Berkeley's response to the Inconsistent Triad is to reject (I), the claim that physical objects are mind-independent. Three variants of this move are distinguished, between which it is argued that the differences are ultimately semantic rather than ontological. These positions are displayed as isomorphic in key respects to three more modern options available given Lewis' Humility Thesis. Reflection on the difficulties faced by all of these possibilities suggests a necessary condition upon any fully adequate defence of empirical realism. This is the condition that the explanatory grounds of our perceptual experience should be the direct objects of those very experiences.
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.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.