This paper critically analyzes George Berkeley's first argument against the existence of matter presented in "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge."
2,220 words (approx. 8.9 pages), 0 sources, 2002, $ 68.95
Abstract In this paper, the writer critically examines Berkeley's first line of argument against the existence of matter that he presents in "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge". This argument is frequently called "the Perception Argument" and is his first attempt to more firmly establish his central thesis of existence being tied into perception. The paper thoroughly explains the argument and presents Berkeley's responses to the most immediate objections that come up to it (the objections that are actually addressed in the text of his treatise). The writer also examines briefly how Berkeley's argument serves to contradict arguments regarding material substance made by Locke in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". The paper then offers a more robust objection to Berkeley's Perception Argument that attacks some key assumptions that the argument clearly relies on, specifically those regarding relationships between matter and ideas that Berkeley clearly assumes do not exist. The objection is furthered by examining the sections where Berkeley assumes that matter does exist in an attempt to show that such an assumption involves manifest contradictions.
From the Paper " Over the course of reading A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, it becomes evident that Berkeley is not so much trying to convince the reader of a certain opinion of the nature of the world and our perception of it as much as he is trying to present his actual, everyday perception of the world and his existence in it. Berkeley repeatedly says things like, "Some truths there are so near and obvious to the mind, that a man need only open his eyes to see them," (?6) that suggest the intuitive obviousness that he sees in his doctrine. Frequently, a tone of frustration comes through in his writing - especially in the sections dealing with possible objections to his theory (?34-84) - illustrative of the difficulty he must have been feeling in trying to get everyone else to see what was so damn obvious to him. As such, many of Berkeley's arguments in support of his particular fundamental beliefs seem to be afterthoughts of their respective conclusions. His vision of the nature of existence being grounded in "esse is percipi" (?3) is so strong that he does not always seem to be too concerned with the particular logic behind his supporting arguments. This is especially true when it comes to his arguments denying the existence of matter. In this paper, I will argue that, while Berkeley's conclusion regarding the non-existence of matter is quite profound, his actual arguments for this conclusion do not sufficiently verify it. To do this, I will examine the first argument Berkeley makes against the existence of matter, the so-called "Perception Argument." I will argue that this argument relies heavily on a fallacious line of reasoning about the nature of matter and the inability of matter to cause ideas in us. I will then examine several passages in Principles that support the idea that Berkeley's belief that matter does not exist is grounded largely in his - or anyone else's - inability to really define what matter is. "
This paper discusses the philosopher George Berkeley's concept of immaterialism, his subsequent argument for the existence of God, and the reasons why his argument cannot be accepted as being valid.
Abstract An intricate discussion of philosopher George Berkeley's concept of immaterialism and his subsequent argument for the necessary existence of a Supreme Being, or God. The author outlines and analyzes Berkeley's two major philosophical treatises, and the main arguments found in each are clearly defined and presented in a succinct, yet detailed manner. Philosophical ideas/concepts discussed include the "Likeness Principle" and the variability of sensory experience. The paper then presents Berkeley's argument for the existence of God, which builds upon the already established theory of immaterialism by discussing the distinction between absolute and relative existence.
From the Paper "Immaterialism, as defined by Berkeley, is the idea that it is impossible for any sensible qualities whatsoever to exist independent of a mind (Berkeley 1965, 5-6). This argument is brought forth succinctly and clearly in the Dialogues, in which Berkeley presents his case through the character of Philonous, and defends it against criticism by the character of Hylas. Although there are many aspects in both Principles and the Dialogues that contribute to the overall argument for immaterialism, for the purpose of this essay, only two of the strongest points will be discussed- the argument from variability and the likeness principle.
One of the key features of Berkeley's argument for immaterialism centers on the variability of one's sensory experiences in comparison to another?s. He notes that each individual perceives the world differently, whether in terms of smell, taste, sight, or touch. One of the ways in which this variability of sensory experiences is presented by Philonous to Hylas is during a discussion between the two concerning taste. Philonous points out that although a certain food may taste pleasant to one person, that same food may taste awful to another. "How could this be", Philonous asks Hylas, "if taste was something really inherent in the food"? (Berkeley 1998, [180]) There is only apparent taste, and this requires dependence on a mind. The same argument is also applied to smell, touch, sight, extension, motion, and solidity, and is reasoned to be just as effective. Perceptual variability occurs with these senses/qualities as well, and none of the apparent smells or colors seem to be any more real than any other ([68-78])."
