Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Philosophical Interpretations$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Robert J. Fogelin

Print publication date: 1992

Print ISBN-13: 9780195071627

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003

DOI: 10.1093/019507162X.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 23 April 2019

Hume and Berkeley on the Proofs of Infinite Divisibility

Hume and Berkeley on the Proofs of Infinite Divisibility

(p.45) 3 Hume and Berkeley on the Proofs of Infinite Divisibility
Philosophical Interpretations

Robert J. Fogelin (Contributor Webpage)

Oxford University Press

Berkeley, and Hume following him, rejected the doctrine that lines, e.g., are infinitely divisible. They both thought that the notion of infinite divisibility lead to paradoxical results. To avoid these paradoxes, they adopted the view that a line is composed of finitely many minimal parts. In addition, Berkeley argued, successfully it seems, that all the standard geometrical proofs for infinite divisibility are, in fact, question‐begging.

Keywords:   Berkeley, Hume, infinite divisibility

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .