Berkeley’s Doctrine of Immaterialism

Exploring the arguments for George Berkeley’s refutation of material substance.

Introduction

An Anglican bishop and Irish philosopher, George Berkeley is best known for his idealist and empiricist philosophy which claims that minds and their ideas are the two sole constituents of reality and that things exist only if they are being perceived by the senses.

“Immaterialism” is the name that Berkeley gave to his theory of the perceived world. According to this negative thesis, material substances or substrata do not and can not exist. His positive thesis asserts the existence of only those bodies that are being perceived. (Esse Est Percipi — “to be is to be perceived”)

Summarized Clarification of Berkeley’s Theory

Berkeley stated that only two elements are involved in a process of perception — the perceiver and the perceived. He claimed that material objects were neither involved, nor were they necessary for perception to take place. We directly perceive ideas, and these ideas are real.

Perceiver — — — — — —> Ideas

He believed that his positive doctrine of idealism (belief that spirits are the constituents of reality) and his negative doctrine of immaterialism (belief that matter does not exist) were decisive attacks against atheism and skepticism. Even though Berkeley’s philosophy was widely read and discussed, it was still discarded as being impermissible because of its absurdity.

In Defense of Immaterialism and Idealism

In his two influential works — Treatise Concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge (1710) and The Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous (1713), Berkeley gave a series of arguments in defense of his material-free idealistic system. For this, his process is twofold:

1. He stresses upon the acute nonsensicalness of materialism
2. He tries to bring to light the apparent soundness of his idealist system

Even though his arguments are fascinating and somewhat persuasive, they are not completely cogent, due to their counter-intuitiveness.

The First Dialogue and Relativity Arguments

Berkeley put forward a three part dialectic between Philonous and Hylas that highlighted the flaws in the realist, materialist conception of the world.

In the first dialogue, the realist-materialist Hylas, who believed that it is material objects themselves that are perceived, is shown in opposition to the idealist Philonous, who believed that the qualities of an object that we immediately perceive are ideal, and not material. It is Philonous’ voice that conveys Berkley’s arguments.

The Onset of the First Dialogue

Berkeley begins by giving an argument for the necessary inclusion of sensible qualities in the class of qualities present solely in the mind. He claimed that heat is no different from pain/pleasure in the sense that it is present merely inside our mind.

The two problems in this argument that critics have pointed out are-

1. Whether the “no distinction” proposition should be accepted as true
2. Whether all sensory qualities should be generalized

Berkeley, through Philonous, introduces the relativity argument to clarify the relation of sensory qualities to their perceiver. For instance, the degree of hotness and coldness is relative — what one person finds hot, might not be hot at all from another person. This, he claimed, proves that sensory qualities have to be mind-dependent; they cannot be mind-independent because it is impossible for any object to possess contradictory attributes.

Further Clarification

To those who might contradict Berkeley’s argument by saying that there is just one sensible quality that belongs to the object, and any felt contradiction of this quality is merely a misconception, Berkeley had a reply prepared — he said that the task of distinguishing actual sensible properties of an object from misconceptions is an impossible task.

Adding to this, he expresses distaste for the anthropocentric attitude of believing that human beings have a more legitimate sense of perception of ‘true’ qualities than animals do.

The arguments that Berkeley has provided have proved to be a challenge to realists aiming to specify a set criteria for true qualities realized directly through perception.

The Dialogue Develops

In response to Philonous’ reasoning, Hylas revaluated his uncritical realist position by using the Cartesian and Lockean distinction between primary and secondary qualities, which is thought-based. He pointed out that even though secondary qualities like taste, smell and color are mind-dependent, primary qualities of objects, like figure, texture and mass are mind-independent.

This conception is mechanist in the sense that it enforces the composition of particles in terms of their shape, size, state of rest or motion, and that the perception that we develop of objects based on these qualities is due to their contact with our sense organs, and consequently, our mind.

It is precisely this mechanistic view that Berkeley tried to refute throughout his work. This is because he believed that it is this conception that leads to skepticism, as it is often the case that the ‘reality’ is different from what our sense organs show it to be.

For conveying this, Philonous gives the following (rather compelling) reasoning:

1. The relativity argument, which has been used to bring into question the secondary qualities of an object, can also be applied to primary qualities
2. Primary qualities are incapable of being perceived independently of perceiving secondary qualities. (You cannot imagine a colorless object, for example)

Philonous’ View is Accepted by Hylas

Hylas, on falling short of defenses for his realist-mechanist position, and feeling compelled by Philonous’ arguments, accepts that existence is indeed mind-dependent. To get his interlocutor out of dejection of the reluctant acceptance of another’s argument, Philonous tries to convince Hylas of the possibility of using an immaterialist foundation for building a commonsensical philosophy, and that matter/materialistic objects are missed by skeptics and atheists alone (two very undesirable positions to be held, as per theistic Berkeley).

We Perceive Only Ideas

Perceived objects are merely ideas that exist inside our mind, said Berkeley. They can be defined as a collection of sensible qualities contained in the form of an idea.

To emphasize this point, Philonous explains how color shades seem to change when lighting does, and how our sense of smell and taste get distorted when we fall sick. Through examples like this, he seeks to prove that ideas are merely qualities that exist within our minds, whether it is secondary qualities of an object, or primary ones.

It is from this philosophical position of Berkeley that his popular Latin quote — Esse est percipi — To be is to be perceived, stems from.

As a final line of reasoning to secure his reasoning, Berkeley claimed that one need not suppose than anything exists outside of the mind, as such a thing could never take form of an idea.

Nothing can be like an idea but an idea — Berkeley

We Cannot Perceive Material Objects

Berkeley questioned — “Is it possible to conceive of a sensible object existing independently of any perceiver?”

Answering his own question, he goes on to give an example of an isolated tree in the center of a forest, unperceived by anyone as of yet. But the moment one thinks this thought, they are perceiving the tree. So the tree is not unperceived, which shows how it cannot exist independent of the mind.

Through this, he illustrates how the very thought of a material object existing outside of the mind is incoherent. Also, ideas cannot be presumed to be representative of objects on the basis of resemblance because an idea can only be like another idea.

Refutation of Materialism

In the opening of Berkeley’s A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, the following materialism refutation argument is provided:

1. We perceive ordinary physical objects.

2. We perceive only ideas/sensations.

3. Therefore, ordinary objects are ideas/sensations.

Conclusion

The two components of reality are spirits and ideas of spirits, he believed. As Berkeley was a firm theist, the influence of his faith in God is very apparent in his work, which, for his age, was not considered unfounded. The regularities in nature are due to the goodness of God, because of who ideas, and their perception by our senses becomes possible. Of course, the argument might not have the same merit for atheists/agnostics.

Even though it has been largely rejected because of its counter-intuitiveness, Berkeley’s argument for immaterialism was compelling in the sense that it has proved to be difficult to refute.