A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge E-Book

George Berkeley

• Herausgeber: Edizioni Aurora Boreale
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

George Berkeley (1685-1753) was an Irish philosopher, an anglican bishop and one of the three great British empiricists along with John Locke and David Hume. Ignored and derided in life, he is now widely re-evaluated and considered as a sort of indirect precursor of Ernst Mach, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr for his thesis on the non-existence of matter and the impossibility of an objectively absolute time and space. His critiques of mathematics and science are among the most controversial, brilliant and revolutionary in the history of philosophy.
«We perceive a continual succession of ideas, some are anew excited, others are changed or totally disappear. There is therefore some cause of these ideas, whereon they depend, and which produces and changes them. That this cause cannot be any quality or idea or combination of ideas, is clear. It must therefore be a substance; but it has been shewn that there is no corporeal or material substance: it remains therefore that the cause of ideas is an incorporeal active substance or Spirit».

Leseprobe

SYMBOLS & MYTHS

GEORGE BERKELEY

A TREATISE CONCERNING

THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE

Edizioni Aurora Boreale

Title: A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge

Author: George Berkeley

Publishing series: Symbols & Myths

With a preface by Boris Yousef

Editing by Nicola Bizzi

ISBN: 979-12-80130-61-7

Edizioni Aurora Boreale

© 2022 Edizioni Aurora Boreale

Via del Fiordaliso 14 - 59100 Prato

[email protected]

www.auroraboreale-edizioni.com

GEORGE BERKELEY, THE PHILO-NOUS

By Boris Yousef

George Berkeley, born near Thomastown, County Kilkenny, in Ireland, on March 12 1665, was a philosopher, theologian and an anglican bishop. He was one of the three great British empiricists along with John Locke and David Hume. Ignored and derided in life for his theses, he is now widely re-evaluated and considered as a sort of indirect precursor of Ernst Mach, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr for his thesis on the non-existence of matter and the impossibility of an objectively absolute time and space. His critiques of mathematics and science are among the most controversial, brilliant and revolutionary in the history of philosophy.

In 1709 Berkeley published his first major work, An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision, in which he discussed the limitations of human vision and advanced the theory that the proper objects of sight are not material objects, but light and colour. This foreshadowed his chief philosophical work, A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, in 1710, which, after its poor reception, he rewrote in dialogue form and published under the title Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous in 1713. In this book, Berkeley’s views were represented by Philonous (Greek: “lover of mind”), while Hylas (“hyle”, Greek: “matter”) embodies the Irish thinker’s opponents, in particular John Locke.

Three important concepts discussed in the Three Dialogues are perceptual relativity, the conceivability/master argument and Berkeley’s phenomenalism. Perceptual relativity argues that the same object can appear to have different characteristics depending on the observer’s perspective. Since objective features of objects cannot change without an inherent change in the object itself, shape must not be an objective feature.

In the First Dialogue, Hylas expresses his disdain for skepticism, adding that he has heard Philonous to have «maintained the most extravagant opinion that ever entered into the mind of man, to wit, that there is no such thing as material substance in the world». Philonous argues that it is actually Hylas who is the skeptic and that he can prove it. Thus, a philosophical battle of wit begins.

Philonous questions Hylas systematically regarding what humans know of the world, first examining secondary qualities, such as heat, to show that such qualities do not exist outside the individual mind. He then moves on to primary qualities such as extension and shape, and likewise argues that they, too, are dependent entirely on one’s perception and perspective (e.g., from a distance, a great mountain appears to be small, and the shape of a thing may change dramatically under a microscope: «You may at any time make the experiment, by looking with one eye bare, and with the other through a microscope».

Hylas’s view of matter (which has its origin in the Platonic theory of forms, or abstract entities that exist outside of the sensible world) is systematically destroyed by Philonous (Berkeley). The basic argument is that because matter is only known to us by its sensible qualities, it is impossible to describe or even imagine matter without these qualities. For in the absence of sensible qualities, matter, by definition, loses its essential qualities.

Berkeley’s argument goes further: sensible qualities are not inherent in matter. Rather, they are ascribed and understood by the mind. Color, sound, temperature and even shape are qualities entirely dependent on a mind. Indeed, without a “mind”, it becomes impossible to imagine “matter”. The answer to the question, «If a tree falls in the forest and no mind is present, does it make a noise?» is answered by Berkeley’s immaterialism: there is no tree, other than either the sense-data or the bundle of perceptions of which it is made up. However, God is always perceiving everything. In other words, there is always a mind present. A human (and thus a human mind) need not be present for the tree to make a sound, for the mind of God is always present, or so Berkeley argues. It is this mind of God that gives sensible qualities to matter, not matter itself.

John Smibert: A group portrait of Berkeley and his entourage, 1739

(Yale University Art Gallery)

In his own time Berkeley faced opposition from many philosophers who shared the Platonic view. These philosophers thought Berkeley to be vulgar, because his own view seemed to confirm the views held by the lower classes. Roughly speaking, the “common view” was that God created everything and that the things on Earth were the real things. Some philosophers did not believe in God, and believed matter on Earth was but an imitation of actual matter that existed in another dimension. Berkeley sided with the common view.

