Would not a man be deservedly laughed at, who should talk after this manner? I answer, he would so; in such things we ought to think with the learned, and speak with the vulgar. PHK Natural philosophers thus consider signs, rather than causes PHK , but their results are just as useful as they would be under a materialist system.
He claims that there is no problem for …anyone that shall attend to what is meant by the term exist when applied to sensible things. The table I write on, I say, exists, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my study I should say it existed, meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does perceive it.
PHK 3 So, when I say that my desk still exists after I leave my office, perhaps I just mean that I would perceive it if I were in my office, or, more broadly, that a finite mind would perceive the desk were it in the appropriate circumstances in my office, with the lights on, with eyes open, etc.
Can a real thing in itself invisible be like a colour ; or a real thing which is not audible , be like a sound?
Philonous responds as follows: May we not understand it [the creation] to have been entirely in respect of finite spirits; so that things, with regard to us, may properly be said to begin their existence, or be created, when God decreed they should become perceptible to intelligent creatures, in that order and manner which he then established, and we now call the laws of Nature?
You may call this a relative , or hypothetical existence if you please. As with the counterfactual analysis of continued existence, however, this account also fails under pressure from the esse est percipi principle: Hylas.
Yes, Philonous, I grant the existence of a sensible thing consists in being perceivable, but not in being actually perceived. He does, however, have an account of error, as he shows us in the Dialogues : Hylas. 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?
Early on, Berkeley attempts to forestall materialist skeptics who object that we have no idea of spirit by arguing for this position himself: A spirit is one simple, undivided, active being: as it perceives ideas, it is called the understanding , and as it produces or otherwise operates about them, it is called the will.
Hence there can be no idea formed of a soul or spirit: for all ideas whatever, being passive and inert, vide Sect. A little attention will make it plain to any one, that to have an idea which shall be like that active principle of motion and change of ideas, is absolutely impossible.
Such is the nature of spirit or that which acts, that it cannot be of it self perceived, but only by the effects which it produceth. In the Dialogues , however, Berkeley shows a better appreciation of the force of the problem that confronts him: [Hylas.
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. PC A closely related problem which confronts Berkeley is how to make sense of the causal powers that he ascribes to spirits.
Wn I ask whether A can move B. DM 33 On this interpretation, Berkeley would again have abandoned the radical Humean position entertained in his notebooks, as he clearly did on the question of the nature of spirit.
I do not pin my faith on the sleeve of any great man. PC Luce and T. Jessop eds. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons. Luce Works —52 References to these works are by section numbers or entry numbers, for PC , except for 3D, where they are by page number. Other useful editions include: Berkeley, G. Philosophical commentaries, generally called the Commonplace book [of] George Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne. Luce ed. Berkeley, G. Philosophical Works; Including the Works on Vision.
Ayers ed. London: Dent. Belfrage ed. Oxford: Doxa. Jesseph trans. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. A collection, useful to students, of primary texts constituting background to Berkeley or early critical reactions to Berkeley: McCracken, C. Tipton eds. Bibliographical studies Jessop, T. A bibliography of George Berkeley, by T.
The Hague: M. Turbayne, C. Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Sosa ed. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 85— Atherton, M. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Women Philosophers of the Early Modern Period. Indianapolis: Hackett. Muehlmann ed. Bennett, J. Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bolton, M. Bracken, H. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Campbell, J. Gendler and J. Hawthorne eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, — Chappell, V. Chappell ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 26— Cummins, P. Downing, L. Winkler ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleming, N. Gallois, A. Jesseph, D. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lennon, T. Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
Luce, A. The Dialectic of Immaterialism. Malebranche, N. The Search After Truth. McCracken, C. McKim, R. Muehlmann, R. Nadler, S. Garber and M. Ayers eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, — Pappas, G.
Pitcher, G. London: Routledge. Saidel, E. Tipton, I. Berkeley: The Philosophy of Immaterialism. Wilson, M. Ideas and mechanism: essays on early modern philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Winkler, K. Berkeley: An Interpretation. The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Yolton, J. Perceptual Acquaintance from Descartes to Reid. George Berkeley: Idealism and the Man.
Bettcher, Talia Mae London: Continuum. Creery, W. George Berkeley: Critical Assessments. For example, when a geometer draws a line on a blackboard, it is taken to represent all lines, even though the line itself is particular and has determinate qualities.
