Berkeley's Idealism

[JuanFlorencio]

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.

I think you need to read Berkeley, Carl. Don’t think he was stupid. There are good reasons why there is an important room for him in the History of Philosophy. As a sample, his reflections about human understanding were devastating for the philosophy of John Locke. Berkeley distinguishes between what he calls the Ideas of the sense ( what you are calling “real money” is an example of them), and the ideas of the will ( for example, your “thought money”). The procedures you need to follow in order to get the money idea of the sense are quite different from the ones you follow to get the money idea of the will. And this kind of money is not followed by the ability to purchase your real food, but only imaginary food. And if you imagine yourself eating a delishious dish, you will just be imaginarily satisfied.

This kind of objections are quite weak against Bishop Berkeley.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I think you need to read Berkeley, Carl. Don’t think he was stupid. There are good reasons why there is an important room for him in the History of Philosophy. As a sample, his reflections about human understanding were devastating for the philosophy of John Locke. Berkeley distinguishes between what he calls the Ideas of the sense ( what you are calling “real money” is an example of them), and the ideas of the will ( for example, your “thought money”). The procedures you need to follow in order to get the money idea of the sense are quite different from the ones you follow to get the money idea of the will. And this kind of money is not followed by the ability to purchase your real food, but only imaginary food. And if you imagine yourself eating a delishious dish, you will just be imaginarily satisfied.

This kind of objections are quite weak against Bishop Berkeley.

You seem to contradicting what I have heard and read about Berkley by saying he believed the physical world is real. For instance, to quote wiki,

George Berkeley (/ˈbɑːrklɪ/;[1][2] 12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753) — known as Bishop Berkeley (Bishop of Cloyne) — was an Anglo-Irish philosopher whose primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called “immaterialism” (later referred to as “subjective idealism” by others). This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are only ideas in the minds of perceivers, and as a result cannot exist without being perceived.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

You seem to contradicting what I have heard and read about Berkley by saying he believed the physical world is real. For instance, to quote wiki,

Not really, but my comment and the comment in the Wikipedia are incomplete accounts of Berkeley’s philosophy.

Tables and chairs are called Ideas of the sense by Berkeley. What does it mean? You see the table there: seeing it is one of your sensations, right? Berkeley does not deny you might have such sensation. You approach it, and touch it. By doing this, you are having now a richer set of sensations. Berkeley does not deny it. Then you sit on the chair. Your sensations become more abundant. Berkeley is ok with that. Do you want to burn the chair? Do it! You will have more and more sensations. Berkeley agrees.

Whatever you do involves a variety of sensations, and nothing more. So, what is the chair there? It is a set of possible and actual sensations. You might say: “no, but chairs are solid and ideas are not”, and Berkeley would respond: “solidity is a sensation”. If you add: “I can leave the chair in the room and close the door, and by means of a camera I can verify that the chair is still there without being perceived”; and Berkeley would respond: “you are now having another variety of visual sensations, and that is it. You are right, you are seeing the image of the chair and I do not deny it: that is what you are perceiving now”.

 

[Oreoracle]

I find it difficult myself to reject the idea that something cannot exist without being perceived. That position is, in my understanding, consistent with the scientific method and maybe even implied by it. In science, how does one corroborate the claim that something exists even though it is imperceptible? Since we cannot perceive the object even in principle, it cannot interact with other perceptible objects (else it would consequently be perceptible), and so the hypothesis cannot lead to any predictions to be falsified by experiment. Saying that imperceptible objects exist is pseudoscience. I would hesitate to say it is even meaningful to assert the existence of imperceptible objects, let alone scientific, because I’m not sure in what sense such a thing can even be called an object unless it’s just treated as an abstraction.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I find it difficult myself to reject the idea that something cannot exist without being perceived. That position is, in my understanding, consistent with the scientific method and maybe even implied by it. In science, how does one corroborate the claim that something exists even though it is imperceptible? Since we cannot perceive the object even in principle, it cannot interact with other perceptible objects (else it would consequently be perceptible), and so the hypothesis cannot lead to any predictions to be falsified by experiment. Saying that imperceptible objects exist is pseudoscience. I would hesitate to say it is even meaningful to assert the existence of imperceptible objects, let alone scientific, because I’m not sure in what sense such a thing can even be called an object unless it’s just treated as an abstraction.

