Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.42 AVERAGE
3.42 AVERAGE
I just like the idea of a an old European century academic writing stories about two... young... attractive men getting to know each other ☺️☺️
Skip it and read Hume, who says the same stuff more quickly, takes it further, and doesn't go god-mad. Or if you must have a taste, only suffer the first dialogue - it's downhill from there.
This doesn't feel like a dialogue: Berkeley has given his man Phil all the words and prepared thoughts he needs, and left his opponent only breath enough to ask the right questions, and say variations of "Oh gee Phil, I guess you're right! I must admit I have no thoughts really on that!". The first dialogue does present the strong argument for Idealism, and some very nice reasonable advice of trying to stay skeptical, not taking inferences too far, and not introducing superflous ideas where things can be given simpler explanations. He then forgets all that and brings his god into it; he believes all reality is only in our minds (could be!), and that things continue to exist when there are no people about, because everything is in the mind of god.
This doesn't feel like a dialogue: Berkeley has given his man Phil all the words and prepared thoughts he needs, and left his opponent only breath enough to ask the right questions, and say variations of "Oh gee Phil, I guess you're right! I must admit I have no thoughts really on that!". The first dialogue does present the strong argument for Idealism, and some very nice reasonable advice of trying to stay skeptical, not taking inferences too far, and not introducing superflous ideas where things can be given simpler explanations. He then forgets all that and brings his god into it; he believes all reality is only in our minds (could be!), and that things continue to exist when there are no people about, because everything is in the mind of god.
The problem is that Hylas and Philonous fail to display any of the personality or charisma usually found in the recorded dialogues of ancient philosophers. Berkeley should have exposed his arguments in an essay instead of in these uncomfortable lines.
I was a terrible philosophy major. I think that they all sound like great arguments. One moment I was reading Aristotle thinking “Well, that makes complete sense,” and the next moment I was reading Plato thinking, “Ah, a good point, yesyes!”. In my defense, they were generally good arguments, that’s why they are still taught. I’m just stating this now because I find Hylas and Philonous a great read. I’m not saying its good metaphysical philosophy- I have no right to label any of that sort of thing good or bad, unless its obviously and outrageously bad, and its ethical philosophy. I won’t say it’s a fun read either, unless you are interested in the history of thought. I highly recommend it to people that enjoy classics, to people that do enjoy the history of thought, and the evolution of man questioning things. Its well written, and easy enough to understand. There isn’t an overabundance of Greek words who’s definition are still being argued about, and the conversation style keeps it from getting overly stale.
This was a pretty interesting treatise on skepticism (and the only philosophy book I've ever read with a "twist"). Worth reading, even if you're not a philosopher, because it's very simple and relatively terminology-free. Lots of fun, very erroneous arguments also.
Wanna document my notes of this reading;
This book is like a meta-debate; the main debate is Idealism VS Materialism, but inside this big debate, lie other 2 debates: Skepticism (Empiricism ((Direct Realism VS Indirect Realism)) VS Rationalism), as well as Atheism VS Faith.
Well, of course the latter wasn't all-inclusive. It was stated tho at the end of the dialogues as a crucial result.
Anyway , I sorted Berkeley's arguments as following:
1:
- The Argument from pleasure & pain
- The idea of primary & secondary qualities (Locke's)
from which he concluded that nothing we're experiencing in mind-independent. Everything depends solely on our minds.
2:
- The Master Argument
from which he concluded his famous "Esse est percipi."
and that only sensations recognized by our minds, exist.
And that we cannot anymore distinguish between reality & appearance.
And that only God protects us from ceasing to exist, as he's the ultimate observer. So as long as he keeps observing us, we exist.
___________________________________________________________
Other interesting ideas i linked to this reading:
1. Descartes's "Cogito, ergo sum."
2. The likeness principle
3. The Master Argument's raised rejections
4. The matrix triology
Well, isn't 1 & 4 are basically the same thing? lol
This book is like a meta-debate; the main debate is Idealism VS Materialism, but inside this big debate, lie other 2 debates: Skepticism (Empiricism ((Direct Realism VS Indirect Realism)) VS Rationalism), as well as Atheism VS Faith.
Well, of course the latter wasn't all-inclusive. It was stated tho at the end of the dialogues as a crucial result.
Anyway , I sorted Berkeley's arguments as following:
1:
- The Argument from pleasure & pain
- The idea of primary & secondary qualities (Locke's)
from which he concluded that nothing we're experiencing in mind-independent. Everything depends solely on our minds.
2:
- The Master Argument
from which he concluded his famous "Esse est percipi."
and that only sensations recognized by our minds, exist.
And that we cannot anymore distinguish between reality & appearance.
And that only God protects us from ceasing to exist, as he's the ultimate observer. So as long as he keeps observing us, we exist.
___________________________________________________________
Other interesting ideas i linked to this reading:
1. Descartes's "Cogito, ergo sum."
2. The likeness principle
3. The Master Argument's raised rejections
4. The matrix triology
Well, isn't 1 & 4 are basically the same thing? lol
George Berkeley presented in the essay, Principles of Human Knowledge, a natural philosophy so outlandish that he thought it proper to more clearly formulate it in dialogue form. The participants are Hylas, or "matter," and Philonous, or "lover of mind." Hylas, as his name suggests, attempts to maintain the seemingly reasonable stance that the external object or matter exists and exerts its effect upon the minds of those who perceive. Philonous argues that any perceived thing, what he terms ideas, always begins with a mind. A certain hierarchy of phenomenal authorship is at the core of Philonous' or Berkeley's unique arrangement of the world. He cannot accept that an inert unthinking substance can spark a mind into generating ideas. What Philonous takes advantage of is a gap in phenomenal perception which Hylas is unable to fill...that no one can immediately access the thing in itself, a problem which Immanuel Kant would face later. Hylas is adamant about filling this gap with a belief in matter which he cannot justify after many failed attempts. Philonous' answer is an analogy. The reality of perceived objects is based upon the action of a mind. The reality of the world of phenomena is dependent upon the will of a supreme Mind (guess who?). To be fair, Philonous has to make his share of baseless assumptions to support his claims. For example, he states this supreme Mind who is the author of what we perceive is ultimately good. The same system, however, may be maintained by the mind of a Cartesian "evil genius" or of an unfeeling essence with no moral or ethical interest. The chain of reasoning is far, far from solid, but the Three Dialogues provide an interesting take on one of the most peculiar philosophies of its time, or even of all time.
challenging
reflective
slow-paced