Abstract This paper describes the life and philosophy of 18th century Irish philosopher, George Berkeley and discusses his theory of idealism. The paper considers whether Berkeley's idealism represents most people's commonsense view of the world and concludes that, though intriguing and well argued, Berkeley's analysis is not commonsensical.
From the Paper "Does George Berkeley's idealism represent most people's commonsense view of the world? Though intriguing and well argued, Berkeley's analysis is not commonsensical. George Berkeley lived from 1685 until 1753. He was born in Ireland, educated in Dublin, and even spent some time in Bermuda trying to convert the local population to Christianity. In 1734 he was made Bishop of Cloyne (Frost 277-278). Berkeley was an idealist and expanded upon the work of John Locke. He asked, if the basis of knowledge is sensations and our reflections upon those sensations, how can we know a distinct world exists? In other words, we only have our minds to go on. Perception is the rule by which the universe is measured. As such, perception is tantamount to existence."
Abstract This philosophical study examines the basis of knowledge and ideas within the works of George Berkeley and David Hume. By realizing that Berkeley does not define reality through the human sensory apparatus, human beings can only realize the world around them as ideas that exist only within the mind. Hume also agrees with this philosophy through his empirical perspective, but is not absolutist in realizing how nature and faith act as 'guides' in human perception of the world.
Abstract In this article, the writer shows that George Berkeley successfully refutes Descartes' argument that material objects have an existence separate from the mind and ideas. The writer maintains that Berkeley introduces systematic doubt, the same way that Descartes does. But instead of concluding that God is a deceiver, he proposes that perception must necessarily be imperfect. The writer discusses Berkeley's belief that material objects exist in the mind of God, and there can be no existence apart from perceiver and perceived. The writer concludes that Descartes' argument concerning the deception of God is a fallacy and that Berkeley successfully refutes Descartes' proposition.
From the Paper "In the process of systematic doubt Descartes shows that every part of phenomenal reality can be doubted, except the native mind that thinks, because doubt itself implies thought. At this point Descartes is certain of only one thing, and that is his own mind that thinks and doubts. The next step is to consider the ultimate creator of this mind, which must be a perfect being, because any imperfection will necessitate a further creator of less imperfection. The mind does not create itself, because it doubts, and therefore is imperfect. From this Descartes establishes the existence of God, as the Creator and the most perfect being. Because His nature is of the highest perfection, Descartes deduces that God is not a deceiver. From a parallel strand of argument he has established that the mind perceives material objects clearly and distinctly. Taking the two arguments together Descartes concludes that material objects must have existence."
Abstract This paper discusses how George Berkeley's beliefs are in direct contrast to those of Locke and Hume concerning the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of being. It examines how, to Berkeley, there really are no "things" and how nothing actually exists except when perceived by a human being. It looks at how he takes his beliefs further and initiates the modern conception, in some quarters, that we are all simply part of God's dream. It also discusses how Berkeley posits that every object we experience as "real" or "solid" or made of matter actually is simply a construct created by God for human convenience, or inconvenience as the case may be.
From the Paper "To prove his point, Berkeley used the analogy of the chair. He asks that we imagine a person alone in the world and without language. There are all sorts of physical things around this person, including rocks, rivers, mountains and chairs. She can see them, perceive them, but has no words to describe them or refer to them. Berkeley asks if she can think about them anyway, and he proposes that she can. ?Thoughts, like words, have the capacity to refer to things, a capacity they do not owe to language.? (quoted by Winkler 1) Berkeley goes beyond that, noting that although we could use the word chair to refer to a table, we could not use the thought chair to refer to table. Calling up the thought of table produces a perception that is table, not chair. (Winkler 1)"
Abstract In this article, the writer shows that the epistemologies of Locke and Berkeley are essentially the same, even though they are opposed on the question of whether there is an independent existence of matter beyond the mind. The writer argues that Locke does not espouse strict materialism, and neither does Berkeley espouse strict immaterialism. The writer maintains that they both conclude that nothing can be known beyond the ideas of the mind, and even if there was a separate existence of matter, the qualities of a material object will have nothing in common with the ideas that they create in the mind. The writer argues that Locke's position is superior to that of Berkeley's because it forms the basis of inquiry.
