A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge in Classics and the Western Canon

May 18, 2016 Nemo rated it really liked it

Shelves: philosophy

The Meaning of Reality

I was taught from a very young age that reality is what exists independently of human perception and knowledge, and we gain knowledge of reality if and only if our ideas correspond to it. Fantasy is that which has no correspondence in reality, and exists only in the mind of an individual -- unless he communicates his fantasy, others have no way of knowing it.

George Berkeley, after whom University of California at Berkeley was named, shows a different way of interpreting rea The Meaning of Reality

I was taught from a very young age that reality is what exists independently of human perception and knowledge, and we gain knowledge of reality if and only if our ideas correspond to it. Fantasy is that which has no correspondence in reality, and exists only in the mind of an individual -- unless he communicates his fantasy, others have no way of knowing it.

George Berkeley, after whom University of California at Berkeley was named, shows a different way of interpreting reality. He reasons that ideas in the mind can only be derived from ideas in the mind, and not what exists independently of the mind. Therefore, our sense perceptions are signs, not of material substances existing outside the mind, instead, they are signs of ideas which subsist in the mind of God and are communicated to us directly and individually, without "nature" as an intermediary. The "laws of nature" are not attributes of material substances, but attributes of the inter-relations of the divine ideas communicated to us, like the rules of syntax and semantics in the study of language.

Descartes and Berkeley

Descartes is known for the dictum, "I think therefore I am". Berkeley's philosophy can be simplified as, "I think thereby the world exists". Both philosophers converge on one point: "I think therefore God is".

Like Descartes, Berkeley started from meditating within his own mind, and saw that the mind is different in nature from the object it perceives -- the former is active and immortal whereas the latter is not. They both inferred the existence of God, by acknowledging the limitation of their mind -- they can only effect and perceive a very small portion of reality, of which a far superior Mind must be the Author.

Unlike Descartes, Berkeley denies the reality of matter as an inert substrate with the potential to come into existence by participating in forms. To his mind, matter is inconceivable, and what is inconceivable is non-existent by definition. However, he can't explain the fact that others can conceive it. In addition, he admits that he doesn't perceive other minds from the senses, and must infer their existence indirectly by logic. An argument can be made that the existence of matter is inferred indirectly by logic apart from the senses. Personally I think Descartes is the more logically consistent of the two.

(Read full review at Nemo's Library) ...more

4 likes · Like · see review

Jun 24, 2013 Matt rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Berkeley does not hedge on his maxim esse est percipi (being is being perceived). He jumps in head first, bets all on black and puts all of his eggs in one basket without actually mixing metaphors. Berkeley ramps up Locke’s arguments and simplifies them. He does away with Locke’s notion of a substratum of existence and commits fully to the idea that all we can perceive are Ideas. What has hindered his predecessors was their unfounded belief that Matter has existence apart from the mind. By casti Berkeley does not hedge on his maxim esse est percipi (being is being perceived). He jumps in head first, bets all on black and puts all of his eggs in one basket without actually mixing metaphors. Berkeley ramps up Locke’s arguments and simplifies them. He does away with Locke’s notion of a substratum of existence and commits fully to the idea that all we can perceive are Ideas. What has hindered his predecessors was their unfounded belief that Matter has existence apart from the mind. By casting aside Matter, the paradoxes of geometric problems, as well as the dilemma in deciphering levels of reality, are set aside.

Which leads to the next question. Dr. Bradatan writes a great Introduction in which he summarizes the question and answer:

If there is no such thing as matter, what is it, then, that we experience in the outside world? It is God’s Discourse. The world is living word. In Principles, as well as in most of Berekely’s other philosophical works, nature is seen as the “visual language” that God uses to speak with us. The things we see around us, their unfolding and succession, their changing into one another, are not meaningless occurrences, but they form divine speech; they say something about the “Author of Nature.” Introduction, Pg. XIII.

The world only exists because it is perceived. Not only by us (or more appropriately me, because I can’t be sure you exist), but by the Spirit (codename : God) as well. It is the Spirit’s act of perception which maintains existence when I am not actively perceiving. It’s all very Hindu actually. There’s a story in which Vishnu sleeps dreaming of the universe and Brahma sits on a lotus growing from his navel. When Brahma opens his eyes, the world is created and, after millions of years, Brahma blinks and the world is destroyed only to be recreated when Brahma reopens his eyes. Or something close to that. Though I’m sure Berkeley, who was a Bishop in the Anglican Church, would object to the comparison.

Berkeley dispenses with any drawn out methodology underlying his premise that we experience the Idea of things, and not things themselves. Which probably doesn’t win any converts to his extreme view of existence. But it’s a fascinating way to view the world.
...more

3 likes · Like · see review