Revise
Locke believes words signify thing by signifying ideas. Ideas intervene between words and the world and their intervention determines what in the world the words refer. On Berkeley’s account of Locke, a word signifies a class of things because the intervening idea is somehow abstract or general in its own right. General words come to be made by being made the signs of general ideas which in turn become general by being separated from ideas that are linked to a particular existence. In this way they can represent more individuals than one each having conformity to the abstract idea. But this is suspicious to Berkeley because it is difficult to see what this idea would be like. For example, with the general idea of man, it cannot represent a particular man because that idea has already been assigned. Since a word must be fully determined by the associated idea allowing an idea to represent sometimes a particular and sometimes a general result in a looseness of fit between ideas and the world. Thus, the idea of a general man must be the product of some kind of mental manufacturing. For example, the idea of a general man must have color and shape but it cannot have a particular color and shape without endangering its generality. Because there cannot be abstract images, there cannot be abstract ideas. A similar problem arises for colors. A specific color such as scarlet cannot be abstracted from its shape therefore there are no general colors.1
A general idea can be seen as a separation of the general quality of manhood from specific qualities of individual men thus a general idea is actually a complex of ideas. Each of the ideas in the complex will be general rather than specific. In abstracting the general quality we separate each of the general qualities from the specific qualities falling under them. We form a number of abstract ideas and keep t5hem together in a cluster separated from specific qualities but not from each other. Berkely thinks this calls for an image it is beyond our capacity to form. Few contemporary philosophers have been convinced by this argument. His argument will miss the mark if we think of ideas in another way. Berkeley’s failure is a personal one and if we cannot conceive of a general idea, we must confess to inattention. Yet these complaints are less important and Berkeley’s argument goes deeper than it.2
Argument and Objections
Abstraction is the belief the mind can separate what is common and alike in objects considering apart and separating out that which is common and alike in all forming an abstract idea. This is a process of generalization. For example, a person sees multiple people and separates out from them the general idea of man. In Berkeley’s argument against abstraction, consider the idea of a triangle. This involves the separation of triangularity- the complex of qualities triangles share- to the inessential qualities some triangles have and others lack. Clearly, triangularity occurs whenever triangles do. However, the question is whether triangularity can exist by itself. Berkeley believes this is not true, claiming that all entities are particular. Berkeley is contrasting his position to the position of Locke. It follows that the content of our thinking is determined by the idea we confront in thought. Therefore, there is no way of distinguishing between conceiving nothing but triangularity and conceiving of the separate existence of triangularity. It follows that forming the separate existence of triangularity is impossible. Since what is impossible is inconsistent, and what is inconsistent cannot be conceived, it follows that there is no such thing as abstract ideas.3
It can be objected that god really can create the abstract ideas that Berkeley expounds. Berkeley thinks abstract ideas are, like four sided triangles, inconsistent. But Wrinkler believes abstract ideas are different. The idea of a particular triangle is consistent, so how can we come up with something inconsistent simply by removing a certain part of it? Wrinkler believes Locke accepts every premise in Berkeley’s case against abstraction. However, the argument depends for its success on a suppressed premise. Locke makes the distinction between conceiving of nothing but triangularity and conceiving of its separate existence. Thus, Locke sees abstraction as selective attention- the abstract idea of a triangle involves looking at different triangles and focusing on what they have in common. To conceive of triangles as selective attention is to deny the content assumption– the assumption that the content of thought is determined by its object. On the view Wrinkler is suggesting may be Locke’s, we think of one triangle or triangularity in general depending on how much of the idea we attend to. So Berkeley’s argument only succeeds ad hominem in that it attacks not any position but the position of a concrete opponent. Several scholars have argued that Locke conceives of abstraction as selective attention.4
Analysis
First, I want to say that Berkeley conceiving of abstraction as selective attention is a much milder form of abstract ideas than most versions. Thus it is more permissible than other variants. Secondly, I deny that Locke actually accepts every premise that Berkley endorses or that Locke actually denies the content assumption. These innovations are probably more recent and reflect the construals of analytic philosophy. Thirdly don’t believe the content assumption can be denied. For suppose you are abstracting in the sense of focusing on what different triangles have in common. If you are doing that you are either focusing on the original triangle or you are superimposing an additional triangle on top of the original triangles. In order to abstract the triangles you must picture an entirely different triangle in which case you are adding a specific color to that triangle just as the original triangles. There is no such thing as sele3ctive attention any selective attention requires a completely seperate image which requires its own unique colors and traits.
Idealism Studies 