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. Without a doubt.
HYL. To suffer pain is an imperfection?
PHIL. It is.
HYL. Are we not sometimes affected with pain and uneasiness by some
other Being?
PHIL. We are.
HYL. And have you not said that Being is a Spirit, and is not that
Spirit God?
PHIL. I grant it.
HYL. But you have asserted that whatever ideas we perceive from without
are in the mind which affects us. The ideas, therefore, of pain and
uneasiness are in God; or, in other words, God suffers pain: that is to
say, there is an imperfection in the Divine nature: which, you
acknowledged, was absurd. So you are caught in a plain contradiction.
PHIL. That God knows or understands all things, and that He knows,
among other things, what pain is, even every sort of painful sensation,
and what it is for His creatures to suffer pain, I make no question. But,
that God, though He knows and sometimes causes painful sensations in us,
can Himself suffer pain, I positively deny. We, who are limited and
dependent spirits, are liable to impressions of sense, the effects of an
external Agent, which, being produced against our wills, are
sometimes painful and uneasy. But God, whom no external being can affect,
who perceives nothing by sense as we do; whose will is absolute and
independent, causing all things, and liable to be thwarted or resisted by
nothing: it is evident, such a Being as this can suffer nothing, nor be
affected with any painful sensation, or indeed any sensation at all. We
are chained to a body: that is to say, our perceptions are connected with
corporeal motions. By the law of our nature, we are affected upon every
alteration in the nervous parts of our sensible body; which sensible
body, rightly considered, is nothing but a complexion of such qualities
or ideas as have no existence distinct from being perceived by a mind. So
that this connexion of sensations with corporeal motions means no more
than a correspondence in the order of nature, between two sets of ideas,
or things immediately perceivable. But God is a Pure Spirit, disengaged
from all such sympathy, or natural ties. No corporeal motions are
attended with the sensations of pain or pleasure in His mind. To know
everything knowable, is certainly a perfection; but to endure, or suffer,
or feel anything by sense, is an imperfection. The former, I say, agrees
to God, but not the latter. God knows, or hath ideas; but His ideas are
not conveyed to Him by sense, as ours are. Your not distinguishing, where
there is so manifest a difference, makes you fancy you see an absurdity
where there is none.
HYL. But, all this while you have not considered that the quantity of
Matter has been demonstrated to be proportioned to the gravity of bodies.
And what can withstand demonstration?
PHIL. Let me see how you demonstrate that point.
HYL. I lay it down for a principle, that the moments or quantities of
motion in bodies are in a direct compounded reason of the velocities and
quantities of Matter contained in them. Hence, where the velocities are
equal, it follows the moments are directly as the quantity of Matter in
each. But it is found by experience that all bodies (bating the small
inequalities, arising from the resistance of the air) descend with an
equal velocity; the motion therefore of descending bodies, and
consequently their gravity, which is the cause or principle of that
motion, is proportional to the quantity of Matter; which was to be
demonstrated.
PHIL. You lay it down as a self-evident principle that the quantity of
motion in any body is proportional to the velocity and MATTER
taken together; and this is made use of to prove a proposition from
whence the existence of CARTER is inferred. Pray is not this arguing in
a circle?
HYL. In the premise I only mean that the motion is proportional to the
velocity, jointly with the extension and solidity.
PHIL. But, allowing this to be true, yet it will not thence follow that
gravity is proportional to MATTER, in your philosophic sense of the
word; except you take it for granted that unknown SUBSTRATUM, or
whatever else you call it, is proportional to those sensible qualities;
which to suppose is plainly begging the question. That there is magnitude
and solidity, or resistance, perceived by sense, I readily grant; as
likewise, that gravity may be proportional to those qualities I will not
dispute. But that either these qualities as perceived by us, or the
powers producing them, do exist in a MATERIAL SUBSTRATUM; this is what
I deny, and you indeed affirm, but, notwithstanding your demonstration,
have not yet proved.
HYL. I shall insist no longer on that point. Do you think, however, you
shall persuade me that the natural philosophers have been dreaming all
this while? Pray what becomes of all their hypotheses and explications of
the phenomena, which suppose the existence of Matter?
PHIL. What mean you, Hylas, by the PHENOMENA?
HYL. I mean the appearances which I perceive by my senses.
PHIL. And the appearances perceived by sense, are they not ideas?
HYL. I have told you so a hundred times.
