Berkeley’s critique of Malebranche and the archetype

Similarities between Berkeley’s and Malebrance’s philosophies have been discussed in the reception of the era for long. Yet Berkeley often argued against the most important tenet of Malebrance’s occasionalism, namely that one sees everything in God. For instance, in his criticism of the second act of Three Dialogues, Berkeley claims that in God one perceives one’s ideas rather than God’s ideas. This paper sets out to reinterpret Berkeley’s criticism of Malebrance. This brings two results: on the one hand, the reinterpretation of Berkeley’s complicated notion of archetypes. On the other hand, indirectly, this reinterpretation reveals differences between Berkeley’s and Malebranche’s philosophies that often evade attention.