For Berkeley, the working notions were “perceived/ non-perceived”, not “perceptible/ imperceptible”.

 

[Glassjester]

I find it difficult myself to reject the idea that something cannot exist without being perceived. That position is, in my understanding, consistent with the scientific method and maybe even implied by it.

Definitely.

Berkeley was an empiricist.
And his philosophy is the logical conclusion of pure empiricism.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Not really, but my comment and the comment in the Wikipedia are incomplete accounts of Berkeley’s philosophy.

Tables and chairs are called Ideas of the sense by Berkeley. What does it mean? You see the table there: seeing it is one of your sensations, right? Berkeley does not deny you might have such sensation. You approach it, and touch it. By doing this, you are having now a richer set of sensations. Berkeley does not deny it. Then you sit on the chair. Your sensations become more abundant. Berkeley is ok with that. Do you want to burn the chair? Do it! You will have more and more sensations. Berkeley agrees.

Whatever you do involves a variety of sensations, and nothing more. So, what is the chair there? It is a set of possible and actual sensations. You might say: “no, but chairs are solid and ideas are not”, and Berkeley would respond: “solidity is a sensation”. If you add: “I can leave the chair in the room and close the door, and by means of a camera I can verify that the chair is still there without being perceived”; and Berkeley would respond: “you are now having another variety of visual sensations, and that is it. You are right, you are seeing the image of the chair and I do not deny it: that is what you are perceiving now”.

Yeah, I just don’t buy that. Doesn’t this lead to skepticism of that which can not be experienced through sense? For example, the existence of God. There are things we can know apart from sense. We can reason about such things. The existence of a table can be known in the next room just by reasoning about it. And, like you implied before to think that things exist only in your mind when you are thinking about them leads to solopsism. It also may be the sign of a psychological disorder.

Science tells us there is a whole world that goes on in nature without us ever observing it. From polar bears to plants under artic ice. Volcanoes have no trouble erupting without anyone thinking about them.

 

[Oreoracle]

For Berkeley, the working notions were “perceived/ non-perceived”, not “perceptible/ imperceptible”.

Oh, I see. I want to ask some more questions about this position after I set up something concrete for us to work with.

Let’s say I step outside one morning and the weather feels warm. In fact let’s quantify that: the temperature definitely feels greater than the freezing point of water. I want to be sure, so I proceed with the scientific method. I hypothesize that the temperature is above the freezing point of water, so the null hypothesis is that the temperature is below the freezing point. I want to falsify the null hypothesis so I formulate a model of the interaction between the heat and the state of an ice cube left out in the sun. My model leads me to predict that the ice cube would remain solid if left alone for an hour if the null hypothesis is true. I leave an ice cube outside and return after an hour to a puddle. I reject the null hypothesis and take this as evidence of the original hypothesis.

My questions:

1. Would Berkeley consider a statement such as “The temperature is above the freezing point of water” to even have a truth value at the time I hypothesize it? The statement itself only has meaning as a prediction of what would happen to water if it were exposed to those conditions, and this happening is not being experienced at that moment even though the warmth of the sun on my face may very well be.
2. Clearly in science we would say I have discovered that the temperature outside is above freezing or at least found evidence of this. Would Berkeley consider this a discovery, or did the temperature not have this property before I noticed the puddle?

 

[Glassjester]

1. Would Berkeley consider a statement such as “The temperature is above the freezing point of water” to even have a truth value at the time I hypothesize it?

Empirically speaking, you’d be making the claim, “If we observe water at this observed temperature, we would observe that it is liquid.”

Berkeley would agree fully.

1. Clearly in science we would say I have discovered that the temperature outside is above freezing or at least found evidence of this. Would Berkeley consider this a discovery, or did the temperature not have this property before I noticed the puddle?

We observe order and regularity in nature. Berkeley did not deny this.
He took this constancy as evidence of a constant observer - God.