Similarly, a particular idea can represent all similar ideas. Upon quoting the passage, Berkeley merely asks his reader whether he or she can form the idea, but his point seems to be much stronger. The described idea is inconsistent , and therefore represents an impossible state of affairs, and it is therefore inconceivable , since whatever is impossible is inconceivable. This is explicit in a parallel passage in the New Theory of Vision. If abstract ideas are not needed for communication — Berkeley takes the fact that infants and poorly educated people communicate, while the formation of abstract ideas is said to be difficult, as a basis for doubting the difficulty thesis Intro.
The abstractionists maintain that abstract ideas are needed for geometrical proofs. Berkeley argues that only properties concerning, for example, a triangle as such are germane to a geometric proof.
He maintains that it is consistent with his theory of meaning to selectively attend to a single aspect of a complex, determinate idea Intro. Berkeley concludes his discussion of abstraction by noting that not all general words are used to denote objects or kinds of objects. Berkeley was an idealist. He held that ordinary objects are only collections of ideas, which are mind-dependent. Berkeley was an immaterialist. He held that there are no material substances. There are only finite mental substances and an infinite mental substance, namely, God.
On these points there is general agreement. His central arguments are often deemed weak. The account developed here is based primarily on the opening thirty-three sections of the Principles of Human Knowledge. This approach is prima facie plausible insofar as it explains the appeal to knowledge in the title of the Principles cf. It is evident to any one who takes a survey of the objects of human knowledge, that they are either ideas actually imprinted on the senses, or else such as are perceived by attending to the passions and operations of the mind, or lastly ideas formed by help of memory and imagination, either compounding, dividing, or barely representing those originally perceived in the aforesaid ways.
This seems to say that ideas are the immediate objects of knowledge in a fundamental sense acquaintance. Following Locke, there are ideas of sense, reflection, and imagination. So, ordinary objects, as known, are collections of ideas marked by a single name.
Minds as knowers are distinct from ideas as things known. For an idea, to be is to be perceived known. Ordinary objects, as known, are nothing but collections of ideas. If, like Descartes, Berkeley holds that claims of existence are justified if and only if the existent can be known, then ordinary objects must be at least collections of ideas.
But notice what has not yet been shown. It has not been shown that ordinary objects are only collections of ideas, nor has it be shown that thinking substances are immaterial. The above account is not the only interpretation of the first seven sections of the Principles. Many commentators take a more directly metaphysical approach.
They assume that ideas are mental images Pitcher, p. Winkler, p. Tipton, p. Works n1. The epistemic interpretation we have been developing seems to avoid these problems. Berkeley holds that ordinary objects are at least collections of ideas. Are they something more? He prefaces his discussion with his likeness principle, the principle that nothing but an idea can resemble an idea.
Why is this? A claim that two objects resemble each other can be justified only by a comparison of the objects cf. So, if only ideas are immediately perceived, only ideas can be compared. So, there can be no justification for a claim that an idea resembles anything but an idea. One of the marks of the modern period is the doctrine of primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are the properties of objects as such. The primary qualities are solidity, extension, figure, number, and mobility Locke 2.
Secondary qualities are either the those arrangements of corpuscles containing only primary qualities that cause one to have ideas of color, sound, taste, heat, cold, and smell Locke 2. If the distinction can be maintained, there would be grounds for claiming that ordinary objects are something more than ideas. It is this theory of matter Berkeley considers first.
Such a view is inconsistent with his earlier conclusions that extension, figure, and motion are ideas. The likeness principle blocks any attempt to go beyond ideas on the basis of resemblance. Combining the previous conclusions with the standard account of primary qualities requires that primary qualities both exist apart from the mind and only in the mind.
He then turns to the individual qualities. If there is a distinction between primary and secondary qualities, there must be a ground for the distinction. Indeed, given the common contention that an efficient cause must be numerically distinct from its effect see Arnauld and Nicole, p. Berkeley argues that there is no ground for the distinction. If such sensible qualities as color exist only in the mind, and extension and motion cannot be known without some sensible quality, there is no ground for claiming extension exists apart from the mind.
The source of the philosophical error is cited as the doctrine of abstract ideas. At least since Aristotle, philosophers had held that qualities of material objects depend on and exist in a substance which has those qualities. This supposed substance allegedly remains the same through change. But if one claims there are material substances, one must have reasons to support that claim.
Can one form an idea a substratum? At least one cannot form a positive idea of a material substratum itself — something like an image of the thing itself — a point that was granted by its most fervent supporters see Descartes ; Locke 2. If an idea of a material substratum cannot be derived from sense experience, claims of its existence might be justified if it is necessary to provide an explanation of a phenomenon. But no such explanation is forthcoming.
