There is much that could be said in criticism of this paper, but the primary reason for rejection is that the whole argument turns upon a misquotation.
The author's main claim is that the two arguments which appear on p.135 of the Penguin Classics (ed. Woolhouse) edition of the Three Dialogues (pp.185-6 of Jessop & Luce, which is the standard reference for Berkeley and it is annoying that the author does not use it) have different conclusions. The first, allegedly, concludes the falsity of ‘VII. Mind-independent sensible things have those qualities that they are perceived to have’, whereas the second the falsity of ‘VI. Sensible qualities are parts of [inhere in] mind-independent sensible things’. The author quotes the first argument at length on p.8 prior to reconstructing it, a quotation which ends ‘From all of this, shouldn’t it seem to follow that all colors are equally apparent, and that none of the ones that we see are really in any outer object?’. This text is what appears in Jonathan Bennett’s www.earlymoderntexts.org edition of Berkeley, which does not claim to be faithful to the original and in this case is quite clearly not faithful. What Berkeley actually wrote was: ‘From all of which, should it not seem to follow, that all the colours are equally apparent, and that none of those which we perceive are really inherent in any outward object?’. Apart from the utterly outrageous sloppiness of using a paraphrastic edition aimed at undergraduates in a research article submitted to an elite scholarly journal, and the intellectual dishonesty of giving a reference to the impeccably edited Penguin Classics edition rather than the actual source of the quoted passage, this error shows the author’s argument to be simply mistaken: Berkeley takes VII, the claim about inherence, to be part of the conjunctive conclusion of the first argument.
I would be loathe to impute deliberate deception here, but it is worth noting that while both the quotations illustrating the alleged two versions of the Argument from Perceptual Relativity come from earlymoderntexts.org, the quotations from the Principles on p.1 of the manuscript do appear to come from the Penguin Classics edition, making clear the author had it or a similarly accurate text to hand and wasn’t working entirely from the Bennett paraphrastic edition."--Referee, or Anonymous.
1. Someone in the profession not being able to see the dangers of using earlymoderntexts.org and what this says about (i) academic standards (why think anything less than the best scholarly edition will do*) in Philosophy as a discipline and (ii) how earlymoderntexts.org might be misleading our students about how scholarship is to be done.2. Referencing a print edition when you have actually used an online source (and without checking the accuracy of the online source).This behaviour would be regarded as highly unprofessional and cast doubt on someone's suitability for an academic job in other humanities disciplines, but seems to be tolerated in (anglophone?) philosophy.
Moreover, it makes sense to check Bennett's translations when preparing a journal article. His decisions are always worth reflecting one. He is a fantastic philosopher's philosopher who also has spent a near-life-time with these texts. I also think it's fine to use his text in one's argument if one recognizes potential objections to doing so. But yes, when preparing a journal article it's best to look at the best scholarly edition and, if you are not capable of forming your own judgment, to ask around what translation the real specialists are using.
- less convoluted syntax and shorter sentences - show/hide examples
- numbering of points
- indenting of passages that are helped by such a display
- replacement of obsolete words with current ones
- replacement of still-current words used in meanings that are now obsolete - show/hide examples
- I sometimes insert, between small ·dots·, material that makes the author’s meaning clearer or more explicit - show/hide example
- I use •bullets to make formal aspects of the text more easily accessible - show/hide example
- Sometimes I omit a passage that doesn’t earn its keep, signifying this by . . . . a four-point ellipsis, just to keep things moving along at a good pace - show/hide examples
- On a few occasions I relocate part of one paragraph in the following paragraph, where it is more at home. - show/hide example
- Sometimes I interpose a remark or explanation of my own in small type within [square brackets] - show/hide examples
- Sometimes I replace a passage in the original text by a briefer and/or clearer description of its main content. These replacements are in normal-sized type and within [square brackets] - show/hide example