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!