PHIL. Therefore, to explain the phenomena, is, to shew how we come to
be affected with ideas, in that manner and order wherein they are
imprinted on our senses. Is it not?
HYL. It is.
PHIL. Now, if you can prove that any philosopher has explained the
production of any one idea in our minds by the help of MATTER, I shall
for ever acquiesce, and look on all that hath been said against it as
nothing; but, if you cannot, it is vain to urge the explication of
phenomena. That a Being endowed with knowledge and will should produce or
exhibit ideas is easily understood. But that a Being which is utterly
destitute of these faculties should be able to produce ideas, or in any
sort to affect an intelligence, this I can never understand. This I say,
though we had some positive conception of Matter, though we knew
its qualities, and could comprehend its existence, would yet be so far
from explaining things, that it is itself the most inexplicable thing in
the world. And yet, for all this, it will not follow that philosophers
have been doing nothing; for, by observing and reasoning upon the
connexion of ideas, they discover the laws and methods of nature, which
is a part of knowledge both useful and entertaining.
HYL. After all, can it be supposed God would deceive all mankind? Do
you imagine He would have induced the whole world to believe the being of
Matter, if there was no such thing?
PHIL. That every epidemical opinion, arising from prejudice, or
passion, or thoughtlessness, may be imputed to God, as the Author of it,
I believe you will not affirm. Whatsoever opinion we father on Him, it
must be either because He has discovered it to us by supernatural
revelation; or because it is so evident to our natural faculties, which
were framed and given us by God, that it is impossible we should withhold
our assent from it. But where is the revelation? or where is the evidence
that extorts the belief of Matter? Nay, how does it appear, that Matter,
TAKEN FOR SOMETHING DISTINCT FROM WHAT WE PERCEIVE BY OUR SENSES, is
thought to exist by all mankind; or indeed, by any except a few
philosophers, who do not know what they would be at? Your question
supposes these points are clear; and, when you have cleared them, I shall
think myself obliged to give you another answer. In the meantime, let it
suffice that I tell you, I do not suppose God has deceived mankind at
all.
HYL. But the novelty, Philonous, the novelty! There lies the danger.
New notions should always be discountenanced; they unsettle men's minds,
and nobody knows where they will end.
PHIL. Why the rejecting a notion that has no foundation, either in
sense, or in reason, or in Divine authority, should be thought to
unsettle the belief of such opinions as are grounded on all or any of
these, I cannot imagine. That innovations in government and religion are
dangerous, and ought to be discountenanced, I freely own. But is there
the like reason why they should be discouraged in philosophy? The making
anything known which was unknown before is an innovation in knowledge:
and, if all such innovations had been forbidden, men would have
made a notable progress in the arts and sciences. But it is none of my
business to plead for novelties and paradoxes. That the qualities we
perceive are not on the objects: that we must not believe our senses:
that we know nothing of the real nature of things, and can never be
assured even of their existence: that real colours and sounds are nothing
but certain unknown figures and motions: that motions are in themselves
neither swift nor slow: that there are in bodies absolute extensions,
without any particular magnitude or figure: that a thing stupid,
thoughtless, and inactive, operates on a spirit: that the least particle
of a body contains innumerable extended parts:--these are the novelties,
these are the strange notions which shock the genuine uncorrupted
judgment of all mankind; and being once admitted, embarrass the mind with
endless doubts and difficulties. And it is against these and the like
innovations I endeavour to vindicate Common Sense. It is true, in doing
this, I may perhaps be obliged to use some AMBAGES, and ways of speech
not common. But, if my notions are once thoroughly understood, that which
is most singular in them will, in effect, be found to amount to no more
than this.--that it is absolutely impossible, and a plain contradiction,
to suppose any unthinking Being should exist without being perceived by a
Mind. And, if this notion be singular, it is a shame it should be so, at
this time of day, and in a Christian country.
HYL. As for the difficulties other opinions may be liable to, those
are out of the question. It is your business to defend your own opinion.
Can anything be plainer than that you are for changing all things into
ideas? You, I say, who are not ashamed to charge me WITH SCEPTICISM.
This is so plain, there is no denying it.
PHIL. You mistake me. I am not for changing things into ideas, but
rather ideas into things; since those immediate objects of perception,
which, according to you, are only appearances of things, I take to be the
real things themselves.
HYL. Things! You may pretend what you please; but it is certain you
leave us nothing but the empty forms of things, the outside only which
strikes the senses.
