ABSTRACT
Geroge keley’s own position has been made quite clear: the very notion that things may exist without the mind involves ‘a manifest repugnancy’. Berkeley’s use of the word ‘intuitive’ in this context certainly suggests that to an extent at least G. W. R. Ardley and Mates are right, for as Berkeley used that term what is known intuitively neither can be demonstrated nor stands in need of demonstration. The key to understanding much that A. A. Luce says in interpretation and support of Berkeley lies in understanding that he wants to see the New Principle as amounting to a logical or conceptual truth but appreciates that, given the form in which Berkeley usually proposes it, it does not look like one. Luce in particular tends to put too much weight on the non-controversial relationship, as when, discussing Berkeley’s claim that ‘exists’ means ‘is perceived’, he says: Prima facie he has a good case.
