George Berkley’s legacy - a logical & common sense GOD

         Introduction

This discussion paper concerns George Berkeley, (1685-1753) who was an Anglo-Irish Anglican bishop, philosopher and scientist. Berkeley felt the need to challenge the mechanised world view that took hold during his time due to the influence of the scientific revolution which challenged people’s beliefs.   

The Scientific Revolution   

Newton had explained why the orbits of the planets are ellipses rather than circles and much more including the theory of gravity. As you would be aware Newton demonstrated instead of two forces underpinning planetary movements there was only one, represented by the force of gravity. His unifying laws then accounted for the position of the planets. Newton himself was also a theologian, but from a metaphysical point of view he didn’t believe in GOD's day to day control of the universes except to concede he might intervene from time to time. 

Berkeley was alarmed by the emergent world view which regarded the world as analogous to a giant machine and the growing scepticism and non- belief that accompanied this development.   

 

Berkley response first ridiculed    

His response was to propose a simple idea that rejected the idea of existence of matter in the world since that involved abstract thinking. Rather he proposed the world we experienced through the senses represented reality. It was a matter of common sense to Berkeley our reality could only be what was perceived or what was perceivable. He concluded one can’t think of things in reality as in an abstract manner in terms of geometric shapes as was proposed by Descartes and the enlightenment philosophers. It is not that Berkeley is saying they are inconceivable, rather they are not perceivable as reality. They may represent a reality in some cases when they coincide with the perception through the senses.      

 

Rather, he wanted people to feel they could trust in their senses and argued there were no secondary or third related ways of perceiving things according to the enlightenment philosophers, but only that which relates directly from our experiences. Those ideas, arising from the perceptions are made possible by virtue of the consistent laws of nature as bestowed by GOD.  Naturally enough Berkeley’s philosophy was his defence of belief in GOD as a logical philosophy, so, in turn, he could mount an attack on atheism and scepticism that arose from the newly experienced scientific age. The denial of the abstract way of thinking and to propose all we experience of the world through the senses meant one must answer the question: what is the cause? The cause of course was spiritual as in GOD.     

 

However his ideas were initially ridiculed by the intellectual establishments which caused him to write his subsequent dialogues in a manner similar to those by Plato to Socrates in order to explain his ideas more comprehensively and in an attractive manner.                        

 

Berkeley’s idealism  

Idealism in philosophy differs from the everyday use of the word when you say something represents an ideal solution. Rather idealism in philosophy broadly speaking references ideals that are opposed to mass as in a materialistic world. Idealism references a non-material world comprising mental states or mental substances or spirits. Of course not all idealists fit neatly into that category.

 

Broadly speaking Berkeley’s idealism was that all there is, is ideas and collections of ideas that make up our immaterial view of the world.

 

He proposed that identifiable objects are linked via our minds' perceptions to those things we have previously experienced. Therefore you cannot be aware of anything as in perception unless you have had a prior experience. He does not deny the existence of those things that have not been perceived, so long as they are perceivable.       

 

Summing up Berkeley’s philosophy and his critics  

 

Berkeley was an empiricist as he asserted all human knowledge was derived securely from our senses or could be inferred from that experience.   

He does this logically, both in respect to direct material objects and those that are either feeling based. In both cases he seeks to demonstrate the common sense logic of this proposition. Firstly in relation to such things as colour, taste, smell, heat, shape and size etc. they principally involve either pleasure or pain and so he argues they are unmistakably all mind dependent. Rather obviously they cannot reside in material objects. In relation to primary qualities the same principle as objects can appear differently due to the lighting or space. They appear to be big or small, demonstrating they are mind dependent. Berkeley argues the subsequent variable experiences of both the primary and secondary qualities arise in the mind and cannot be independent of it. What you experience of the world is the reality of it but you can’t experience something as abstract as mass. In relation to abstract thinking of course you can talk about it or use symbols or as in maths apply it and so on. It might coincide with what you can conceive through the senses as was bestowed by GOD. There is a spiritual element which comes from GOD in relation to the infinite mind thoughts whilst the finite experiences come to us via the senses as per the laws of nature decreed by GOD.                

