Clearly, then, heat as I perceive it is nothing other than an idea in my mind. Similar arguments and experiments establish that other sensible qualities—colors that vary with changes in ambient light, tastes and smells that change perceptibly when I have a cold, and sounds that depend for their quality on the position of my ears and conditions in the air—are, like heat, nothing but ideas in my mind.
But the same considerations apply to primary qualities as well, Berkeley pointed out, since my perception of shape and size depend upon the position of my eyes, my experience of solidity depends upon my sense of touch, and my idea of motion is always relative to my own situation. Locke was correct in his view of secondary qualities but mistaken about primary qualities: all sensible qualities are just ideas.
But sensible objects are nothing more than collections of sensible qualities, so they are merely complex ideas in the minds of those who perceive them. For such ideas, Berkeley held, to be just is to be perceived in Latin, esse est percipi. Since it is the very nature of sensible objects to be perceived, on his view, it would be absurd to suppose that their reality depends in any way upon an imperceptible core.
This gives rise to a perfectly general argument against even the possibility of material substance. Putting aside all of the forgoing lines of argument, Berkeley declared, the whole issue can be allowed to rest on a single question: is it possible to conceive of a sensible object existing independently of any perceiver?
The challenge seems easy enough at first. All I have to do is think of something so remote—a tree in the middle of the forest, perhaps—that no one presently has it in mind. But if I conceive of this thing, then it is present in my mind as I think of it, so it is not truly independent of all perception.
According to Berkeley and such later idealists as Fichte and Bradley this argument shows irrefutably that the very concept of material substance as a sensible object existing independently of any perception is incoherent.
No wonder the representationalist philosophy leads to skepticism: it introduces as a necessary element in our knowledge of the natural world a concept that is literally inconceivable! Although he maintained that there can be no material substances, Berkeley did not reject the notion of substance altogether.
The most crucial feature of substance is activity, he supposed, and in our experience the most obvioius example activity is that of perceiving itself. So thinking substances do exist, and for these spirits or souls or minds to be is just to perceive in Latin, esse est percipere. Like Descartes and Leibniz , Berkeley held that each spirit is a simple, undivided, active being whose sole function is to think—that is, to have ideas such as those of sensible objects.
Although each spirit is directly aware of its own existence and nature, it cannot be perceived. Since ideas are always of sensible qualities or objects for Berkeley, we have no ideas but only notions of spirits. This is a complete enumeration of what is real: active thinking substances and their passive ideas. It is a genuinely empiricist philosophy, since it begins with what we actually experience and claims to account for everything without making extravagant suppositions about unknowable entities.
Next, we will consider how well this doctrine provides for common sense, science, and religion. He claimed to defend common sense against skeptical challenges, yet he maintained that sensible objects exist only in the minds of those who perceive them. Surely common sense includes the belief that ordinary things continue to exist when I am not perceiving them. Although all of my visual ideas disappear and reappear every time I blink my eyes, I do not suppose that the everything I see pops out of existence and then back in.
While a strict phenomenalist might point out that there is no practical consequence even if it does, Berkeley disagreed. The existence of what I see does not depend exclusively on my seeing it. So long as some sentient being, some thinking substance or spirit, has in mind the sensible qualities or objects at issue, they do truly exist.
Thus, even when I close my eyes, the tree I now see will continue to exist, provided that someone else is seeing it. Berkeley made this point explicitly in the first draft of the Introduction:.
For what created intelligence will pretend to conceive, that which God cannot cause to be? Now it is on all hands agreed, that nothing abstract or general can be made really to exist, whence it should seem to follow, that it cannot have so much as an ideal existence in the understanding.
Works The principle holds that the theoretically simpler of two explanations is more probably true. DHP2 So, if it is possible to construct a theory of meaning that does not introduce abstract ideas as a distinct kind of idea, that theory would be simpler and deemed more probably true.
Granting Locke that all existents are particulars Locke 3. Ideas remain particular, although a particular idea can function as a general idea. For example, when a geometer draws a line on a blackboard, it is taken to represent all lines, even though the line itself is particular and has determinate qualities. Similarly, a particular idea can represent all similar ideas.
Upon quoting the passage, Berkeley merely asks his reader whether he or she can form the idea, but his point seems to be much stronger. The described idea is inconsistent , and therefore represents an impossible state of affairs, and it is therefore inconceivable , since whatever is impossible is inconceivable. This is explicit in a parallel passage in the New Theory of Vision. If abstract ideas are not needed for communication — Berkeley takes the fact that infants and poorly educated people communicate, while the formation of abstract ideas is said to be difficult, as a basis for doubting the difficulty thesis Intro.
