empiricism and metaphysics and epistemology, it examines how British empiricists dealt with issues in moral philosophy and the existence and nature of God. The article identifies some challenges to the standard understanding of British Empiricism by including early modern thinkers from typically marginalised groups, especially women. Finally, in showing that there is nothing uniquely British about being an empiricist, it examines a particular case study of the eighteenth-century philosopher Anton Wilhelm Amo, the first African to receive a doctorate in Europe.

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, I argue that Mary Shepherd has a dispositional understanding of God, matter, and finite minds. That is, she understands all of them as dispositions or powers (two terms I will use interchangeably). Second, I aim to shed light on the emanationist picture suggested by Shepherd’s remarks in her second book Essays on the Perception of an External Universe (EPEU). For instance, Shepherd calls ‘animate’ and ‘inanimate nature’ a divine ‘emanation’ (EPEU 190) and describes finite beings as ‘outgoings’ that come ‘forth’ from God (EPEU 189, 190, 219). Because of this emanationist language, in conjunction with Shepherd’s dispositional understanding of God, matter, and mind, it is helpful to use Jennifer McKitrick’s (2003) distinction between bare and based disposition. For Shepherd’s remarks suggest that the powers that are matter and finite minds are akin to based dispositions because they are caused by and subsist in virtue of God. But since God – ‘THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE’ (ERCE 119) ‘who began not to be’ (EPEU 219) is also a power, the Deity functions similarly to a bare or ungrounded disposition, while matter and finite minds are similar to a ‘based dispositions’ (McKitrick 2003)

Contra Todd Ryan’s interpretation, I argue that it is possible to reconstruct a metaphysical argument that does not restrict likeness in general to ideas. While I agree with Ryan that Berkeley’s writings provide us with the resources to reconstruct such an argument, I disagree with Ryan that this argument entails a restriction of likeness to ideas. Unlike Ryan, I argue that Berkeley is not committed to the claim that we can compare only ideas, but to the view that the only thing that can be compared to an idea is another idea.

In her last known piece of work Lady Mary Shepherd’s Metaphysics (1832), Mary Shepherd writes that “mind, may inhere in definite portions of matter […] or of infinite space” (LMSM 699). Shepherd thus suggests that a mind – a “capacity for sensation in general” (e.g., EPEU 16) – may have a spatial location. This is prima facie surprising given that she is committed to the view that the mind is unextended. In this paper, we argue that Shepherd can consistently honor both of these commitments. We argue, first, that even though finite minds, due to their unextendedness cannot, to use Shepherd’s term, ‘occupy’ space as material bodies do, such minds can nonetheless be said to have a spatial location in virtue of what we call their presence, or what Shepherd calls ‘inherence’, in a material body. Second, we argue that, in a similar way, the divine mind is present throughout the whole of space and is thus omnipresent. We then argue that, in contrast to finite minds, the divine mind does not require a body to be present in space. Rather, we contend, God’s omnipresence might be best understood in a ‘holenmerist’ sense, where the divine mind is wholly present in every part of creation.

This paper explores the role that Mary Shepherd's (1777–1847) acceptance of the so-called imago-dei thesis plays for her account of the human mind. That is, it analyses Shepherd's commitment to the doctrine that humans are created in the image of God, (see Gen. 1, 26–7) parts of which Shepherd quotes in Essays on the Perception of an External Universe (EPEU), 157, and the ways it informs her understanding of the human mind. In particular, it demonstrates how this thesis informs her understanding of the cognitive and moral capacities of the human mind. In other words, I argue that her commitment to this thesis explains why she believes that human beings are capable of reaching the “higher acquirement of intelligence” and the “completion of virtuous habits” (EPEU 381). Thus, this paper highlights the relevance of Shepherd's theological assumptions to (the ever-growing number of) scholars interested in her understanding of the mind.

This is a short scholarly note about my retrieval an original copy of the Daily Post-Boy issue no. 7024 from September 9th,1732 from a private seller. In this issue we find an anonymous letter addressed to Berkeley which gave rise to him writing the Theory of Vision Vindicated. While Berkeley Berkeley appended a copy of the anonymous critic’s letter to TVV, until now an original copy of The Daily Post-Boy issue had yet to be discovered. I have donated the original copy to the Marsh's Library in Dublin, but you will find a scan of the original document attached to the note.

The aims of this paper are twofold. First, I offer a new insight into Shepherd’s theory of mind by demonstrating that she distinguishes a threefold ‘Variety of Intellect’, that is, three kinds of minds grouped according to their cognitive limitations. Following Shepherd, I call them (i) minds afflicted with idiocy, (ii) inferior understandings, and (iii) sound understandings. Second, I show how Shepherd’s distinction informs her theory of education. While Shepherd claims that her views serve to improve educational practices, she does not explain how her threefold ‘Variety of intellect’ does so. I argue that Shepherd’s distinction contributes to her aim by providing pedagogues with a more comprehensive grasp of the various cognitive limitations of the people in their care. This allows the former to adjust their expectations and to provide need-oriented guidance.

Was ist George Berkeleys Auffassung des sinnlich wahrnehmbaren Naturgeschehens? Sie zu erklären und nachzuvollziehen ist Ziel des Bandes. Er zeigt, dass Berkeley das Naturgeschehen als einen göttlichen Diskurs sieht; das visuell Wahrgenommene ist dabei die Sprache. Berkeley beharrt darauf, diese These der göttlichen Sprache wörtlich auszulegen, da sie Grundlage eines seiner Ansicht nach einzigartigen Gottesbeweises ist. Um Berkeleys Argumentation zu verstehen, muss man sich auch mit den (historischen) Umständen beschäftigen, in welchen er diese These entwickelt und verteidigt. Deshalb wird sie im ersten Teil in ihren diachronen und synchronen historischen Kontext eingebettet. Die zweite Hälfte ist dann einer kritischen Rekonstruktion von Berkeleys These gewidmet.

William Molyneux was born in Dublin, studied in Trinity College Dublin, and was a founding member of the Dublin Philosophical Society (DPS), Ireland’s counterpart to the Royal Society in London. He was a central figure in the Irish intellectual milieu during the Early Modern period and – along with George Berkeley and Edmund Burke – is one of the best-known thinkers to have come out of that context and out of Irish thought more generally. In 1688, when Molyneux wrote the letter to Locke in which he posed the now famous question about a man born blind made to see, he was an active member of the DPS and was on familiar terms with several other key figures in Irish philosophy at the time. For the most part, Irish thinkers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries answered “no” to Molyneux’s question of whether a blind man made to see could distinguish, by sight alone, between a cube and a sphere.

In this paper, we focus on Berkeley's reasons for accepting the ‘resemblance thesis’ which entails that for one thing to represent another those two things must resemble one another. The resemblance thesis is a crucial premise in Berkeley's argument from the ‘likeness principle’ in §8 of the Principles. Yet, like the ‘likeness principle’, the resemblance thesis remains unargued for and is never explicitly defended. This has led several commentators to provide explanations as to why Berkeley accepts the resemblance thesis and why he also takes his opponents to do so too. We provide a contextual answer to this question, focusing on epistemological discussions concerning resemblance and representation in Early Modern Irish Philosophy. We argue that the resemblance thesis is implicit in early responses to William Molyneux's famous example of the ‘man born blind made to see’ and trace the ‘Molyneux man’ thought experiment as it is employed by Irish thinkers such as William King and Berkeley himself. Ultimately, we conclude that Berkeley's acceptance of the resemblance thesis can be explained by the Irish intellectual climate in which he was writing.