Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous,

G >> George Berkeley >> Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous,

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

PHIL. I assure you, Hylas, I do not pretend to frame any hypothesis at
all. I am of a vulgar cast, simple enough to believe my senses, and leave
things as I find them. To be plain, it is my opinion that the real things
are those very things I see, and feel, and perceive by my senses. These I
know; and, finding they answer all the necessities and purposes of life,
have no reason to be solicitous about any other unknown beings. A piece
of sensible bread, for instance, would stay my stomach better than ten
thousand times as much of that insensible, unintelligible, real bread you
speak of. It is likewise my opinion that colours and other sensible
qualities are on the objects. I cannot for my life help thinking
that snow is white, and fire hot. You indeed, who by SNOW and fire mean
certain external, unperceived, unperceiving substances, are in the right
to deny whiteness or heat to be affections inherent in THEM. But I, who
understand by those words the things I see and feel, am obliged to think
like other folks. And, as I am no sceptic with regard to the nature of
things, so neither am I as to their existence. That a thing should be
really perceived by my senses, and at the same time not really exist, is
to me a plain contradiction; since I cannot prescind or abstract, even in
thought, the existence of a sensible thing from its being perceived.
Wood, stones, fire, water, flesh, iron, and the like things, which I name
and discourse of, are things that I know. And I should not have known
them but that I perceived them by my senses; and things perceived by the
senses are immediately perceived; and things immediately perceived are
ideas; and ideas cannot exist without the mind; their existence therefore
consists in being perceived; when, therefore, they are actually perceived
there can be no doubt of their existence. Away then with all that
scepticism, all those ridiculous philosophical doubts. What a jest is it
for a philosopher to question the existence of sensible things, till he
hath it proved to him from the veracity of God; or to pretend our
knowledge in this point falls short of intuition or demonstration! I
might as well doubt of my own being, as of the being of those things I
actually see and feel.

HYL. Not so fast, Philonous: you say you cannot conceive how sensible
things should exist without the mind. Do you not?

PHIL. I do.

HYL. Supposing you were annihilated, cannot you conceive it possible
that things perceivable by sense may still exist?

PHIL. _I_ can; but then it must be in another mind. When I deny
sensible things an existence out of the mind, I do not mean my mind in
particular, but all minds. Now, it is plain they have an existence
exterior to my mind; since I find them by experience to be independent of
it. There is therefore some other Mind wherein they exist, during the
intervals between the times of my perceiving them: as likewise they
did before my birth, and would do after my supposed annihilation. And, as
the same is true with regard to all other finite created spirits, it
necessarily follows there is an OMNIPRESENT ETERNAL MIND, which knows
and comprehends all things, and exhibits them to our view in such a
manner, and according to such rules, as He Himself hath ordained, and are
by us termed the LAWS OF NATURE.

HYL. Answer me, Philonous. Are all our ideas perfectly inert beings? Or
have they any agency included in them?

PHIL. They are altogether passive and inert.

HYL. And is not God an agent, a being purely active?

PHIL. I acknowledge it.

HYL. No idea therefore can be like unto, or represent the nature of
God?

PHIL. It cannot.

HYL. Since therefore you have no IDEA of the mind of God, how can you
conceive it possible that things should exist in His mind? Or, if you can
conceive the mind of God, without having an idea of it, why may not I be
allowed to conceive the existence of Matter, notwithstanding I have no
idea of it?