Since material substance is not necessary to provide an explanation of mental phenomena, reason cannot provide grounds for claiming the existence of a material substance. Berkeley seems to argue that in any case one might consider — books in the back of a closet, plants deep in a wood with no one about, footprints on the far side of the moon — the objects are related to the mind conceiving of them.
DHP1 This is generally not considered Berkeley at his best, since many commentators argue that it is possible to distinguish between the object conceived and the conceiving of it. George Pappas has provided a more sympathetic interpretation of the passage.
Conceivability is the ground for claiming that an object is possible. If one conceives of an object, then that object is related to some mind, namely, the mind that conceives it.
So, the problem is that it is not possible to fulfill the conditions necessary to show that it would be possible for an object to exist apart from a relation to a mind. Thus, Berkeley concludes, there are no grounds for claiming that an ordinary object is more than a collection of ideas. So, Berkeley is justified in claiming that they are only ideas of sense. Before turning to this, Berkeley introduces several remarks on mind. Since there is a continual succession of ideas in our minds, there must be some cause of it.
Only a mind or spirit can be a cause. Real things are composed solely of ideas of sense. So, Berkeley has given an account of ordinary objects without matter. Ordinary objects are nothing but lawfully arranged collections of ideas of sense. If one reads the Principles and Dialogues , one discovers that Berkeley has little to say regarding our knowledge of minds, and most of what is found was added in the editions of those works.
The reason is Berkeley originally intended the Principles to consist of at least three parts cf. He told Samuel Johnson, his American correspondent, that the manuscript for the second part was lost during his travels in Italy in about Works In the editions of the Principles and Dialogues , Berkeley included brief discussions of our notions of minds.
Locke claims one has a relative idea of substance in general Locke 2. Philonous says:. 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. DHP3 , all editions. How often must I repeat, that I know or am conscious of [my emphasis] my own being; and that I my self am not my ideas, but somewhat else, a thinking active principle that perceives, knows, wills, and operates about ideas.
DHP3 , edition. Nothing more can be said of them. But, perhaps, we need to draw a distinction between knowing that there is a mind and knowing what a mind is. Perhaps one might know directly that one has a mind, but one can know what a mind is only relative to ideas: a mind is that which causes or perceives ideas. Such a relative understanding of the mind as knower and ideas as the known is already found in the opening sections of the Principles.
According to Berkeley, the world consists of nothing but minds and ideas. Ordinary objects are collections of ideas. Already in his discussion of vision, he argued that one learns to coordinate ideas of sight and touch to judge distance, magnitude, and figure, properties which are immediately perceived only by touch.
The ideas of one sense become signs of ideas of the other senses. In his philosophical writings, this coordination of regularly occurring ideas becomes the way the world is known and the way humans construct real things. If there are only minds and ideas, there is no place for some scientific constructs.
Newtonian absolute space and time disappear. The first of these concerns the origin of ideas. Thoughts and ideas flow through our minds endlessly — ideas of people, houses, music concerts, scientific discoveries, God, on and on. Where do they all come from? For example, the idea I have of the color red ultimately came from some outward sensory experience that I had of the color red that was stored in my memory.
The idea I have of fear similarly came from an inward feeling of fear that I experienced in the past. When we think of a golden mountain, we only join two consistent ideas, gold , and mountain , with which we were formerly acquainted. In short, all the materials of thinking are derived either from our outward or inward sentiment: The mixture and composition of these belongs alone to the mind and will. Or, to express myself in philosophical language, all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones.
Hume offers two proofs for his position that all ideas are copied from impressions. Second, he says that, if you go your entire life without having a particular type of sensation, then you would lack the corresponding idea of that sensation. What Hume does with this, though, is quite radical insofar as he transforms it into a theory of meaning.
An idea is meaningless, then, if I cannot trace it back to any impression. When we entertain, therefore, any suspicion that a philosophical term is employed without any meaning or idea as is but too frequent , we need but enquire, from what impression is that supposed idea derived? And if it be impossible to assign any, this will serve to confirm our suspicion.
By bringing ideas into so clear a light we may reasonably hope to remove all dispute, which may arise, concerning their nature and reality. It is this theory of meaning that leads Hume down the path of skepticism as he explores one philosophical theory after another. In fact, he believes that much of traditional philosophy and religion can be dismissed as meaningless since it fails this test.
