Berkley
BerkleyAs man progressed through the various stages of evolution, it is
assumed that at a certain point he began to ponder the world around him. Of
course, these first attempts fell short of being scholarly, probably
consisting of a few grunts and snorts at best. As time passed on, though,
these ideas persisted and were eventually tackled by the more intellectual,
so-called philosophers. Thus, excavation of "the external world" began. As
the authoritarinism of the ancients gave way to the more liberal views of
the modernists, two main positions concerning epistemology and the nature
of the world arose. The first view was exemplified by the empiricists, who
stated that all knowledge comes from the senses. In opposition, the
rationalists maintained that knowledge comes purely from deduction, and
that this knowledge is processed by certain innate schema in the mind.
Those that belonged to the empiricist school of thought developed quite
separate and distinct ideas concerning the nature of the substratum of
sensible objects. John Locke and David Hume upheld the belief that
sensible things were composed of material substance, the basic framework
for the materialist position. The main figure who believed that material
substance did not exist is George Berkeley. In truth, it is the
immaterialist position that seems the most logical when placed under close
scrutiny.
The initial groundwork for Berkeley's position is the truism that the
materialist is a skeptic. In the writing of his three dialogues, Berkeley
develops two characters: Hylas (the materialist) and Philonous (Berkeley
himself). Philonous draws upon one central supposition of the materialist
to formulate his argument of skepticism against him; this idea is that one
can never perceive the real essence of anything. In short, the materialist
feels that the information received through sense experience gives a
representative picture of the outside world (the representative theory of
perception), and one can not penetrate to the true essece of an object.
This makes logical sense, for the only way to perceive this real essence
would be to become the object itself! Although the idea is logical, it
does contain a certain grounding for agnosticism. Let the reader consider
this: if there is no way to actually sense the true material essence of
anything, and all knowledge in empiricism comes from the senses, then the
real material essence can not be perceived and therefore it can not be
posited. This deserves careful consideration, for the materialist has been
self-proclaimed a skeptic! If the believer in this theory were asked if a
mythical beast such as a cyclops existed he would most certainly say no. As
part of his reply he might add that because it can not be sensed it is not
a piece of knowledge. After being enlightened by the above proposed
argument, though, that same materialist is logically forced to agree that,
because the "material substratum1" itself can not be sensed, its existence...
To view the complete essay, you be registered.