The abstractionists maintain that abstract ideas are needed for geometrical proofs. Berkeley argues that only properties concerning, for example, a triangle as such are germane to a geometric proof.
He maintains that it is consistent with his theory of meaning to selectively attend to a single aspect of a complex, determinate idea Intro.
Berkeley concludes his discussion of abstraction by noting that not all general words are used to denote objects or kinds of objects. Berkeley was an idealist. He held that ordinary objects are only collections of ideas, which are mind-dependent. Berkeley was an immaterialist. He held that there are no material substances. There are only finite mental substances and an infinite mental substance, namely, God. On these points there is general agreement. His central arguments are often deemed weak.
The account developed here is based primarily on the opening thirty-three sections of the Principles of Human Knowledge. This approach is prima facie plausible insofar as it explains the appeal to knowledge in the title of the Principles cf.
It is evident to any one who takes a survey of the objects of human knowledge, that they are either ideas actually imprinted on the senses, or else such as are perceived by attending to the passions and operations of the mind, or lastly ideas formed by help of memory and imagination, either compounding, dividing, or barely representing those originally perceived in the aforesaid ways. This seems to say that ideas are the immediate objects of knowledge in a fundamental sense acquaintance.
Following Locke, there are ideas of sense, reflection, and imagination. So, ordinary objects, as known, are collections of ideas marked by a single name. Minds as knowers are distinct from ideas as things known. For an idea, to be is to be perceived known.
Ordinary objects, as known, are nothing but collections of ideas. If, like Descartes, Berkeley holds that claims of existence are justified if and only if the existent can be known, then ordinary objects must be at least collections of ideas. But notice what has not yet been shown.
It has not been shown that ordinary objects are only collections of ideas, nor has it be shown that thinking substances are immaterial. The above account is not the only interpretation of the first seven sections of the Principles. Many commentators take a more directly metaphysical approach. They assume that ideas are mental images Pitcher, p.
Winkler, p. Tipton, p. Works n1. The epistemic interpretation we have been developing seems to avoid these problems. Berkeley holds that ordinary objects are at least collections of ideas. Are they something more? He prefaces his discussion with his likeness principle, the principle that nothing but an idea can resemble an idea. Why is this? A claim that two objects resemble each other can be justified only by a comparison of the objects cf. So, if only ideas are immediately perceived, only ideas can be compared.
So, there can be no justification for a claim that an idea resembles anything but an idea. One of the marks of the modern period is the doctrine of primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are the properties of objects as such. The primary qualities are solidity, extension, figure, number, and mobility Locke 2. Secondary qualities are either the those arrangements of corpuscles containing only primary qualities that cause one to have ideas of color, sound, taste, heat, cold, and smell Locke 2.
If the distinction can be maintained, there would be grounds for claiming that ordinary objects are something more than ideas. It is this theory of matter Berkeley considers first. Such a view is inconsistent with his earlier conclusions that extension, figure, and motion are ideas.
The likeness principle blocks any attempt to go beyond ideas on the basis of resemblance. Combining the previous conclusions with the standard account of primary qualities requires that primary qualities both exist apart from the mind and only in the mind. He then turns to the individual qualities.
If there is a distinction between primary and secondary qualities, there must be a ground for the distinction. Indeed, given the common contention that an efficient cause must be numerically distinct from its effect see Arnauld and Nicole, p. Berkeley argues that there is no ground for the distinction. If such sensible qualities as color exist only in the mind, and extension and motion cannot be known without some sensible quality, there is no ground for claiming extension exists apart from the mind.
The source of the philosophical error is cited as the doctrine of abstract ideas. At least since Aristotle, philosophers had held that qualities of material objects depend on and exist in a substance which has those qualities. This supposed substance allegedly remains the same through change. But if one claims there are material substances, one must have reasons to support that claim. Can one form an idea a substratum?
At least one cannot form a positive idea of a material substratum itself — something like an image of the thing itself — a point that was granted by its most fervent supporters see Descartes ; Locke 2. If an idea of a material substratum cannot be derived from sense experience, claims of its existence might be justified if it is necessary to provide an explanation of a phenomenon.
But no such explanation is forthcoming. Since material substance is not necessary to provide an explanation of mental phenomena, reason cannot provide grounds for claiming the existence of a material substance.
Berkeley seems to argue that in any case one might consider — books in the back of a closet, plants deep in a wood with no one about, footprints on the far side of the moon — the objects are related to the mind conceiving of them.
DHP1 This is generally not considered Berkeley at his best, since many commentators argue that it is possible to distinguish between the object conceived and the conceiving of it. George Pappas has provided a more sympathetic interpretation of the passage. Conceivability is the ground for claiming that an object is possible. If one conceives of an object, then that object is related to some mind, namely, the mind that conceives it.
