ABSTRACT
George Berkeley’s anti-abstractionism has been most ofter presented as a theory motivated by and about John Locke’s inconsistent idea of a triangle. His purpose, it is assumed, was to show that Locke gave the wrong account of how a general term like “triangle” is used to stand for triangles. Berkeley’s theory, so interpreted, as part of a controversy with Locke, has been much discussed; but throughout this discussion, a certain anomaly has remained. Berkeley’s attack on abstract ideas is usually presented, then, as being directed towards a theory of meaning often attributed to Locke. The difficulty, then, is that the standard account of Berkeley’s attack on abstraction describes him as motivated by issues that are peripheral to his concerns, whereas Berkeley himself regards the attack as central. What is needed is a better understanding of what Berkeley thinks is revealed by his attack on abstraction.