From the Paper "With this provision out of the way, Locke goes on to claim that there are certain ideas which do bear resemblance to the object being observed. The ideas of extension, solidity, shape and motion are indeed said to reside in the object itself. These aspects of matter are intuited, and form what Locke terms primary qualities. This is why we have such clear ideas of a thing's shape, its solidity and its motion. Nobody is seen to argue about these things, and physicists make a study out of them, and we all seem to agree with physics. Locke explains that this is because things really do exist in the object. All other ideas, termed as secondary, are derived from the primary ones, and compounded from them in various ways. In this way color, taste, smell, texture etc are all secondary qualities. These ideas are characterized by their relative nature, so that no two observers are able to agree exactly on a quality like taste or color. At the same time they are not as distinct as are the simple ideas. "
Abstract This paper analyzes George Berkeley's immaterial hypothesis which states that only what is perceived by the mind exists. Therefore, material objects, those perceivable by the senses, are only ideas and sensations, collected and stored in the mind that perceives them and because only rational beings have minds, only they (or persons) exist. It shows how the mind, to Berkeley, is the deepest reality since it is the producer of ideas, which are things that can be perceived and how matter is, to him, not an objective reality, but only a collection and composition of sensible qualities that exist in the mind.
From the Paper "His third argument centered on the ascent of the soul from the world to God. Beginning from gross sense perceptions, and through gradual evolution from the lower faculties of the soul, the finite soul arrives at the highest. Sense contributes images to memory, which become subjects that fancy can work on. Reason then judges the imagination and become new objects of understanding. One low faculty leads to a higher one, the uppermost leading to God, the object of intellectual knowledge, the discursive faculty and the sensitive faculty as well. This shows that the lowest or basest is linked to the highest through a chain of a system of beings."
This paper attempts to present some of the key topics that Locke and Berkeley were concerned with and demonstrates the unique way that each approached philosophical questions.
Abstract The writer compares and contrasts Locke and Berkeley who were both philosophers who dealt with very similar issues in their works, but came up with radically different conclusions. Both used logical technique in forming their arguments, but because their initial assumptions and world views were so different, so was the result of their arguments.
From the Paper "Locke was opposed to the concept of innate knowledge. In his arguing against that principle, or the principle of innateness, Locke uses a two-fold general strategy. First, he shows that the common belief in innateness is not necessarily valid. Next, he shows how all of the knowledge that is generally considered to be innate could be acquired. In the course of making these arguments, Locke draws on the writings of Descartes in the areas of the origin of ideas and in self-evidence and certainty."
Abstract This essay first outlines Locke's argument in Book II of "The Essay Concerning Human Understanding", illustrating the distinction between ideas of primary qualities and ideas of secondary qualities. The writer then examines the arguments of Berkeley in "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge" against this distinction and against the possibility of matter.
From the Paper "According to Locke there are two types of qualities found in bodies. First are the primary qualities of bodies, which are "utterly inseparable from the body, in what state soever it may be" (E., p. 502). To Locke, a primary quality exists independently of observation in every piece of matter within a body, regardless of the size of that piece: "division. . . only makes two or more distinct separate masses of matter of that which was one before" (E., p. 502). Therefore, primary qualities include the unchanging, mind-independent qualities of a body such as figure, motion or rest, number, extension, and solidity or impenetrability. Conversely, secondary qualities of bodies are "nothing in the objects themselves but powers to produce various sensations in us by their primary qualities" (E., p. 502). This power is attributable to the "bulk, figure, texture, and motion of their insensible parts" (E., p. 502)."
Tags: knowledge, independence, qualities, power, human
Abstract By considering the discussion of substance in John Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding", George Berkeley's "A Treatise of Human Nature", and David Hume's "A Treatise Of Human Nature", this paper considers the philosophers in an independent fashion and brings to light the evolutionary character of their expositions. The paper concludes with the author's personal criticism of the three philosophers.
From the Paper "The underlying assumption is that we cannot have true knowledge of reality; instead we can only make judgments about it based on the aforementioned agreement or disagreement of ideas. According to Locke, ideas come to us by way of our senses and the world is merely represented; therefore we have but a probable knowledge about reality. By the process of abstraction, it is possible to construct complex ideas about the world. From the perception and comprehension of multiple simultaneous simple ideas we abstract common traits and come up with the idea of substance."