Suppose that I sit down on a couch and let my mind wander where it will. I think about the President, then Japan, then my car, then a telephone pole, then a railroad track, then an old apartment I lived in.
It is tempting to think that I am conjuring up these ideas spontaneously without any organization behind them. Not so, Hume argues. Our flow of ideas is connected together by three principles of association. First is resemblance , where one thought leads to another because of resembling features that they have. Second is contiguity , that is, one thing being in close proximity to another.
For example, if someone says something about a store in a shopping mall, I might then think about the store located next to it. Third is cause and effect. For example, if I look at a scar on my arm, I immediately start thinking about the accident I had that caused me to get the scar.
These three principles alone, according to Hume, are responsible for all mental association that our minds make in the normal flow of ideas. In both of these cases his skeptical conclusions arise from applying the theory of meaning described above.
If the traditional ideas of causality and personal identity are to be meaningful, then we must be able to trace those ideas back to some impression. In each case, though, there are problems locating an impression that is suitable for forming these ideas. The traditional notion of personal identity held by Descartes and other philosophers is that it is a single, unified substance that continues through time.
On this view, I am a single conscious entity, and, even though my specific thoughts change, my identity remains intact throughout time, and perhaps even into the afterlife.
For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.
The mind is a kind of theatre, where several perceptions successively make their appearance; pass, repass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations. There is properly no simplicity in it at one time, nor identity in different. Thus, the inward impression that I have of my identity is that of an ever-shifting bundle of perceptions, and this is the impression that must form the basis of my true notion of personal identity.
The traditional notion of causality is that there is an external power or force that causes ball A to strike and move ball B, independently of what you or I might perceive when we watch the balls move. Think of it like an invisible explosion that occurs when A strikes B and forces it to move. That is, there is an objective necessary connection between the cause and effect.
One possibility is that we perceive an outward impression through our five senses that forms the idea of an objective necessary connection. But do we? Suppose that when ball A struck ball B, it produced a flash of light and a loud boom, and, in fact, that every causal connection we saw was similarly accompanied by a light flash and a boom.
If that was the case, then, yes, we would have a very strong outward impression that would give us the idea of an objective necessary connection. When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connection; any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other.
We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard- ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the whole that appears to the outward senses.
He next considers whether there is any inward impression that forms the idea of necessary connection. Locke had suggested one possibility: we experience a feeling of causal power when we willfully move parts of our bodies, such as when I raise my arm. Here we have a causal sequence where the cause is my mental decision and the effect is the raising of my arm.
Since the causal sequence is taking place within my own mind, I am thus capable of directly experiencing a feeling of causal power or necessary connection when I willfully raise my arm. In the absence of an appropriate outward or inward impression, we must then reject the traditional notion of necessary connection as an objective force or invisible explosion. He suggests an alternative, though.
There is a more moderate notion of necessary connection that comes from an inward feeling of expectation that occurs when we repeatedly see A followed by B. Consider again the example of billiard balls: it is only after repeatedly seeing ball A move B that our minds feel a transition from the cause to the effect. The first time a man saw the communication of motion by impulse, as by the shock of two billiard balls, he could not pronounce that the one event was connected : But only that it was conjoined with the other.
After he has observed several instances of this nature, he then pronounces them to be connected. What alteration has happened to give rise to this new idea of connection?
Nothing but that he now feels these events to be connected in his imagination, and can readily foretell the existence of one from the appearance of the other. In the end, Hume does not completely reject the idea of necessary connection and causality. But he does reject the traditional idea of it being something like a primary quality within objects themselves.
Instead, he suggests that necessary connection is like a secondary quality that we spectators impose onto A-B sequences when we repeatedly see A and B conjoined. To properly understand exactly what Hume is criticizing, three things need to be clarified.
Rather, it must break some law of nature, such as if my arm gets chopped off and a new one instantly appears. Second, Hume focuses specifically on reports of miracles—stories about miracles that we hear about from other people or read about in books such as the Bible.
He does not consider miracles that we might directly witness ourselves. Third, Hume focuses on whether it is reasonable for us to believe reports of miracles, not whether the miraculous event actually took place.
It is impossible for us to go back in time and prove with absolute certainty whether any reported miracle was genuine. The best we can do is consider whether the evidence in support of a miracle report is compelling enough for us to believe the report. Hume offers a series of arguments against belief in miracles, but his main one is this: it is never reasonable to believe in reports of miracles since those reports will always be outweighed by stronger evidence for consistent laws of nature.
