Berkeley on meaning, truth, and assent

Abstract

ABSTRACT An interpretation of Berkeley’s theory of meaning must account for operative utility as well as Berkeley’s commitment to the truth of Christian scriptures. I argue that formalist and use-theoretic interpretations of Berkeley are incompatible with his claims that scriptures are universally true. I propose an alternative reading focused on Berkeley’s defense of reasonable assent to scripture in the absence of ideas signified by them. For Berkeley, the meaning of scripture is constituted by ideas in other minds (particularly, the divine mind). That meaning is known to God and mediately perceived by finite minds. Nevertheless, Berkeley thinks that scriptures have operative utility that is evidence of their truth. That evidence makes it reasonable for finite minds to assent to scriptures even when those minds lack immediately perceived ideas signified by them.