So, the problem is that it is not possible to fulfill the conditions necessary to show that it would be possible for an object to exist apart from a relation to a mind. Thus, Berkeley concludes, there are no grounds for claiming that an ordinary object is more than a collection of ideas. So, Berkeley is justified in claiming that they are only ideas of sense.
Before turning to this, Berkeley introduces several remarks on mind. Since there is a continual succession of ideas in our minds, there must be some cause of it. Only a mind or spirit can be a cause. Real things are composed solely of ideas of sense.
So, Berkeley has given an account of ordinary objects without matter. Ordinary objects are nothing but lawfully arranged collections of ideas of sense. If one reads the Principles and Dialogues , one discovers that Berkeley has little to say regarding our knowledge of minds, and most of what is found was added in the editions of those works.
The reason is Berkeley originally intended the Principles to consist of at least three parts cf. He told Samuel Johnson, his American correspondent, that the manuscript for the second part was lost during his travels in Italy in about Works In the editions of the Principles and Dialogues , Berkeley included brief discussions of our notions of minds.
Locke claims one has a relative idea of substance in general Locke 2. Philonous says:. I own I have properly no idea, either of God or any other spirit; for these being active, cannot be represented by things perfectly inert, as our ideas are.
I do nevertheless know, that I who am a spirit or thinking substance, exist as certainly, as I know my ideas exist. Farther, I know what I mean by the terms I and myself ; and I know this immediately, or intuitively, though I do not perceive it as I perceive a triangle, a colour, or a sound. DHP3 , all editions. How often must I repeat, that I know or am conscious of [my emphasis] my own being; and that I my self am not my ideas, but somewhat else, a thinking active principle that perceives, knows, wills, and operates about ideas.
DHP3 , edition. Nothing more can be said of them. But, perhaps, we need to draw a distinction between knowing that there is a mind and knowing what a mind is. PHK 19 Firstly, Berkeley contends, a representationalist must admit that we could have our ideas without there being any external objects causing them PHK After all, Locke himself diagnosed the difficulty: Body as far as we can conceive being able only to strike and affect body; and Motion, according to the utmost reach of our Ideas , being able to produce nothing but Motion, so that when we allow it to produce pleasure or pain, or the Idea of a Colour, or Sound, we are fain to quit our Reason, go beyond our Ideas , and attribute it wholly to the good Pleasure of our Maker.
Locke , ; Essay 4. But say you, surely there is nothing easier than to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or books existing in a closet, and no body by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it: but what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees , and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of any one that may perceive them?
But do not you your self perceive or think of them all the while? This therefore is nothing to the purpose: it only shows you have the power of imagining or forming ideas in your mind; but it doth not shew that you can conceive it possible, the objects of your thought may exist without the mind: to make out this, it is necessary that you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is a manifest repugnancy. When we do our utmost to conceive the existence of external bodies, we are all the while only contemplating our own ideas.
But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded to think it can and doth conceive bodies existing unthought of or without the mind; though at the same time they are apprehended by or exist in it self.
PHK 22—23 The argument seems intended to establish that we cannot actually conceive of mind-independent objects, that is, objects existing unperceived and unthought of. By sight I have the ideas of light and colours with their several degrees and variations. By touch I perceive, for example, hard and soft, heat and cold, motion and resistance, and of all these more and less either as to quantity or degree.
Smelling furnishes me with odours; the palate with tastes, and hearing conveys sounds to the mind in all their variety of tone and composition. And as several of these are observed to accompany each other, they come to be marked by one name, and so to be reputed as one thing. Thus, for example, a certain colour, taste, smell, figure and consistence having been observed to go together, are accounted one distinct thing, signified by the name apple.
Other collections of ideas constitute a stone, a tree, a book, and the like sensible things; which, as they are pleasing or disagreeable, excite the passions of love, hatred, joy, grief, and so forth. Berkeley eliminates the first option with the following argument PHK 25 : 1 Ideas are manifestly passive—no power or activity is perceived in them.
Therefore, 3 Ideas are passive, that is, they possess no causal power. They allow him to respond to the following objection, put forward in PHK …it will be demanded to what purpose serves that curious organization of plants, and the admirable mechanism in the parts of animals; might not vegetables grow, and shoot forth leaves and blossoms, and animals perform all their motions, as well without as with all that variety of internal parts so elegantly contrived and put together, which being ideas have nothing powerful or operative in them, nor have any necessary connexion with the effects ascribed to them?