Suppose, for example, that the Mayor and all the city officials say that they witnessed a genuine miracle. As they report, a car rammed into city hall, causing the wall to collapse, but seconds later all the smashed pieces of the wall floated into the air, and reassembled themselves just as they were before. Should we believe their report? According to Hume, our first step is to weigh the evidence for and against this miracle, sort of like we were placing the evidence in the pans of a balance scale.
On the one side, the evidence that we have in favor of the miracle is the credibility of the witnesses. On the other side, the evidence against the miracle consists of the accumulated experience that we have in favor of uniform laws of nature. The natural world behaves in an orderly way based to natural laws. We count on this every moment of the day as when, for example, I open a door and expect it to swing on a hinge, rather than do something like transform into a bird and fly away.
According to Hume, the evidence that we have in favor of consistent laws of nature is overwhelming, and will always outweigh even the best evidence in favor of a reported miraculous violation of a law of nature.
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation [i.
And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof from the nature of the fact against the existence of any miracle.
For Hume, since miracles are defined as violations of laws of nature, any alleged miracle report is instantly outweighed by overwhelming evidence that we have of consistent laws of nature. The wise thing to do, Hume says, is to proportion our belief to the evidence.
With the above City Hall example, we should thus disbelieve the report that the wall miraculously reassembled itself since the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of consistent laws of nature. In addition to this main argument against belief in miracles, Hume offers four additional criticisms.
First, he says, the witnesses who report miracles typically lack credibility. Sometimes they lack sufficient education and good sense, which makes them gullible. Other times they are consciously deceptive. Even in the above example of the City Hall miracle, our first reaction would be to suspect that the Mayor and the city officials concocted the story to hide something politically sensitive.
Second, Hume argues that human beings are predisposed to enjoy hearing sensational stories, and this creates an instant audience for accounts of miraculous events. In recent times, we see this in the success of tabloid publications such as the National Enquirer that specialize in stories about alien abductions, monsters such as Bigfoot, and every possible type of miracle.
This vulnerability within human nature itself casts doubt on the truth of such sensational claims. Third, Hume states that reports of miracles typically come from pre-scientific and primitive countries whose cultures are obsessed with the supernatural. The most ordinary natural events are ascribed to supernatural causes, and reliance on omens and oracles is the norm.
The very location of such miracle reports counts against their credibility. Fourth, Hume argues that reports of miracles support rival religious systems, and thus nullify each other.
There are reports of miracles within virtually every religious tradition around the world. Christian miracles support the Christian plan of salvation. Muslim miracles support the Muslim plan of salvation, and so on. Taken as a whole, then, rival miracle reports are mutually undermining. Hume recognizes that the Christian religious tradition not only contains reports of miracles, but is in fact founded on miraculous circumstances in the lives of the Biblical characters.
Nevertheless, Hume argues, the reasonable thing to do even here is to disbelieve these reports. Throughout the history of philosophy, the traditional conception of morality was that it consists of objective universal truths that can be discovered through human reason.
For Plato, moral standards such as justice and goodness exist independently of human society in the higher spirit-realm of the forms. And, for Plato, it takes a mental act of reason to grasp moral truths, in much the way it takes an act of reason to grasp mathematical truths which also reside in the realm of the forms.
Hume rejects this view: morality is not grounded in an objective feature of the external world, but rather on internal mental feelings of pleasure and pain. All that we will find is a feeling of pleasure or pain in reaction to the action. Take any action allowed to be vicious; willful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In whichever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions, and thoughts.
There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of feeling, not of reason.
It lies in yourself, not in the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it. Thus, morality does not involve making a rational judgment about some objective moral facts.
Instead, moral assessments are just emotional reactions. If I see someone robbing a bank and determine that action to be morally wrong, I am not making a rational judgment about some objective moral truth or fact; rather, I am experiencing a feeling of emotional pain, and that feeling constitutes my negative assessment of the robber.
As obvious as this all seems to Hume, he notes that most moral theories insist on linking moral assessments with some factual judgment of reason. He makes this point here:. In every system of morality which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
Rather, the obligation comes from feeling, not from deduction of facts. Thus, statements of moral obligation are introduced through an emotional reaction, not through a rational deduction. He began with a theory of meaning that ruthlessly dismembers any concept that is not grounded in an outward or inward impression, and the first victims were traditional notions of personal identity and causality. He questioned the legitimacy of belief in miracles and, in essence, called into doubt anything supernatural.
