BERKELEY'S IDEA

 

There is a brainy quirk being told to the novices of science charades, to the effect that there can be no noise if there is no one there to hear it. Which should instantly bring the name of George Berkeley to our mind.

There was already another curious although perhaps totally irrelevant quirk concerning Berkeley in my past experience. When in my young years I first learned about his theory, I was somehow particularly impressed that he was a bishop, obviously unaware then of the fact that he wrote the definitive exposition of his theory in 1713 at the age of twenty-eight, which was long before he would become a bishop…

But enough of such quirks. The reason why I would like to connect Berkeley to the first conundrum is that the gist of his theory of ideas boils down to the statement that all matter exists by virtue of perception only. Take away our perception of it, and all matter will cease to exist.

There is a necessary clarification of this nonsensical theory to the effect that, of course, our earth and things on it exist without having to be perceived by us humans, because all Creation is already being perceived by God in perpetuity, and, in that sense, none of the material world owes its ultimate existence to us, but rather to its Creator. Thus, there will always be noise, as there is always the eternal Someone to hear it.

Well, even with this helpful clarification, this theory remains nonsensical to common sense. Yet, instead of calling George Berkeley a madman, or a charlatan, we call him a great philosopher, and we will surely keep calling him that for as long as philosophy as such endures. I do hope that my reader is no longer bewildered and does not want to ask why, as we have discussed this subject extensively throughout the previous pages. In philosophy it doesn’t matter what nonsense our philosopher utters (like, say, there is no way for Achilles to ever outrace the slowest turtle in the world, as long as it gets a head start and keeps moving), but the quality and nature of his (in this case, Zeno’s) arguments in support of it do matter, and these arguments are what determines the greatness of the philosopher. (There are numerous nuances to this rather coarse statement, but its essence is true.) There are also collateral discoveries, that happen to be made along the way, which often represent far higher values than the principal theme and argument of the discussion. We shall, therefore, seek the value of Berkeley’s arguments and collaterals, rather than the validity of his wacky theory, for the remainder of this entry.

George Berkeley’s (1685-1753) fame rests mainly on his two works (A Treatise Concerning The Principles of Human Knowledge [1710], and Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (the first name is a play on the Greek word “matter,” and the second name means “Lover of the Intellect,” which is the name the author reserves for himself, in these Dialogues) [1713], both written and published in his twenties.

While talking about our need to distinguish the object from its perception, he introduces a new argument, identifying all things as bundles of sensible qualities, which somehow get intertwined together, enabling us to identify each such bundle with the particular object which it represents. But, because of the separation of perception from the object and placing the former with the perceiving subject who forms ideas on the basis of his perception, Berkeley’s theory has become known as subjective idealism, and it has had a great impact on the development of the empirical method of obtaining knowledge.

Thus, from Berkeley’s ostensibly most improbable fantasy follows a set of extremely practicable principles. One is that any knowledge of the world is to be obtained only through direct perception. Hence, the ideal form of scientific knowledge is to be obtained by pursuing pure de-intellectualized perceptions. Therefore, if individuals would pursue these, we should be able to obtain deepest insights into the natural world, and the world of human thought and action that is available to man. And finally, the goal of all science should be thus to de-intellectualize or de-conceptualize, and thereby to purify, human perceptions.

In his Parerga and Paralipomena, Schopenhauer writes of him: “Berkeley was, therefore, the first to treat the subjective starting-point really seriously, and to demonstrate irrefutably its absolute necessity. He is the father of idealism.”

(Curiously, compare Berkeley’s idea to Lenin’s definition of matter as “objective reality given to us in sensations.” Come to think of it, how far is Lenin’s objective materialism from Berkeley’s subjective idealism?..)

Need I add that Berkeley’s Idea had also given rise to a host of empirical philosophies, the foremost among them being that of David Hume (whose own series will be immediately following the Berkeley series).