The philosophy presented is often misinterpreted. The criticism is that Berkeley claims that we live in an illusory world, when in fact, Berkeley advocates for the acceptance of ideas as real “things”. When we refer to an object, we don’t refer to a material form, but to the idea of the object that informs our senses. Berkeley doesn’t propose that nothing is real; he proposes that ideas themselves compose reality.

Berkeley argued against Isaac Newton’s doctrine of absolute space, time and motion in De Motu (On Motion), published 1721. His arguments were a precursor to the views of Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein. In 1732, he published Alciphron, a Christian apologetic against the free-thinkers, and in 1734, he published The Analyst, a critique of the foundations of calculus, which was influential in the development of mathematics.

He died in Oxford on January 14 1753.

Interest in Berkeley’s work increased after World War II because he tackled many of the issues of paramount interest to philosophy in the 20th century, such as the problems of perception, the difference between primary and secondary qualities, and the importance of language.

John Smibert: Portrait of George Berkeley and his entourage, 1726

(London, National Portrait Gallery)

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

THOMAS, EARL OF PEMBROKE, &c.,

KNIGHT OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER

AND ONE OF THE LORDS OF HER MAJESTY'S

MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNCIL

MY LORD,

You will perhaps wonder that an obscure person, who has not the honour to be known to your lordship, should presume to address you in this manner. But that a man who has written something with a design to promote Useful Knowledge and Religion in the world should make choice of your lordship for his patron, will not be thought strange by any one that is not altogether unacquainted with the present state of the church and learning, and consequently ignorant how great an ornament and support you are to both. Yet, nothing could have induced me to make you this present of my poor endeavours, were I not encouraged by that candour and native goodness which is so bright a part in your lordship's character. I might add, my lord, that the extraordinary favour and bounty you have been pleased to show towards our Society gave me hopes you would not be unwilling to countenance the studies of one of its members. These considerations determined me to lay this treatise at your lordship's feet, and the rather because I was ambitious to have it known that I am with the truest and most profound respect, on account of that learning and virtue which the world so justly admires in your lordship,

MY LORD,

Your lordship's most humble

and most devoted servant,

PREFACE

What I here make public has, after a long and scrupulous inquiry, seemed to me evidently true and not unuseful to be known - particularly to those who are tainted with Scepticism, or want a demonstration of the existence and immateriality of God, or the natural immortality of the soul. Whether it be so or no I am content the reader should impartially examine; since I do not think myself any farther concerned for the success of what I have written than as it is agreeable to truth. But, to the end this may not suffer, I make it my request that the reader suspend his judgment till he has once at least read the whole through with that degree of attention and thought which the subject-matter shall seem to deserve. For, as there are some passages that, taken by themselves, are very liable (nor could it be remedied) to gross misinterpretation, and to be charged with most absurd consequences, which, nevertheless, upon an entire perusal will appear not to follow from them; so likewise, though the whole should be read over, yet, if this be done transiently, it is very probable my sense may be mistaken; but to a thinking reader, I flatter myself it will be throughout clear and obvious. As for the characters of novelty and singularity which some of the following notions may seem to bear, it is, I hope, needless to make any apology on that account. He must surely be either very weak, or very little acquainted with the sciences, who shall reject a truth that is capable of demonstration, for no other reason but because it is newly known, and contrary to the prejudices of mankind. Thus much I thought fit to premise, in order to prevent, if possible, the hasty censures of a sort of men who are too apt to condemn an opinion before they rightly comprehend it.

INTRODUCTION

1. Philosophy being nothing else but the study of wisdom and truth, it may with reason be expected that those who have spent most time and pains in it should enjoy a greater calm and serenity of mind, a greater clearness and evidence of knowledge, and be less disturbed with doubts and difficulties than other men. Yet so it is, we see the illiterate bulk of mankind that walk the high-road of plain common sense, and are governed by the dictates of nature, for the most part easy and undisturbed. To them nothing that is familiar appears unaccountable or difficult to comprehend. They complain not of any want of evidence in their senses, and are out of all danger of becoming Sceptics. But no sooner do we depart from sense and instinct to follow the light of a superior principle, to reason, meditate, and reflect on the nature of things, but a thousand scruples spring up in our minds concerning those things which before we seemed fully to comprehend. Prejudices and errors of sense do from all parts discover themselves to our view; and, endeavouring to correct these by reason, we are insensibly drawn into uncouth paradoxes, difficulties, and inconsistencies, which multiply and grow upon us as we advance in speculation, till at length, having wandered through many intricate mazes, we find ourselves just where we were, or, which is worse, sit down in a forlorn Scepticism.

2. The cause of this is thought to be the obscurity of things, or the natural weakness and imperfection of our understandings. It is said, the faculties we have are few, and those designed by nature for the support and comfort of life, and not to penetrate into the inward essence and constitution of things. Besides, the mind of man being finite, when it treats of things which partake of infinity, it is not to be wondered at if it run into absurdities and contradictions, out of which it is impossible it should ever extricate itself, it being of the nature of infinite not to be comprehended by that which is finite.