  

His Master Argument

Additionally to the above arguments his so-called master argument uses an Aristotelian syllogism to prove the falsehood of materialism.

(1) We can conceive of a tree existing independently out of all minds only if we can conceive of the tree existing unconceived.

(2) But an unconceived conceived thing is a contradiction.

(3) Hence we cannot conceive of a tree (or anything else) existing independently and out of all minds.

 

Although this argument may appear to be convoluted, one way to understand his reasoning is to say it is not possible for a tree to exist outside of all minds, because we would need to think of an unconceived tree, which is not possible. The reason being as soon as we try to conceive of an unconceived tree, we then have conceived of it. However, Berkley makes no distinction between the act of perception and the intent of the perception.

In that respect his master argument may falter.

In the above example one might argue:      

(1) We can conceive of a tree existing independently out of all minds only if we can conceive of the tree existing unconceived.

(2) We can conceive of an intent to perceive of an imagined tree

(3)  We can have a perception of an unconceived tree.  

 

Even so the question of intention in philosophy has been debated and the fact we can conceive of an intent to perceive of something is by no means assured. Philosophers continue to argue as we simply don’t know enough about complexities of the mind to form a logical conclusion.      

 

Critiques of Berkeley  

Other thinkers, struggling with questions as to how we perceive reality, took the opposite position. The materialists argued that nothing exists but matter. Then we have the dualists, such as Descartes who suggested ideas and matter were two discrete things.

 

To reiterate, Berkley came up with a simple solution that was hard to refute which assumes our accessibility to things ‘in the world’  is from the collection of ideas forming in one’s mind about them, so that  Berkeley’s assertion is it is the mind, not matter, that must be the fundamental reality.

 

His philosophy can be regarded as one embracing immaterialism- in opposition to the materialistic view which proposes physical objects or things we directly experience in our life. The critique of Berkeley’s philosophy came from the analytical philosophers. Principally they were G E Moore and Bertrand Russell. Moore refuted Berkeley’s immaterialism with a simple example of holding out his hand which he acknowledges without the need to identify it or conceptualise it into his mind. It begins instinctively from recognition by the infant. Most of Moore’s criticisms are also on the basis of common sense, just as there were for Bertrand Russell. They contended mountains and trees and similarities existed long before our minds began to think about them. One can conceptualise things in the mind that haven't been seen and material objects can exist independent of the mind. The best representation we have of the world is the one we see, as in being in the world. But these arguments appear weak since Berkeley’s response would have been that objects only exist as far as we can experience them as mental substances. He doesn’t refute the prior existence of things that have not been perceived so long as they are perceivable.     

 

But the modern day view is to reject epistemology (theory we can obtain specialised knowledge as in knowing allied to philosophy) and analytical philosophy as views analogous to an unstable building erected in the absence of any secure foundations. 

Beginning with Heidegger his idea (as in being in the world) is we can’t step outside our existence and view it independently as those before have suggested. Hence, it makes no sense to talk about subjects (us) and objects as if we can do this independently. Rather, being in the world means we don’t think about ourselves as if we are remote from it because we are in it and can only talk about our interaction within it so to speak. Heidegger talks about our engagement in the world with equipment (as he calls it) is a matter of having to deal with it in our existence.

 

To a degree, however, Heidegger’s phenomenology is in tune with Berkeley’s.

Pragmatic Philosopher Richard Rorty asserts we only have the sharpened philosophical tools at our disposal and should not be deluded into thinking they provide any privileged representations or equate to any specialised knowledge also available elsewhere. 

Modern day philosophers such as Hubert Dreyfus and Charles Taylor emphasize knowledge is much more than just the representations we formulate. We gain knowledge of the world because we are integral to it as in both a hands on bodily engagement and movements within it.

 

Conclusion

The legacy that Berkeley leaves us is to encourage us to jettison the idea of any Cartesian duality, as we elect to debate his view of reality with those of the materialistic mindset. Although his assertion of immaterialism does sound counterintuitive it is very difficult to refute. Some might say that our lack of knowledge renders such assertions without a secure foundation.

However, his thinking provides ample food for thought and discussions. After all Einstein maintained all there is is energy, so that inherent in this principle materialism remains challenged.