Berkeley's Idealism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glassjester
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Glassjester said:
Plato wasn’t a realist?

I could be wrong, but it seems that Berkeley’s idealism transcends the realist-idealist dichotomy by making God the ultimate arbiter of real and unreal. If God thinks it up, it is real. He’s the ultimate Creator.

For Berkeley, God’s ideas are reality.
Click to expand...
Platonism is the oldest form of idealism, and Plato himself the progenitor of idealists. It is usual to place in contrast Plato’s idealism and Aristotle’s realism; the latter in fact denies that ideas are originals and that things are mere copies; he holds that the essence is intelligible, but that it is immanent in the things of nature, whereas it is put into the products of art. It is more correct, therefore, to call his teaching an immanent idealism as contrasted with the transcendental idealism of Plato.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/07634a.htm
 
It seems idealism can mean different things for different philosophers.
IDEALISM
Definition
Click to expand...
In the philosophy of Plato it is the theory that the visible things of this world are merely copies of the perfect realities of another, supersensible world of the spirit. In St. Augustine and the Scholastics it is the doctrine that the ideal of exemplar according to which everything is made is the idea in the mind of God. In modern philosophy idealism is the theory that denies reality to the external, physical world and attributes real existence only to things as they are in the mind. In its extreme form it is pure subjectivism, denying existence to anything outside the mind of the thinking person.
Click to expand...
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34056

Which form of idealism does Berkley subscribe to?
 
fisherman_carl said:
I was listening to a professor tell a funny story about solopism. He wrote to the solopist, “You have convinced me that solopism is true. Now that we have established that you do not exist I will no longer be writing to you.” 😃

The solopist’s life must be dreary. No one to love but himself. No one to talk to but figments of his imagination.
Click to expand...
Building on this thought, it seems to me that a universe that is composed of merely thought is inferior to one that is real. Since God would only be having a relationship with his thoughts rather than something he could consider outside himself, and something he could love outside himself. I don’t subscribe to idealism.
 
fisherman_carl said:
I was listening to a professor tell a funny story about solopism. He wrote to the solopist, “You have convinced me that solopism is true. Now that we have established that you do not exist I will no lo ver be writing to you.” 😃

The solopist’s life must be dreary. No one to love but himself. No one to talk to but figments of his imagination.
Click to expand...
Well, I think that a solipsist’s life is just like yours or mine, unless he lives by himself deep in the forest or in an island. Actually, Bishop Berkeley was not a solipsist. And I would not say that not being a solipsist was a problem in itself; it was a problem in view of his system. When Descartes starts his reflections doubting of everything but his own existence, he has to face a series of difficulties to put the existence of the world and of the others on a firm basis. Berkeley does not have any doubt about the existence of other minds (or spirits). An Spirit, according to him, “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, they cannot represent unto us, by way of image or likeness, that which acts …] 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 produces” (A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, XXVII). But which effects could those be anyway? “We comprehend our own existence by inward feeling or reflection, and that of other spirits by reason” ( Part I, LXXXIX).

Now, according to his system, our ideas are of two classes: Ideas of the sense, which are produced by God in our soul, and Ideas of the will, which we produce ourselves. There is nothing more within our experience beside those ideas. What is left then as an effect of other spirits (besides God) which we could use to reason out their existence?

That is the problem: He will not be able to resort on God’s Goodness (as Descartes did) to conclude that there are other minds like his, given the way in which he characterizes Ideas. So, how does him come to the conclusion (it has to be a conclusion in his system) that there are other spirits besides God?
 
JuanFlorencio said:
That is the problem: He will not be able to resort on God’s Goodness (as Descartes did) to conclude that there are other minds like his, given the way in which he characterizes Ideas.
Click to expand...
Why not?
JuanFlorencio said:
So, how does him come to the conclusion (it has to be a conclusion in his system) that there are other spirits besides God?
Click to expand...
If he can reason that he, himself, exists, and that God exists, hasn’t he already avoided solipsism?
 
fisherman_carl said:
Building on this thought, it seems to me that a universe that is composed of merely thought is inferior to one that is real. Since God would only be having a relationship with his thoughts rather than something he could consider outside himself, and something he could love outside himself. I don’t subscribe to idealism.
Click to expand...
By “outside himself” do you mean something that exists independently of God?

If so, does matter even fit that description?
 
Glassjester said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
For George Berkeley, there can be no idea of an spirit, because ideas are passive, while spirits are active. And as ideas are the only resource we have to exercise our reasoning it doesn’t matter how good God is: other minds, if they exist, are absolutely out of our reach (always within Berkeley’s doctrine), because they are not producing any effects on us.
Glassjester said:
If he can reason that he, himself, exists, and that God exists, hasn’t he already avoided solipsism?
Click to expand...
Though Bishop Berkeley was not a solipsist in the sense that he didn’t have doubts about the existence of other minds, he was a solipsist in the sense that can be attributed to Descartes; and, as you may know, Descartes believed he himself had offered a rigorous demonstration for the existence of God. Solipsism is attributed to both of them due to the peculiar way in which they conceive themselves and the “world around them”.
 