PHIL. As to your first question: I own I have properly no IDEA,
either of God or any other spirit; for these being active, cannot be
represented by things perfectly inert, as our ideas are. I do
nevertheless know that I, who am a spirit or thinking substance, exist as
certainly as I know my ideas exist. Farther, I know what I mean by the
terms I AND MYSELF; and I know this immediately or intuitively, though
I do not perceive it as I perceive a triangle, a colour, or a sound. The
Mind, Spirit, or Soul is that indivisible unextended thing which thinks,
acts, and perceives. I say INDIVISIBLE, because unextended; and
UNEXTENDED, because extended, figured, moveable things are ideas; and
that which perceives ideas, which thinks and wills, is plainly itself no
idea, nor like an idea. Ideas are things inactive, and perceived. And
Spirits a sort of beings altogether different from them. I do not
therefore say my soul is an idea, or like an idea. However, taking the
word IDEA in a large sense, my soul may be said to furnish me with an
idea, that is, an image or likeness of God--though indeed extremely
inadequate. For, all the notion I have of God is obtained by reflecting
on my own soul, heightening its powers, and removing its
imperfections. I have, therefore, though not an inactive idea, yet in
MYSELF some sort of an active thinking image of the Deity. And, though
I perceive Him not by sense, yet I have a notion of Him, or know Him by
reflexion and reasoning. My own mind and my own ideas I have an immediate
knowledge of; and, by the help of these, do mediately apprehend the
possibility of the existence of other spirits and ideas. Farther, from my
own being, and from the dependency I find in myself and my ideas, I do,
by an act of reason, necessarily infer the existence of a God, and of all
created things in the mind of God. So much for your first question. For
the second: I suppose by this time you can answer it yourself. For you
neither perceive Matter objectively, as you do an inactive being or idea;
nor know it, as you do yourself, by a reflex act, neither do you
mediately apprehend it by similitude of the one or the other; nor yet
collect it by reasoning from that which you know immediately. All which
makes the case of MATTER widely different from that of the DEITY.

HYL. You say your own soul supplies you with some sort of an idea or
image of God. But, at the same time, you acknowledge you have, properly
speaking, no IDEA of your own soul. You even affirm that spirits are a
sort of beings altogether different from ideas. Consequently that no idea
can be like a spirit. We have therefore no idea of any spirit. You admit
nevertheless that there is spiritual Substance, although you have no idea
of it; while you deny there can be such a thing as material Substance,
because you have no notion or idea of it. Is this fair dealing? To act
consistently, you must either admit Matter or reject Spirit. What say you
to this?

PHIL. _I_ say, in the first place, that I do not deny the existence of
material substance, merely because I have no notion of it' but because
the notion of it is inconsistent; or, in other words, because it is
repugnant that there should be a notion of it. Many things, for aught I
know, may exist, whereof neither I nor any other man hath or can have any
idea or notion whatsoever. But then those things must be possible, that
is, nothing inconsistent must be included in their definition. I
say, secondly, that, although we believe things to exist which we do not
perceive, yet we may not believe that any particular thing exists,
without some reason for such belief: but I have no reason for believing
the existence of Matter. I have no immediate intuition thereof: neither
can I immediately from my sensations, ideas, notions, actions, or
passions, infer an unthinking, unperceiving, inactive Substance--either
by probable deduction, or necessary consequence. Whereas the being of my
Self, that is, my own soul, mind, or thinking principle, I evidently know
by reflexion. You will forgive me if I repeat the same things in answer
to the same objections. In the very notion or definition of MATERIAL
SUBSTANCE, there is included a manifest repugnance and inconsistency.
But this cannot be said of the notion of Spirit. That ideas should exist
in what doth not perceive, or be produced by what doth not act, is
repugnant. But, it is no repugnancy to say that a perceiving thing should
be the subject of ideas, or an active thing the cause of them. It is
granted we have neither an immediate evidence nor a demonstrative
knowledge of the existence of other finite spirits; but it will not
thence follow that such spirits are on a foot with material substances:
if to suppose the one be inconsistent, and it be not inconsistent to
suppose the other; if the one can be inferred by no argument, and there
is a probability for the other; if we see signs and effects indicating
distinct finite agents like ourselves, and see no sign or symptom
whatever that leads to a rational belief of Matter. I say, lastly, that I
have a notion of Spirit, though I have not, strictly speaking, an idea of
it. I do not perceive it as an idea, or by means of an idea, but know it
by reflexion.

HYL. Notwithstanding all you have said, to me it seems that, according
to your own way of thinking, and in consequence of your own principles,
it should follow that YOU are only a system of floating ideas, without
any substance to support them. Words are not to be used without a
meaning. And, as there is no more meaning in SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE than
in MATERIAL SUBSTANCE, the one is to be exploded as well as the other.