PHIL. What you call the empty forms and outside of things seem to me
the very things themselves. Nor are they empty or incomplete, otherwise
than upon your supposition--that Matter is an essential part of all
corporeal things. We both, therefore, agree in this, that we perceive
only sensible forms: but herein we differ--you will have them to be empty
appearances, I, real beings. In short, you do not trust your senses, I
do.
HYL. You say you believe your senses; and seem to applaud yourself that
in this you agree with the vulgar. According to you, therefore, the true
nature of a thing is discovered by the senses. If so, whence comes that
disagreement? Why is not the same figure, and other sensible qualities,
perceived all manner of ways? and why should we use a microscope the
better to discover the true nature of a body, if it were discoverable to
the naked eye?
PHIL. Strictly speaking, Hylas, we do not see the same object that we
feel; neither is the same object perceived by the microscope which was by
the naked eye. But, in case every variation was thought sufficient to
constitute a new kind of individual, the endless number of confusion of
names would render language impracticable. Therefore, to avoid this, as
well as other inconveniences which are obvious upon a little thought, men
combine together several ideas, apprehended by divers senses, or by the
same sense at different times, or in different circumstances, but
observed, however, to have some connexion in nature, either with respect
to co-existence or succession; all which they refer to one name, and
consider as one thing. Hence it follows that when I examine, by my other
senses, a thing I have seen, it is not in order to understand better the
same object which I had perceived by sight, the object of one sense not
being perceived by the other senses. And, when I look through a
microscope, it is not that I may perceive more clearly what I perceived
already with my bare eyes; the object perceived by the glass being quite
different from the former. But, in both cases, my aim is only to know
what ideas are connected together; and the more a man knows of the
connexion of ideas, the more he is said to know of the nature of things.
What, therefore, if our ideas are variable; what if our senses are not in
all circumstances affected with the same appearances. It will not thence
follow they are not to be trusted; or that they are inconsistent either
with themselves or anything else: except it be with your preconceived
notion of (I know not what) one single, unchanged, unperceivable, real
Nature, marked by each name. Which prejudice seems to have taken its rise
from not rightly understanding the common language of men, speaking
of several distinct ideas as united into one thing by the mind. And,
indeed, there is cause to suspect several erroneous conceits of the
philosophers are owing to the same original: while they began to build
their schemes not so much on notions as on words, which were framed by
the vulgar, merely for conveniency and dispatch in the common actions of
life, without any regard to speculation.
HYL. Methinks I apprehend your meaning.
PHIL. It is your opinion the ideas we perceive by our senses are not
real things, but images or copies of them. Our knowledge, therefore, is
no farther real than as our ideas are the true REPRESENTATIONS OF THOSE
ORIGINALS. But, as these supposed originals are in themselves unknown,
it is impossible to know how far our ideas resemble them; or whether they
resemble them at all. We cannot, therefore, be sure we have any real
knowledge. Farther, as our ideas are perpetually varied, without any
change in the supposed real things, it necessarily follows they cannot
all be true copies of them: or, if some are and others are not, it is
impossible to distinguish the former from the latter. And this plunges us
yet deeper in uncertainty. Again, when we consider the point, we cannot
conceive how any idea, or anything like an idea, should have an absolute
existence out of a mind: nor consequently, according to you, how there
should be any real thing in nature. The result of all which is that we
are thrown into the most hopeless and abandoned scepticism. Now, give me
leave to ask you, First, Whether your referring ideas to certain
absolutely existing unperceived substances, as their originals, be not
the source of all this scepticism? Secondly, whether you are informed,
either by sense or reason, of the existence of those unknown originals?
And, in case you are not, whether it be not absurd to suppose them?
Thirdly, Whether, upon inquiry, you find there is anything distinctly
conceived or meant by the ABSOLUTE OR EXTERNAL EXISTENCE OF UNPERCEIVING
SUBSTANCES? Lastly, Whether, the premises considered, it be not the
wisest way to follow nature, trust your senses, and, laying aside all
anxious thought about unknown natures or substances, admit with the
vulgar those for real things which are perceived by the senses?
HYL. For the present, I have no inclination to the answering part. I
would much rather see how you can get over what follows. Pray are not the
objects perceived by the SENSES of one, likewise perceivable to
others present? If there were a hundred more here, they would all see the
garden, the trees, and flowers, as I see them. But they are not in the
same manner affected with the ideas I frame in my IMAGINATION. Does not
this make a difference between the former sort of objects and the latter?