 

[kdbueno]

Observation allows us to appreciate the beauty of God. In a real and moral interesting sense.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Definitely.

Berkeley was an empiricist.
And his philosophy is the logical conclusion of pure empiricism.

You should listen to this lecture on empiricism and rationism. He makes a good case against empiricism. An empiricist has to prove everything is only known through the senses. The rationalist has only to prove that at least one thing can be know apart from sense experience. For example, mathematics and logic, an innate desire for and knowledge of God, etc.

biblicaltraining.org/lecture/th620-11

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Yeah, I just don’t buy that. Doesn’t this lead to skepticism of that which can not be experienced through sense? For example, the existence of God. There are things we can know apart from sense. We can reason about such things. The existence of a table can be known in the next room just by reasoning about it. And, like you implied before to think that things exist only in your mind when you are thinking about them leads to solopsism. It also may be the sign of a psychological disorder.

Science tells us there is a whole world that goes on in nature without us ever observing it. From polar bears to plants under artic ice. Volcanoes have no trouble erupting without anyone thinking about them.

You don’t buy that! Yes, Carl. That is what happens to many people when they hear something of this doctrine. Up to this point, what Berkeley says is irrefutable. He has just described, very rigorously, our experience. As a layman you could say “I don’t want to follow him”. As one who has philosophical tendencies, you would need to refute him rationaly. And one way of doing it is to prolong his reasonings till the end, rigorously, applying the logical rules that he accepted, until you find something that contradicts fundamental statements of his teachings.

“He was crazy!” is not a refutation. “He was a solipsist!” Could be a misunderstanding of his words and it certainly is not a refutation either.

Bishop Berkeley lived a good life in the same world in which you and me are living: he depended on the work of many people and was interested on them, even when he was not observing them at every moment. He was in no way a naive man.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Oh, I see. I want to ask some more questions about this position after I set up something concrete for us to work with.

Let’s say I step outside one morning and the weather feels warm. In fact let’s quantify that: the temperature definitely feels greater than the freezing point of water. I want to be sure, so I proceed with the scientific method. I hypothesize that the temperature is above the freezing point of water, so the null hypothesis is that the temperature is below the freezing point. I want to falsify the null hypothesis so I formulate a model of the interaction between the heat and the state of an ice cube left out in the sun. My model leads me to predict that the ice cube would remain solid if left alone for an hour if the null hypothesis is true. I leave an ice cube outside and return after an hour to a puddle. I reject the null hypothesis and take this as evidence of the original hypothesis.

My questions:

1. Would Berkeley consider a statement such as “The temperature is above the freezing point of water” to even have a truth value at the time I hypothesize it? The statement itself only has meaning as a prediction of what would happen to water if it were exposed to those conditions, and this happening is not being experienced at that moment even though the warmth of the sun on my face may very well be.
2. Clearly in science we would say I have discovered that the temperature outside is above freezing or at least found evidence of this. Would Berkeley consider this a discovery, or did the temperature not have this property before I noticed the puddle?

As Glassjester has said, Berkeley was convinced of the regularity in nature. However, in his analysis of ideas he observes that one idea does not produce another. Ideas are passive, so that there is no causality between them. But there is regularity. Again, how to respond rationaly to this guy?

However, I disagree with Glassjester when he says that for Berkeley God is a constant observer. In God, the only kind of ideas which are possible are those that Berkeley call “ideas of the will”.

 

[Glassjester]

You should listen to this lecture on empiricism and rationism. He makes a good case against empiricism. An empiricist has to prove everything is only known through the senses. The rationalist has only to prove that at least one thing can be know apart from sense experience. For example, mathematics and logic, an innate desire for and knowledge of God, etc.

biblicaltraining.org/lecture/th620-11

Thanks, I will!

BTW - Berkeley’s writings don’t seem to contradict what you’ve said of rationalism, above.

 

[Glassjester]

However, I disagree with Glassjester when he says that for Berkeley God is a constant observer. In God, the only kind of ideas which are possible are those that Berkeley call “ideas of the will”.

