1
The Empiricists: BerkeleyThe Empiricists: Berkeley
ImmaterialismImmaterialism
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
2
OutlineOutline
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
1. Introduction: Berkeley, The Dialogues
2. Esse est percipi vs. Representationalism
3. Against Representationalism
4. Against the material substance
5. Conclusion
3
IntroductionIntroductionBerkeleyBerkeley
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
Berkeley’s life: - 1685 – 1753- Irish, Trinity College, Anglican priest, Travel (Europe and US), Bishop of Cloyne
Main works:- The Principles and the Dialogues- De Motu, Theory of Vision
4
IntroductionIntroductionBerkeley’s philosophyBerkeley’s philosophy
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
The Dialogues: - Characters: Hylas and Philonous- Rules and advantages of dialogues in philosophy
Berkeley’s philosophy- Religion - Against speculative philosophy and skepticism- Empiricism and Common Sense - Immaterialism and Idealism
5
OutlineOutline
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
1. Introduction: Berkeley, The Dialogues
2. Esse est percipi vs. Representationalism
3. Against Representationalism
4. Against the material substance
5. Conclusion
6
Esse est percipi vs RepresentationalismEsse est percipi vs RepresentationalismEsse est percipiEsse est percipi
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
The only way things exist is in so far as they are perceived. To be is to be perceived
Berkeley’s argument:
P1 Ordinary objects exist, and only ordinary objects exist
P2 Ordinary objects = sensible things = what we perceive through the senses = combinations of sensible qualities
CC: Only combinations of sensible qualities exist.
7
Esse est percipi vs RepresentationalismEsse est percipi vs RepresentationalismThe Representationalist’ objectionThe Representationalist’ objection
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
Not only sensations and ideas, but also external objects exist, as mind-independent beings.
Question about P2: Do we perceive only combination of sensible qualities?
Representationalism:- Direct perception of sensible qualities – mind dependent- Indirect perception of external objects – mind independent
Core of the view: Distinction Primary vs Secondary qualities
8
OutlineOutline
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
1. Introduction: Berkeley, The Dialogues
2. Esse est percipi vs. Representationalism
3. Against Representationalism
4. Against the material substance
5. Conclusion
9
Against RepresentationalismAgainst Representationalism11stst Objection: Pleasure and Pain Objection: Pleasure and Pain
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
Secondary qualities do not belong to external objects and exist within the mind only.
The objection: (cf. Locke!)
P1 Heat and Pain perceived at the same time, the same way
P2 Either both belong to external objects, or both exist only in the mind
P3: Pain does not belong to external objects
CC: Heat does not belong to external objects
10
Against RepresentationalismAgainst Representationalism22ndnd Objection: Unobservable Causes Objection: Unobservable Causes
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
One cannot be empiricist and representationnalist at the same time!
The objection:
P1 Empiricism: all knowledge comes from experience, we cannot postulate the existence of unobservable entities
P2 Representationalism: postulates unobservable causes for our sensations -Example of the real sound that is never heard
CC: Representationalism conflicts with empiricism
11
Against RepresentationalismAgainst Representationalism33ndnd Objection: Relativity Objection: Relativity
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
The distinction between primary and secondary qualities is undermined!
The objection:
- Relativity of secondary qualities – taste – Which one is the true one?
- Relativity of primary qualities – extension – Which one is the true one?
CC: All qualities, primary and secondary are but sensations in our minds
12
Against RepresentationalismAgainst RepresentationalismConclusionConclusion
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
Berkeley has shown that: (1)Representationalism is conflicting with empiricism and common sense(2)The pillar of representationalism, i.e. the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, is problematic(3)Both primary and secondary qualities exist only in our minds
13
OutlineOutline
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
1. Introduction: Berkeley, The Dialogues
2. Esse est percipi vs. Representationalism
3. Against Representationalism
4. Against the material substance
5. Conclusion
14
The Material SubstanceThe Material SubstanceHylas’ retreatsHylas’ retreats
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
Metaphysical postulation of a material, mind-independent substratum.
Material substance: unknown, unobservable, unconceived (mind-independent) material substance
Material substance: cause of our sensations
15
An Unconceived Material SubstanceAn Unconceived Material Substance11stst Objection: The “Master Argument” Objection: The “Master Argument”
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
The notion of an unconceived material substance conflicts with Empiricism
Hylas’ retreat: unknown, unobservable, unconceived (mind-independent) material substance
The Master argument:We cannot conceive of an unconceived thing.
Evaluating the Master argument:- Representans vs representatum - Empiricism
16
An Unconceived Material SubstanceAn Unconceived Material Substance22ndnd Objection: The “Likeness Argument” Objection: The “Likeness Argument”
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
The notion of an unconceived material substance conflicts with representationalism.
The Likeness argument:P1: Representationalism: ideas resemble the things they representP2: Likeness Principle: Ideas cannot resemble anything but other ideasCC: The idea of an unconceived material substance is a contradictory notion
Hylas’ retreat: unknown, unobservable, unconceived (mind-independent) material substance
17
The Material Substance as a CauseThe Material Substance as a Cause11stst Objection: Matter cause of Thought? Objection: Matter cause of Thought?
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
Matter cannot cause thoughts
The objection:
P1 Matter = extended, solid, moveable, unthinking substanceP2 Thought = unextended, not solid, not moveable, thinking substance Causal process?
18
The Material Substance as a CauseThe Material Substance as a Cause22ndnd Objection: Can Matter cause anything? Objection: Can Matter cause anything?
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
Contradictory notion of an inactive entity being the origin of causal processes.
The objection:
P1 Matter = inert
P2 To be a cause takes to be active
CC : inert matter cannot cause anything at all
19
The Material SubstanceThe Material SubstanceConclusionConclusion
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
Berkeley has shown that postulation the existence of a unknown material substance:
(1)is conflicting with empiricism and common sense(2)leads to conceptual problems(3)does not have any explanatory power
20
OutlineOutline
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
1. Introduction: Berkeley, The Dialogues
2. Esse est percipi vs. Representationalism
3. Against Representationalism
4. Against the material substance
5. Conclusion
21
Berkeley’s ImmaterialismBerkeley’s ImmaterialismConclusionConclusion
Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana
Berkeley has argued against the existence of absolute, mind-independent beings:
(1)Epistemology: representationalism (2)Metaphysics: material substance
It remains to see how we can do without it!