George Berkeley – Subjective Idealism & Immaterialism

George Berkeley: Biography & Historical Context

  • Born 1685 in Ireland; died 1752.
  • Anglican (Church of England) bishop; often styled “Bishop Berkeley.”
  • Lived for a time in Newport, Rhode Island (pre-U.S.), fundraising for a planned Bermudan college.
  • Later life fascination: “tar-water” as a universal medicine (1734 context of pre-modern medicine).
  • University of California, Berkeley—as well as the city—named after him.

Primary Text Discussed

  • “Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, in opposition to Skeptics and Atheists” (1713).
    • Dialogue form: Philonous = lover of mind (Berkeley’s spokesman); Hylas = matter (Locke’s stand-in).

Philosophical Motivation & Goals

  • Religious defense: protect Christianity from skepticism he thinks arises in modern philosophy.
  • Believes Locke’s acceptance of matter leads to skepticism and “mechanistic” denigration of nature’s sublimity.
  • Seeks to show his immaterialism is more faithful to empiricist principles than Locke’s dualism.

Core Doctrines

Immaterialism (Negative Thesis)
  • Matter as an independent, inert substance does not exist.
  • Dualism (mind + matter) collapses; only mind remains.
  • Ideas we think are caused by material objects are instead immediate effects of God’s mind.
Idealism (Positive Thesis)
  • Reality = only one kind of substance: mind/spirit.
    • Finite minds: human or other created spirits.
    • Infinite mind: God.
  • “To be is to be perceived” (esse est percipi) for all sensible objects.

Empiricism Retained

  • No innate ideas; all knowledge through sensory experience.
  • Unlike Locke, the “reality” of perceived things = independence from finite minds, not independence from all mind.

Berkeley’s Interpretation of Causation

  • Causes must be active; matter is by definition passive/inert → cannot originate anything.
  • Ideas are passive effects; only minds can be active causes.
    • My sensory ideas are involuntary → must be produced by another active mind = God.

God’s Role

  • God continually thinks the world, guaranteeing:
    • Stability & order of nature.
    • Uniform “laws of nature” (e.g. d=rtd=rt always holds).
  • Solves “unperceived tree” puzzle: even when no human perceives, God does.

Locke vs. Berkeley: Three Major Disputes

1. Primary vs. Secondary Qualities
  • Locke: primary (shape, motion, number) resemble reality; secondary (color, taste) do not.
  • Berkeley: we only access ideas; claim of resemblance is unverifiable → dogmatic.
  • Because primary & secondary always appear together, both must be mental.
2. Substance Dualism
  • Locke’s postulation of two unknown “substrates” (mind & matter) adds unverifiable entities.
  • If substance is unknowable in principle, asserting two kinds is baseless.
3. Abstract / General Ideas
  • Locke: abstraction forms ideas like “triangle in general,” “dog in general.”
  • Berkeley: impossible; we never perceive non-particular qualities.
    • Imagining a “dog” with no color/size/tail-length is incoherent → “incomprehensible non-idea.”

Positive Case for Immaterialism

  • Variability/relativity of perception better explained if perceptions are mind-dependent ideas rather than features of a fixed external matter.
  • Eliminates need for mysterious “resemblance” criteria.
  • Retains science: laws describe God’s regular volitions, not mechanical motions of matter.

Illustrative Examples & Anecdotes

  • Desk example: seeing a desk cannot be caused by a material desk because matter is inert; cause is God’s idea.
  • Ice-cream illustration (from Locke): 32∘F32^\circ F temperature vs. “yummy taste.” Berkeley uses to deny primary/secondary split.
  • Samuel Johnson’s attempted refutation: kicks a rock—Berkeley replies this is still only an idea of a rock + foot.
  • Lake Michigan thought-experiment: 300 million ideas of Lake Michigan → problem of multiple “lakes” on Berkeley’s view.

Objections & Criticisms

  • Modern atomic theory: matter itself explains perceptual variability → Berkeley gains no advantage.
  • If primary qualities are material, inseparability might make secondary qualities material too—turns Berkeley’s argument around.
  • Assumption “matter cannot be a cause” questioned:
    • Natural causal chains (lightning ignites straw) suggest matter acting on matter.
    • If matter can cause matter, maybe it can also cause ideas (interactionism)
  • Proliferation problem: each distinct perceiver yields distinct copies of objects (e.g. Lake Michigan) → absurd multiplicity.
  • Theodicy / problem of evil: orderly world does not guarantee a benevolent, omnipotent God; Berkeley’s inference to God may be unjustified.

Continuity in British Empiricism

  • Locke → Berkeley → Hume.
    • Locke: dualist, matter + mind.
    • Berkeley: keeps empiricism, removes matter.
    • Hume: radicalizes empiricism, questions both matter and mind (denies knowable substance altogether).
  • Immaterialism thus a transitional stage leading to Hume’s skepticism.

Practical, Ethical & Aesthetic Implications

  • Romantic sensibility: nature as divine artwork vs. mechanistic machine; fuels later Romantic movement.
  • Defense of faith: aims to show empiricism supports, rather than threatens, religious belief.
  • Ethical note: if God orchestrates perceptions, moral order perceived in nature reflects divine reason (though critics invoke evil as counter-evidence).

Key Takeaways

  • Berkeley keeps Locke’s sensory empiricism but eliminates the material substrate.
  • Causal activity assigned solely to spirits; God ensures perceptual coherence.
  • Subjective idealism solves some skeptical puzzles yet invites new ones (multiplicity, causation, God-proof).
  • Sets stage for Hume’s deeper skepticism about any underlying substance.