berkeley

We might call it a neo-Berkeleian argument, but I think it is close enough to Berkeley's intentions to just call it plain vanilla 'Berkeleianism' .

Even such pillars of 'Berkeleianism' as the likeness principle were anticipated by the skeptics.

Nonetheless he helps the reader to understand where Berkeley was coming from, and throws up some challenges against 'Berkeleianism' as a metaphysical theory.

Mach does not ask himself such embarrassing questions when he mechanically jumbles fragments of 'Berkeleianism' with the views of natural science, which instinctively adheres to the materialist theory of knowledge.

No evasions, no sophismsu2026 can remove the clear and indisputable fact that Ernst Mach's doctrine that things are complexes of sensations is subjective idealism and a simple rehash of 'Berkeleianism' .