PHIL. How often must I repeat, that I know or am conscious of my own
being; and that _I_ MYSELF am not my ideas, but somewhat else, a
thinking, active principle that perceives, knows, wifls, and operates
about ideas. I know that I, one and the same self, perceive both
colours and sounds: that a colour cannot perceive a sound, nor a sound a
colour: that I am therefore one individual principle, distinct from
colour and sound; and, for the same reason, from aft other sensible
things and inert ideas. But, I am not in like manner conscious either of
the existence or essence of Matter. On the contrary, I know that nothing
inconsistent can exist, and that the existence of Matter implies an
inconsistency. Farther, I know what I mean when I affirm that there is a
spiritual substance or support of ideas, that is, that a spirit knows and
perceives ideas. But, I do not know what is meant when it is said that an
unperceiving substance hath inherent in it and supports either ideas or
the archetypes of ideas. There is therefore upon the whole no parity of
case between Spirit and Matter.

HYL. I own myself satisfied in this point. But, do you in earnest think
the real existence of sensible things consists in their being actually
perceived? If so; how comes it that all mankind distinguish between them?
Ask the first man you meet, and he shall tell you, TO BE PERCEIVED is
one thing, and TO EXIST is another.

PHIL. _I_ am content, Hylas, to appeal to the common sense of the world
for the truth of my notion. Ask the gardener why he thinks yonder
cherry-tree exists in the garden, and he shall tell you, because he sees
and feels it; in a word, because he perceives it by his senses. Ask him
why he thinks an orange-tree not to be there, and he shall tell you,
because he does not perceive it. What he perceives by sense, that he
terms a real, being, and saith it IS OR EXISTS; but, that which is not
perceivable, the same, he saith, hath no being.

HYL. Yes, Philonous, I grant the existence of a sensible thing consists
in being perceivable, but not in being actually perceived.

PHIL. And what is perceivable but an idea? And can an idea exist
without being actually perceived? These are points long since agreed
between us.

HYL. But, be your opinion never so true, yet surely you will not deny
it is shocking, and contrary to the common sense of men. Ask the
fellow whether yonder tree hath an existence out of his mind: what answer
think you he would make?

PHIL. The same that I should myself, to wit, that it doth exist out of
his mind. But then to a Christian it cannot surely be shocking to say,
the real tree, existing without his mind, is truly known and comprehended
by (that is EXISTS IN) the infinite mind of God. Probably he may not at
first glance be aware of the direct and immediate proof there is of this;
inasmuch as the very being of a tree, or any other sensible thing,
implies a mind wherein it is. But the point itself he cannot deny. The
question between the Materialists and me is not, whether things have a
REAL existence out of the mind of this or that person, but whether they
have an ABSOLUTE existence, distinct from being perceived by God, and
exterior to all minds. This indeed some heathens and philosophers have
affirmed, but whoever entertains notions of the Deity suitable to the
Holy Scriptures will be of another opinion.

HYL. But, according to your notions, what difference is there between
real things, and chimeras formed by the imagination, or the visions of a
dream--since they are all equally in the mind?

PHIL. The ideas formed by the imagination are faint and indistinct;
they have, besides, an entire dependence on the will. But the ideas
perceived by sense, that is, real things, are more vivid and clear; and,
being imprinted on the mind by a spirit distinct from us, have not the
like dependence on our will. There is therefore no danger of confounding
these with the foregoing: and there is as little of confounding them with
the visions of a dream, which are dim, irregular, and confused. And,
though they should happen to be never so lively and natural, yet, by
their not being connected, and of a piece with the preceding and
subsequent transactions of our lives, they might easily be distinguished
from realities. In short, by whatever method you distinguish THINGS FROM
CHIMERAS on your scheme, the same, it is evident, will hold also upon
mine. For, it must be, I presume, by some perceived difference; and I am
not for depriving you of any one thing that you perceive.

HYL. But still, Philonous, you hold, there is nothing in the world but
spirits and ideas. And this, you must needs acknowledge, sounds very
oddly.

PHIL. I own the word IDEA, not being commonly used for THING,
sounds something out of the way. My reason for using it was, because a
necessary relation to the mind is understood to be implied by that
term; and it is now commonly used by philosophers to denote the immediate
objects of the understanding. But, however oddly the proposition may
sound in words, yet it includes nothing so very strange or shocking in
its sense; which in effect amounts to no more than this, to wit, that
there are only things perceiving, and things perceived; or that every
unthinking being is necessarily, and from the very nature of its
existence, perceived by some mind; if not by a finite created mind, yet
certainly by the infinite mind of God, in whom "we five, and move, and
have our being." Is this as strange as to say, the sensible qualities are
not on the objects: or that we cannot be sure of the existence of things,
or know any thing of their real natures--though we both see and feel
them, and perceive them by all our senses?