Glassjester said:
By “outside himself” do you mean something that exists independently of God?

If so, does matter even fit that description?
Click to expand...
One of the doctrines of Christianity is that God is wholly other. This is what separates us from pantheism. It is also part of some proofs of God’s immaterial nature, meaning that God is not composed of material or matter since he is the explanation for its existence, and he is simple, not composed of parts. Thus, the material universe is not God, nor is it composed of God. God is wholly other. The universe was created from nothing, not from existing materials.

The image for pantheism is a god as a mother giving birth because it shows how the universe is born from the god. That is why God is better portrayed as a Father, to avoid pantheism. He commmands it into being from nothing.

The universe isn’t merely his thoughts that never comes to fruition, but rather it becomes a reality because of the power of his word. What he declares actually comes to pass. When he says ‘let there be light’, then there is actually light, not just the thought of light.
 
Glassjester said:
The idealist response would be: What’s the difference?

esse est percipi
Click to expand...
Well, Berkeley, from what I gather does not believe anything actually exists except for God’s thoughts, and our thoughts in response. Thus, for him we are living in a dream that seems very real. However, if none of this is real then we are being conned and the physical world is an illusion. Nothing has come to fruition and all is mind games. I for one prefer to live in a real world. There is no way to prove Berkley’s theory and no way to disprove it. Given that the world is for all intensive purposes real to us, why would we want to doubt it? There is no reason to conclude that God was lying when he said he created the universe from nothing.

So I guess the answer to your question is that under Berkley’s view the world is not real. Under a more realist view it is real and has actually been created. In one view you are part of an elaborate illusion. Under the other you are part of created reality.
 
fisherman_carl said:
Well, Berkeley, from what I gather does not believe anything actually exists except for God’s thoughts, and our thoughts in response. Thus, for him we are living in a dream that seems very real. However, if none of this is real then we are being conned and the physical world is an illusion.
Click to expand...
I’m seeing a non sequitur, here.
“Immaterial” does not mean “nonexistent” (or unreal).

Berkeley has claimed that all things are immaterial, and that minds and ideas are all that exist. He hasn’t claimed that minds or ideas are illusory, or nonexistent. In fact, he posits the exact opposite.

And on this point, I’m sure you’d agree with him.
For example: If you claim that God is immaterial, does it follow that He isn’t real?
 
Physical manifestation approves that the church is scientific. To prove that it is scientific approves that the church can obseve.
 
Glassjester said:
I’m seeing a non sequitur, here.
“Immaterial” does not mean “nonexistent” (or unreal).

Berkeley has claimed that all things are immaterial, and that minds and ideas are all that exist. He hasn’t claimed that minds or ideas are illusory, or nonexistent. In fact, he posits the exact opposite.

And on this point, I’m sure you’d agree with him.
For example: If you claim that God is immaterial, does it follow that He isn’t real?
Click to expand...
Would you consider a dream to be real? Or as real as when you are awake?
 
fisherman_carl said:
Well, Berkeley, from what I gather does not believe anything actually exists except for God’s thoughts, and our thoughts in response. Thus, for him we are living in a dream that seems very real. However, if none of this is real then we are being conned and the physical world is an illusion. Nothing has come to fruition and all is mind games. I for one prefer to live in a real world. There is no way to prove Berkley’s theory and no way to disprove it. Given that the world is for all intensive purposes real to us, why would we want to doubt it? There is no reason to conclude that God was lying when he said he created the universe from nothing.

So I guess the answer to your question is that under Berkley’s view the world is not real. Under a more realist view it is real and has actually been created. In one view you are part of an elaborate illusion. Under the other you are part of created reality.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so, Carl: for Berkeley the world was absolutely real, not a dream nor an illusion. However he argues, very strongly indeed, against the concept of matter that was common in his time. I exaggerated when I said that his system is laughable: it is not. And I think that reading his works would help you appreciate St. Thomas Aquinas even more, because the contrast between him and Bishop Berkeley would make you see some details that might have passed unobserved so far.
 
Ideas supposition that you are thinking. Without the scientific evidence to do so, it is a heresy.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
I don’t think so, Carl: for Berkeley the world was absolutely real, not a dream nor an illusion. However he argues, very strongly indeed, against the concept of matter that was common in his time. I exaggerated when I said that his system is laughable: it is not. And I think that reading his works would help you appreciate St. Thomas Aquinas even more, because the contrast between him and Bishop Berkeley would make you see some details that might have passed unobserved so far.
Click to expand...
To me if you say reality is composed of thoughts then it makes it less real. If only my thoughts could be made reality, without me having to actually do anything. I would no longer need to work for money. I could think about eating food and I would no longer be hungry. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top