PHIL. I grant it does. Nor have I ever denied a difference between the
objects of sense and those of imagination. But what would you infer from
thence? You cannot say that sensible objects exist unperceived, because
they are perceived by many.
HYL. I own I can make nothing of that objection: but it hath led me
into another. Is it not your opinion that by our senses we perceive only
the ideas existing in our minds?
PHIL. It is.
HYL. But the SAME idea which is in my mind cannot be in yours, or in
any other mind. Doth it not therefore follow, from your principles, that
no two can see the same thing? And is not this highly, absurd?
PHIL. If the term SAME be taken in the vulgar acceptation, it is
certain (and not at all repugnant to the principles I maintain) that
different persons may perceive the same thing; or the same thing or idea
exist in different minds. Words are of arbitrary imposition; and, since
men are used to apply the word SAME where no distinction or variety is
perceived, and I do not pretend to alter their perceptions, it follows
that, as men have said before, SEVERAL SAW THE SAME THING, so they may,
upon like occasions, still continue to use the same phrase, without any
deviation either from propriety of language, or the truth of things. But,
if the term SAME be used in the acceptation of philosophers, who
pretend to an abstracted notion of identity, then, according to their
sundry definitions of this notion (for it is not yet agreed wherein that
philosophic identity consists), it may or may not be possible for divers
persons to perceive the same thing. But whether philosophers shall think
fit to CALL a thing the SAME or no, is, I conceive, of small
importance. Let us suppose several men together, all endued with the same
faculties, and consequently affected in like sort by their senses, and
who had yet never known the use of language; they would, without
question, agree in their perceptions. Though perhaps, when they came to
the use of speech, some regarding the uniformness of what was perceived,
might call it the SAME thing: others, especially regarding the
diversity of persons who perceived, might choose the denomination of
DIFFERENT things. But who sees not that all the dispute is about a
word? to wit, whether. what is perceived by different persons may yet
have the term SAME applied to it? Or, suppose a house, whose walls or
outward shell remaining unaltered, the chambers are all pulled down, and
new ones built in their place; and that you should call this the SAME,
and I should say it was not the SAME house.--would we not, for all
this, perfectly agree in our thoughts of the house, considered in itself?
And would not all the difference consist in a sound? If you should say,
We differed in our notions; for that you super-added to your idea of the
house the simple abstracted idea of identity, whereas I did not; I would
tell you, I know not what you mean by THE ABSTRACTED IDEA OF IDENTITY;
and should desire you to look into your own thoughts, and be sure you
understood yourself.--Why so silent, Hylas? Are you not yet satisfied men
may dispute about identity and diversity, without any real difference in
their thoughts and opinions, abstracted from names? Take this farther
reflexion with you: that whether Matter be allowed to exist or no, the
case is exactly the same as to the point in hand. For the Materialists
themselves acknowledge what we immediately perceive by our senses to be
our own ideas. Your difficulty, therefore, that no two see the same
thing, makes equally against the Materialists and me.
HYL. Ay, Philonous, but they suppose an external archetype, to
which referring their several ideas they may truly be said to perceive
the same thing.
PHIL. And (not to mention your having discarded those archetypes) so
may you suppose an external archetype on my principles;--EXTERNAL, _I_
MEAN, TO YOUR OWN MIND: though indeed it must be' supposed to exist in
that Mind which comprehends all things; but then, this serves all the
ends of IDENTITY, as well as if it existed out of a mind. And I am sure
you yourself will not say it is less intelligible.
HYL. You have indeed clearly satisfied me--either that there is no
difficulty at bottom in this point; or, if there be, that it makes
equally against both opinions.
PHIL. But that which makes equally against two contradictory opinions
can be a proof against neither.
HYL. I acknowledge it. But, after all, Philonous, when I consider
the substance of what you advance against SCEPTICISM, it amounts to no
more than this: We are sure that we really see, hear, feel; in a word,
that we are affected with sensible impressions.
PHIL. And how are WE concerned any farther? I see this cherry, I feel
it, I taste it: and I am sure NOTHING cannot be seen, or felt, or.
tasted: it is therefore red. Take away the sensations of softness,
moisture, redness, tartness, and you take away the cherry, since it is
not a being distinct from sensations. A cherry, I say, is nothing but a
congeries of sensible impressions, or ideas perceived by various senses:
which ideas are united into one thing (or have one name given them) by
the mind, because they are observed to attend each other. Thus, when the
palate is affected with such a particular taste, the sight is affected
with a red colour, the touch with roundness, softness, &c. Hence, when I
see, and feel, and taste, in such sundry certain manners, I am sure the
cherry exists, or is real; its reality being in my opinion nothing
abstracted from those sensations. But if by the word CHERRY you, mean
an unknown nature, distinct from all those sensible qualities, and by its
EXISTENCE something distinct from its being perceived; then, indeed, I
own, neither you nor I, nor any one else, can be sure it exists.