HYL. And, in consequence of this, must we not think there are no such
things as physical or corporeal causes; but that a Spirit is the
immediate cause of all the phenomena in nature? Can there be anything
more extravagant than this?

PHIL. Yes, it is infinitely more extravagant to say--a thing which is
inert operates on the mind, and which is unperceiving is the cause of our
perceptions, without any regard either to consistency, or the old known
axiom, NOTHING CAN GIVE TO ANOTHER THAT WHICH IT HATH NOT ITSELF.
Besides, that which to you, I know not for what reason, seems so
extravagant is no more than the Holy Scriptures assert in a hundred
places. In them God is represented as the sole and immediate Author of
all those effects which some heathens and philosophers are wont to
ascribe to Nature, Matter, Fate, or the like unthinking principle. This
is so much the constant language of Scripture that it were needless to
confirm it by citations.

HYL. You are not aware, Philonous, that in making God the immediate
Author of all the motions in nature, you make Him the Author of murder,
sacrilege, adultery, and the like heinous sins.

PHIL. In answer to that, I observe, first, that the imputation of guilt
is the same, whether a person commits an action with or without an
instrument. In case therefore you suppose God to act by the mediation of
an instrument or occasion, called MATTER, you as truly make Him the
author of sin as I, who think Him the immediate agent in all those
operations vulgarly ascribed to Nature. I farther observe that sin or
moral turpitude doth not consist in the outward physical action or
motion, but in the internal deviation of the will from the laws of reason
and religion. This is plain, in that the killing an enemy in a battle, or
putting a criminal legally to death, is not thought sinful; though the
outward act be the very same with that in the case of murder. Since,
therefore, sin doth not consist in the physical action, the making God an
immediate cause of all such actions is not making Him the Author of sin.
Lastly, I have nowhere said that God is the only agent who produces all
the motions in bodies. It is true I have denied there are any other
agents besides spirits; but this is very consistent with allowing to
thinking rational beings, in the production of motions, the use of
limited powers, ultimately indeed derived from God, but immediately under
the direction of their own wills, which is sufficient to entitle them to
all the guilt of their actions.

HYL. But the denying Matter, Philonous, or corporeal Substance; there
is the point. You can never persuade me that this is not repugnant to the
universal sense of mankind. Were our dispute to be determined by most
voices, I am confident you would give up the point, without gathering the
votes.

PHIL. I wish both our opinions were fairly stated and submitted to the
judgment of men who had plain common sense, without the prejudices of a
learned education. Let me be represented as one who trusts his senses,
who thinks he knows the things he sees and feels, and entertains no
doubts of their existence; and you fairly set forth with all your doubts,
your paradoxes, and your scepticism about you, and I shall willingly
acquiesce in the determination of any indifferent person. That there is
no substance wherein ideas can exist beside spirit is to me evident. And
that the objects immediately perceived are ideas, is on all hands agreed.
And that sensible qualities are objects immediately perceived no one can
deny. It is therefore evident there can be no SUBSTRATUM of those
qualities but spirit; in which they exist, not by way of mode or
property, but as a thing perceived in that which perceives it. I deny
therefore that there is ANY UNTHINKING-SUBSTRATUM of the objects of
sense, and IN THAT ACCEPTATION that there is any material substance.
But if by MATERIAL SUBSTANCE is meant only SENSIBLE BODY, THAT
which is seen and felt (and the unphilosophical part of the world, I dare
say, mean no more)--then I am more certain of matter's existence than you
or any other philosopher pretend to be. If there be anything which makes
the generality of mankind averse from the notions I espouse, it is
a misapprehension that I deny the reality of sensible things. But, as it
is you who are guilty of that, and not I, it follows that in truth their
aversion is against your notions and not mine. I do therefore assert that
I am as certain as of my own being, that there are bodies or corporeal
substances (meaning the things I perceive by my senses); and that,
granting this, the bulk of mankind will take no thought about, nor think
themselves at all concerned in the fate of those unknown natures, and
philosophical quiddities, which some men are so fond of.