Abstract This paper examines how debates about the nature of God and faith have been prevalent since the inception of religion itself and how the debate is still ongoing; this is evident in the nearly infinite number of religions and religious denominations in the world today. In particular, it analyzes the philosophical views of George Berkeley and Francis Bacon. It shows how George Berkeley's view of God is closely related to the theories he constructed around the human perception of reality and how, for Berkeley, everything in the external world is based upon the spiritual world. In comparison, it looks at how Francis Bacon, being a scientist and a Christian, took a more scientific view of God and the world than Berkeley, and how these two paradigms compliment each other in his philosophy.
From the Paper "Berkeley's description of the world and nature as purely spiritual is based upon a spiritual need that he perceived in his society. Through philosophy then he set about attempting to prove not only the existence of God and the spiritual, but to prove that indeed the spiritual is the only true reality. This idea, when viewed from the modern perspective, is somewhat far-fetched. He furthermore holds that a human being can hardly help but know the nature of God, as everything is spiritual. The very perception of the physical world is a communication of God to a human spirit. This appears then to be a rather desperate idea in an attempt to return people to spirituality and the morality that seemed to decline during the time."
Abstract The paper argues in favour of the proper meaning of George Berkeley's immaterialism against all the detractors who stubbornly misconstrue his meaning. The paper follows the argument as it proceeds in the publication "Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, in Opposition to Sceptics and Atheists". According to the paper, Hylas [Locke], shown to be harbouring the popular misconception about immaterialism, begins by accusing Philonous [Berkeley] of denying the existence of matter. But Philonous, in the end, is able to turn the argument and show that, not only is he not a sceptic, but in turn that Hylas himself, by upholding the materialistic point of view, is guilty of scepticism.
From the Paper "Hylas had first of all made out Philonous to be a rank sceptic. But the epic drawn out argument eventually turns the tables and shows Hylas himself to be despairing of knowledge while Philonous is serene with conviction. The argument follows the very same steps of Descartes', one by one dispatching each and every notion regarding the material substance as having no separate existence apart from in the mind. This is the bulk of the dialogue, as Hylas is stubborn to the extreme, taking up every possible aspect, sometimes the same repeatedly in desperation. The secondary qualities - e.g. taste, smell, colour - are summarily dealt with. The primary qualities - e.g. extension, motion, momentum - make for the true battleground. These were the qualities annexed by Newton to built his elaborate and universal system of mechanics, that which stood for absolute knowledge in the minds of those versed in it. Thus it would not be easy to dismiss the quality of extension as mere idea for Hylas, well-versed in Newton. "
From the Paper "This study will explain the objection to George Berkeley's theory that the theory gives dreams and hallucinations as much claim to truth as our ordinary waking experiences. The study will also describe and evaluate Berkeley's response in defense of his theory.
Berkeley enters tenuous philosophical territory and invites such criticism when he argues that there is no such thing as matter, as material existence. The realm of the mind is abstract enough without removing the world of matter and placing all reality in the mind, even if that mental territory includes the mind of God. Other philosophers used the material world to at least ground the mind, but Berkeley is trying to argue that all reality is immaterial. Berkeley's theory is slippery enough when we limit ourselves to the activities of the sober, sane mind which..."
Abstract This paper briefly discusses Hume's philosophy which explored and attempted to prove that reason and rational judgments are simply habitual associations of distinct sensations or experiences. It discusses how Hume's views on human perception and memory were mainly influenced by the positions of British philosophers John Locke and George Berkeley, both of whom offered distinct differences between reason and sensation.
From the Paper "To begin with, Hume's paradigm of skepticism attempts to discern truth as it applies to human perceptions and ideas. In regard to perception, Hume was the primary dissenter when it came to pointing out the ruinous implications of the so-called representative theory of perception held by a number of his philosophical predecessors. As explained by this view, when a human perceives a certain object, whether organic or inorganic, a mental impression or image forms in the mind, an internalized subjective representation of that object which one infers to be a physical, objective fact. Yet there are several problems associated with this premise, i.e. whether or not truth is understood as being the conformity between the perceived images and the object and if mental impressions or ideas are reliable indicators of an object's true physicality."