HYL. But, what would you say, Philonous, if I should bring the very
same reasons against the existence of sensible things IN A MIND, which
you have offered against their existing IN A MATERIAL SUBSTRATUM?
PHIL. When I see your reasons, you shall hear what I have to say to
them.
HYL. Is the mind extended or unextended?
PHIL. Unextended, without doubt.
HYL. Do you say the things you perceive are in your mind?
PHIL. They are.
HYL. Again, have I not heard you speak of sensible impressions?
PHIL. I believe you may.
HYL. Explain to me now, O Philonous! how it is possible there should be
room for all those trees and houses to exist in your mind. Can extended
things be contained in that which is unextended? Or, are we to imagine
impressions made on a thing void of all solidity? You cannot say objects
are in your mind, as books in your study: or that things are imprinted on
it, as the figure of a seal upon wax. In what sense, therefore, are we to
understand those expressions? Explain me this if you can: and I shall
then be able to answer all those queries you formerly put to me about my
SUBSTRATUM.
PHIL. Look you, Hylas, when I speak of objects as existing in the mind,
or imprinted on the senses, I would not be understood in the gross
literal sense; as when bodies are said to exist in a place, or a seal to
make an impression upon wax. My meaning is only that the mind comprehends
or perceives them; and that it is affected from without, or by some being
distinct from itself. This is my explication of your difficulty; and how
it can serve to make your tenet of an unperceiving material SUBSTRATUM
intelligible, I would fain know.
HYL. Nay, if that be all, I confess I do not see what use can be made
of it. But are you not guilty of some abuse of language in this?
PHIL. None at all. It is no more than common custom, which you know is
the rule of language, hath authorised: nothing being more usual, than for
philosophers to speak of the immediate objects of the understanding as
things existing in the mind. 'Nor is there anything in this but what is
conformable to the general analogy of language; most part of the mental
operations being signified by words borrowed from sensible things; as is
plain in the terms COMPREHEND, reflect, DISCOURSE, &C., which,
being applied to the mind, must not be taken in their gross, original
sense.
HYL. You have, I own, satisfied me in this point. But there still
remains one great difficulty, which I know not how you will get over.
And, indeed, it is of such importance that if you could solve all others,
without being able to find a solution for this, you must never expect to
make me a proselyte to your principles.
PHIL. Let me know this mighty difficulty.
HYL. The Scripture account of the creation is what appears to me
utterly irreconcilable with your notions. Moses tells us of a creation: a
creation of what? of ideas? No, certainly, but of things, of real things,
solid corporeal substances. Bring your principles to agree with this, and
I shall perhaps agree with you.
PHIL. Moses mentions the sun, moon, and stars, earth and sea, plants
and animals. That all these do really exist, and were in the beginning
created by God, I make no question. If by IDEAS you mean fictions
and fancies of the mind, then these are no ideas. If by IDEAS you mean
immediate objects of the understanding, or sensible things, which cannot
exist unperceived, or out of a mind, then these things are ideas. But
whether you do or do not call them IDEAS, IT matters little. The
difference is only about a name. And, whether that name be retained or
rejected, the sense, the truth, and reality of things continues the same.
In common talk, the objects of our senses are not termed IDEAS, but
THINGS. Call them so still: provided you do not attribute to them any
absolute external existence, and I shall never quarrel with you for a
word. The creation, therefore, I allow to have been a creation of things,
of RED things. Neither is this in the least inconsistent with my
principles, as is evident from what I have now said; and would have been
evident to you without this, if you had not forgotten what had been so
often said before. But as for solid corporeal substances, I desire you to
show where Moses makes any mention of them; and, if they should be
mentioned by him, or any other inspired writer, it would still be
incumbent on you to shew those words were not taken in the vulgar
acceptation, for things falling under our senses, but in the philosophic
acceptation, for Matter, or AN UNKNOWN QUIDDITY, WITH AN ABSOLUTE
EXISTENCE. When you have proved these points, then (and not till then)
may you bring the authority of Moses into our dispute.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 | 7 |
8 |
9