HYL. What say you to this? Since, according to you, men judge of the
reality of things by their senses, how can a man be mistaken in thinking
the moon a plain lucid surface, about a foot in diameter; or a square
tower, seen at a distance, round; or an oar, with one end in the water,
crooked?

PHIL. He is not mistaken with regard to the ideas he actually
perceives, but in the inference he makes from his present perceptions.
Thus, in the case of the oar, what he immediately perceives by sight is
certainly crooked; and so far he is in the right. But if he thence
conclude that upon taking the oar out of the water he shall perceive the
same crookedness; or that it would affect his touch as crooked things are
wont to do: in that he is mistaken. In like manner, if he shall conclude
from what he perceives in one station, that, in case he advances towards
the moon or tower, he should still be affected with the like ideas, he is
mistaken. But his mistake lies not in what he perceives immediately, and
at present, (it being a manifest contradiction to suppose he should err
in respect of that) but in the wrong judgment he makes concerning the
ideas he apprehends to be connected with those immediately perceived: or,
concerning the ideas that, from what he perceives at present, he imagines
would be perceived in other circumstances. The case is the same with
regard to the Copernican system. We do not here perceive any motion of
the earth: but it were erroneous thence to conclude, that, in case we
were placed at as great a distance from that as we are now from the other
planets, we should not then perceive its motion.

HYL. I understand you; and must needs own you say things plausible
enough. But, give me leave to put you in mind of one thing. Pray,
Philonous, were you not formerly as positive that Matter existed, as you
are now that it does not?

PHIL. I was. But here lies the difference. Before, my positiveness was
founded, without examination, upon prejudice; but now, after inquiry,
upon evidence.

HYL. After all, it seems our dispute is rather about words than things.
We agree in the thing, but differ in the name. That we are affected with
ideas FROM WITHOUT is evident; and it is no less evident that there
must be (I will not say archetypes, but) Powers without the mind,
corresponding to those ideas. And, as these Powers cannot subsist by
themselves, there is some subject of them necessarily to be admitted;
which I call MATTER, and you call SPIRIT. This is all the difference.

PHIL. Pray, Hylas, is that powerful Being, or subject of powers,
extended?

HYL. It hath not extension; but it hath the power to raise in you the
idea of extension.

PHIL. It is therefore itself unextended?

HYL. I grant it.

PHIL. Is it not also active?

HYL. Without doubt. Otherwise, how could we attribute powers to it?

PHIL. Now let me ask you two questions: FIRST, Whether it be
agreeable to the usage either of philosophers or others to give the name
MATTER to an unextended active being? And, SECONDLY, Whether it be
not ridiculously absurd to misapply names contrary to the common use of
language?

HYL. Well then, let it not be called Matter, since you will have it so,
but some THIRD NATURE distinct from Matter and Spirit. For what reason
is there why you should call it Spirit? Does not the notion of spirit
imply that it is thinking, as well as active and unextended?

PHIL. My reason is this: because I have a mind to have some notion of
meaning in what I say: but I have no notion of any action distinct from
volition, neither. can I conceive volition to be anywhere but in a
spirit: therefore, when I speak of an active being, I am obliged to mean
a Spirit. Beside, what can be plainer than that a thing which hath no
ideas in itself cannot impart them to me; and, if it hath ideas, surely
it must be a Spirit. To make you comprehend the point still more
clearly if it be possible, I assert as well as you that, since we are
affected from without, we must allow Powers to be without, in a Being
distinct from ourselves. So far we are agreed. But then we differ as to
the kind of this powerful Being. I will have it to be Spirit, you Matter,
or I know not what (I may add too, you know not what) Third Nature. Thus,
I prove it to be Spirit. From the effects I see produced, I conclude
there are actions; and, because actions, volitions; and, because there
are volitions, there must be a WILL. Again, the things I perceive must
have an existence, they or their archetypes, out of MY mind: but, being
ideas, neither they nor their archetypes can exist otherwise than in an
understanding; there is therefore an UNDERSTANDING. But will and
understanding constitute in the strictest sense a mind or spirit. The
powerful cause, therefore, of my ideas is in strict propriety of speech a
SPIRIT.

HYL. And now I warrant you think you have made the point very clear,
little suspecting that what you advance leads directly to a
contradiction. Is it not an absurdity to imagine any imperfection in God?

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9