The like may be said of all the clockwork of Nature, great part whereof is so wonderfully fine and subtle, as scarce to be discerned by the best microscope. In short, it will be asked, how upon our principles any tolerable account can be given, or any final cause assigned of an innumerable multitude of bodies and machines framed with the most exquisite art, which in the common philosophy have very apposite uses assigned them, and serve to explain abundance of phenomena.
We must no longer say upon these principles that fire heats, or water cools, but that a spirit heats, and so forth. Would not a man be deservedly laughed at, who should talk after this manner? I answer, he would so; in such things we ought to think with the learned, and speak with the vulgar. PHK Natural philosophers thus consider signs, rather than causes PHK , but their results are just as useful as they would be under a materialist system.
He claims that there is no problem for …anyone that shall attend to what is meant by the term exist when applied to sensible things. The table I write on, I say, exists, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my study I should say it existed, meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does perceive it.
PHK 3 So, when I say that my desk still exists after I leave my office, perhaps I just mean that I would perceive it if I were in my office, or, more broadly, that a finite mind would perceive the desk were it in the appropriate circumstances in my office, with the lights on, with eyes open, etc. Can a real thing in itself invisible be like a colour ; or a real thing which is not audible , be like a sound?
Philonous responds as follows: May we not understand it [the creation] to have been entirely in respect of finite spirits; so that things, with regard to us, may properly be said to begin their existence, or be created, when God decreed they should become perceptible to intelligent creatures, in that order and manner which he then established, and we now call the laws of Nature?
You may call this a relative , or hypothetical existence if you please. As with the counterfactual analysis of continued existence, however, this account also fails under pressure from the esse est percipi principle: Hylas. Yes, Philonous, I grant the existence of a sensible thing consists in being perceivable, but not in being actually perceived.
He does, however, have an account of error, as he shows us in the Dialogues : Hylas. What say you to this? Since, according to you, men judge of the reality of things by their senses, how can a man be mistaken in thinking the moon a plain lucid surface, about a foot in diameter; or a square tower, seen at a distance, round; or an oar, with one end in the water, crooked? Early on, Berkeley attempts to forestall materialist skeptics who object that we have no idea of spirit by arguing for this position himself: A spirit is one simple, undivided, active being: as it perceives ideas, it is called the understanding , and as it produces or otherwise operates about them, it is called the will.
Hence there can be no idea formed of a soul or spirit: for all ideas whatever, being passive and inert, vide Sect.
A little attention will make it plain to any one, that to have an idea which shall be like that active principle of motion and change of ideas, is absolutely impossible. Such is the nature of spirit or that which acts, that it cannot be of it self perceived, but only by the effects which it produceth.
In the Dialogues , however, Berkeley shows a better appreciation of the force of the problem that confronts him: [Hylas. But at the same time you acknowledge you have, properly speaking, no idea of your own soul.
You even affirm that spirits are a sort of beings altogether different from ideas. Consequently that no idea can be like a spirit.
We have therefore no idea of any spirit. You admit nevertheless that there is spiritual substance, although you have no idea of it; while you deny there can be such a thing as material substance, because you have no notion or idea of it. Is this fair dealing? To act consistently, you must either admit matter or reject spirit. PC A closely related problem which confronts Berkeley is how to make sense of the causal powers that he ascribes to spirits.
Wn I ask whether A can move B. DM 33 On this interpretation, Berkeley would again have abandoned the radical Humean position entertained in his notebooks, as he clearly did on the question of the nature of spirit. I do not pin my faith on the sleeve of any great man. PC Luce and T. Jessop eds. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons. Luce Works —52 References to these works are by section numbers or entry numbers, for PC , except for 3D, where they are by page number.
Other useful editions include: Berkeley, G. Philosophical commentaries, generally called the Commonplace book [of] George Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne. Luce ed. Berkeley, G. Philosophical Works; Including the Works on Vision. Ayers ed. London: Dent. Belfrage ed. Oxford: Doxa. Jesseph trans. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. A collection, useful to students, of primary texts constituting background to Berkeley or early critical reactions to Berkeley: McCracken, C.
Tipton eds. Bibliographical studies Jessop, T. A bibliography of George Berkeley, by T. The Hague: M. Turbayne, C. Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Sosa ed. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 85— Atherton, M. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Women Philosophers of the Early Modern Period. Indianapolis: Hackett. Muehlmann ed. Bennett, J. Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bolton, M. Bracken, H. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Campbell, J. Gendler and J. Hawthorne eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, — Chappell, V. Chappell ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 26— Cummins, P.
Downing, L. Winkler ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleming, N. Gallois, A. Jesseph, D. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lennon, T. Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Luce, A. The Dialectic of Immaterialism.
Malebranche, N. The Search After Truth. McCracken, C. McKim, R. Muehlmann, R. Nadler, S.
0コメント