Finally, he attacked the traditional notion of rationally perceived moral truths, and reduced moral assessments to emotional reactions. According to Hume, the underlying structure of human reason itself is inherently flawed, and thus completely untrustworthy. Specifically, the human reasoning process, even at its very best, is on a collision course with itself and regularly contradicts itself.
Hume describes this collision course here:. The intense view of these manifold contradictions and imperfections in human reason has so wrought upon me, and heated my brain, that I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another.
Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? Whose favor shall I court, and whose anger must I dread? What beings surround me?
I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty. For Hume, then, the most central questions about human existence are incapable of being adequately answered because of the inherent flaws in the human reasoning process. Whatever reason tells us about these matters can never be fully trusted, and thus we slide down the slope of philosophical despair.
Amidst all this skepticism and despair, though, Hume has a strangely optimistic solution. Human nature has embedded within us some very concrete natural beliefs which enable us to get through the day. Nature forces us to believe in external objects, causal relationships, personal identity, moral responsibility and a host of other notions that are crucial for our normal routines.
These are not innate ideas per se, but are normal beliefs about the world that emerge through natural inclinations. However, they are functionally important for our lives.
Also, they serve as a natural antidote to philosophical despair. Hume warns that natural beliefs are no replacement for philosophical inquiry, which, even with all its skepticism, is still important to keep us from giving in to gullibility and superstition.
Introduction: John Locke argued that our minds are from birth a blank slate and all of the conceptions we have originate from experience. His first step in establishing this is to attack the view that there are foundational innate ideas that we are born with. According to Locke, these notions are not innate, but arrived at through experience. It is an established opinion among some people that there are in the understanding certain innate principles some primary notions, common notions, characters as it were stamped upon the mind of man, which the soul receives in its very first being and brings into the world with it.
It would be sufficient to convince unprejudiced readers of the falseness of this supposition, if I should only show as I hope I shall in the following parts of this Discourse how people, barely by the use of their natural faculties, may attain to all the knowledge they have, without the help of any innate impressions, and may arrive at certainty without any such original notions or principles.
There is nothing more commonly taken for granted than that there are certain principles, both speculative and practical, for they speak of both , universally agreed upon by all men: which therefore, they argue, must needs be the constant impressions which the souls of people receive in their first beings, and which they bring into the world with them, as necessarily and really as they do any of their inherent faculties.
This argument, drawn from universal consent, has this misfortune in it, that if it were true in matter of fact, that there were certain truths wherein all men agreed, it would not prove them innate, if there can be any other way shown how people may come to that universal agreement, in the things they do consent in, which I presume may be done.
But, which is worse, this argument of universal consent which is made use of to prove innate principles seems to me a demonstration that there are none such. But yet I take liberty to say, that these propositions are so far from having an universal assent, that there are a great part of men to whom they are not so much as known.
For, first, it is evident, that all children and idiots have not the least apprehension or thought of them. And the want of that is enough to destroy that universal assent which must needs be the necessary concomitant of all innate truths: it seeming to me near a contradiction to say, that there are truths imprinted on the soul, which it perceives or understands not: imprinting, if it signify anything, being nothing else but the making certain truths to be perceived.
To avoid this, it is usually answered, that all people know and assent to them, when they come to the use of reason; and this is enough to prove them innate. I answer:. Doubtful expressions, that have scarce any signification, go for clear reasons to those who, being prepossessed, take not the pains to examine even what they themselves say. If they mean that by the use of reason people may discover these principles and that this is sufficient to prove them innate their way of arguing will stand thus, viz.
But how can these people think [that] the use of reason [is] necessary to discover principles that are supposed innate, when reason if we may believe them is nothing else but the faculty of deducing unknown truths from principles or propositions that are already known?
That certainly can never be thought innate which we have need of reason to discover. First, it is false because it is evident [that] these maxims are not in the mind so early as the use of reason. And therefore the coming to the use of reason is falsely assigned as the time of their discovery. To conclude this argument of universal consent, I agree with these defenders of innate principles, that if they are innate, they must needs have universal assent.
For that a truth should be innate, and yet not assented to, is to me as unintelligible, as for a man to know a truth, and be ignorant of it, at the same time.
But were the number far less, it would be enough to destroy universal assent, and thereby show these propositions not to be innate, if children alone were ignorant of them. Hylas represents the ordinary person like you and I who believe that material objects exist. Berkeley presents two arguments against the existence of material objects below. The first is an attack on primary qualities, that is, qualities like three- dimensionality that are believed to be features of the external material world.
0コメント