You are right. “Observer” is much too weak of a description.
But it is God’s constant perception of all things that maintains all things (according to Berkeley). He does constantly behold His creation.

God would then be both Creator and Observer.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

You are right. “Observer” is much too weak of a description.
But it is God’s constant perception of all things that maintains all things (according to Berkeley). He does constantly behold His creation.

God would then be both Creator and Observer.

Yes, not having better words we can use these.

On the other hand, look how these thoughts of Berkeley do not fit terribly well within the frame of “empiricism”. Though it has been the compartment in which historians of philosophy have put Berkeley, I don’t think “empiricism” describes his whole doctrine. Berkeley himself says that, concerning spirits, our cognitive resource to know them is reason. Obviously, his method to know that God exists is not empirical in its entirety; and God doesn’t play a secondary role in his philosophy.

 

[fisherman_carl]

You don’t buy that! Yes, Carl. That is what happens to many people when they hear something of this doctrine. Up to this point, what Berkeley says is irrefutable. He has just described, very rigorously, our experience. As a layman you could say “I don’t want to follow him”. As one who has philosophical tendencies, you would need to refute him rationaly. And one way of doing it is to prolong his reasonings till the end, rigorously, applying the logical rules that he accepted, until you find something that contradicts fundamental statements of his teachings.

“He was crazy!” is not a refutation. “He was a solipsist!” Could be a misunderstanding of his words and it certainly is not a refutation either.

Bishop Berkeley lived a good life in the same world in which you and me are living: he depended on the work of many people and was interested on them, even when he was not observing them at every moment. He was in no way a naive man.

So do you accept his philosophy now? Why are you defending him? I am not speaking ill of him as a person. I just don’t but into the premise that reality is made out of thought. There is no way to prove or disprove such a claim. And there is no reason to doubt what my senses and my innate natural belief that the world is real. such innate beliefs may come from God and be an example of something that we know that doesn’t come from the sense experience, which would refute empiricism.

If all we know is that which comes to us from sense experience then how could we know if reality was composed of thought, since nothing in our senses could tell us that? It seems like a contradiction.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

So do you accept his philosophy now? Why are you defending him? I am not speaking ill of him as a person. I just don’t but into the premise that reality is made out of thought. There is no way to prove or disprove such a claim. And there is no reason to doubt what my senses and my innate natural belief that the world is real. such innate beliefs may come from God and be an example of something that we know that doesn’t come from the sense experience, which would refute empiricism.

If all we know is that which comes to us from sense experience then how could we know if reality was composed of thought, since nothing in our senses could tell us that? It seems like a contradiction.

No, I don’t accept Berkeley’s philosophy. I just was trying to assist you in a negative way, telling you that that who you believe is Berkeley is not Berkeley (and by “Berkeley” I mean his texts).

I guess you are familiar with the Aristotelian Thomist theory of abstraction. According to this theory, all we have in our mind comes from our senses, isn’t it?

 

[fisherman_carl]

No, I don’t accept Berkeley’s philosophy. I just was trying to assist you in a negative way, telling you that that who you believe is Berkeley is not Berkeley (and by “Berkeley” I mean his texts).

I guess you are familiar with the Aristotelian Thomist theory of abstraction. According to this theory, all we have in our mind comes from our senses, isn’t it?

That’s true, but I don’t necessarily agree with the idea that all we can know is from our senses. Dr. Nash (a Protestant Augustinian) makes a compelling case for the idea of innate knowledge in the link I gave above. Also, things like logic don’t necessarily come to us from our senses. For instance, I don’t need sense experience to know that there is no such thing as a married bachelor. St. Augustine believed innate ideas come to us from God directly, like the desire to know him.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Sense experience is capable of grasping what is the particular case. But, it can not tell us what must be the case at all times. For instance, the computer I am using is black, but it could have been red. Sense experience tells me it is black. However, my computer could not be all black and all red at the same time. Sense experience is not capable of telling me that. It can not tell us what must be the case at all times. According to Dr Nash notions of necessity and universality can not be derived from our experience. Rather they are notions that we bring to sense experience in making judgments about reality.