Scan barcode
mrbear's review against another edition
3.0
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.
nihilistmermaid's review against another edition
3.0
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
david_rhee's review against another edition
3.0
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.
dolorsitamet's review against another edition
2.0
I'm having a similar problem with this that I was with Descarte's _Meditations_, i.e. long-winded and ended up relying heavily on the existence of a God/proving it, or taking as given.
The ideas, once again, deserve merit. To be is to be perceived: that is, if nobody perceives something, it doesn't exist. As absurd as the notion sounds, Philonous goes on to prove it decently well, as Hylas cannot refute it. That's the thing about these philosophies, anyone can go about saying nearly anything with the right axioms...and suddenly the Idealist perspective doesn't seem so strange after all. If one considers the motion of particles different from sound itself (that is, that sound is the mental awareness of the motion) and that sensations like heat and color are relative, it starts to make sense. (At least, it works until you realize that if I close my eyes and cease perceiving that book, it keeps existing, and Philonous goes on to say "no but God perceives the book therefore it's still there so everything's under control")
In short, interesting idea to at least get a taste of, but told very tediously. (As Polonius'd say: "This is too long")
The ideas, once again, deserve merit. To be is to be perceived: that is, if nobody perceives something, it doesn't exist. As absurd as the notion sounds, Philonous goes on to prove it decently well, as Hylas cannot refute it. That's the thing about these philosophies, anyone can go about saying nearly anything with the right axioms...and suddenly the Idealist perspective doesn't seem so strange after all. If one considers the motion of particles different from sound itself (that is, that sound is the mental awareness of the motion) and that sensations like heat and color are relative, it starts to make sense. (At least, it works until you realize that if I close my eyes and cease perceiving that book, it keeps existing, and Philonous goes on to say "no but God perceives the book therefore it's still there so everything's under control")
In short, interesting idea to at least get a taste of, but told very tediously. (As Polonius'd say: "This is too long")
More...