What do you think?
Rate this book
İnsan Bilgisinin İlkeleri Üzerine
George Berkeley'in (1685-1753) felsefesi metafizik tarihindeki doruklardan biridir. İnsan Bilgisinin İlkeleri Üzerine'de filozof zihinden bağımsız, algılanmaksızın varolan bir töz olamayacağı, özdeğin kendi başına varolamayacağı savını temellendirmek amacını güdüyor. Yapıt, ortaya koyduğu düşünce olanağının karşı koyulmaz ağırlığıyla, Dekartçı varlıkbilime (ontolojiye) getirdiği köktenci eleştiriyle etkisini günümüze kadar sürdüregelen, önemini hiçbir zaman yitirmemiş bir felsefenin temel kitabıdır.
134 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1710
193 people are currently reading
5332 people want to read
About the author
George Berkeley
645 books233 followersGeorge Berkeley (/ˈbɑːrklɪ/;[1][2] 12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753) — known as Bishop Berkeley (Bishop of Cloyne) — was an Anglo-Irish philosopher whose primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are only ideas in the minds of perceivers, and as a result cannot exist without being perceived. Berkeley is also known for his critique of abstraction, an important premise in his argument for immaterialism.
Librarian note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
George^Berkeley
Librarian note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
George^Berkeley
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 148 reviews
October 2, 2023
Deep end of the pool here! I know I missed much of what Berkeley was trying to say...but his ideas sound like a combination of Zen koans and quantum mechanics - there is an observer who observes everything at all times - it is that continuous observation that lets us (as individuals) observe what we think we are observing (!) (?) Help me, Dr. Sheldon Cooper! You're my only hope!
January 12, 2023
"In vain do we extend our view into the heavens, and pry into the entrails of the earth, in vain do we consult the writings of learned men, and trace the dark footsteps of antiquity; we need only draw the curtain of words, to behold the fairest tree of knowledge, whose fruit is excellent, and within the reach of our hand."
The diagnosis of the problem of knowledge, according to Berkeley, is that of words. True to his statements, Berkeley went so far as to deliberately avoid using the ideas of others and instead use only those ideas and words that were his. I must note here that I sincerely appreciate it when those who espouse a philosophy also act in accordance to it. Diogenes comes to mind here. However, in this case, this was also a bit close minded, which is not a trait that I would typically ascribe to those who acquaint themselves with philosophy.
Berkeley points out various issues throughout. For example, the notion of matter involves a contradiction in it, a true idea of something such as motion is impossible, and some ideas are intricately tied to others such as how the idea of pure space exclusive of all body seems impossible. These were in addition to more typical issues such as the multiple uses of languages.
The observations on abstracting were what I found to be most useful in this text. Berkeley makes the comparison that for a given truth about the characteristics of triangles "to be certain this proposition is universally true, we must either make a particular demonstration for every particular triangle, which is impossible, or once for all demonstrate it of the abstract idea of a triangle, in which all the particulars do indifferently partake, and by which they are all equally represented." This, of course, reminds me of the problem of induction. Interestingly, taking this to an extreme, Berkeley notes at one point how despite the abstract idea of unity being one which can accompany all other ideas, it is not necessarily the most familiar to understanding or perception.
In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke stated that, "The mind thinks in proportion to the matter it gets from experience to think about." However, what I found as an interesting yet vital connotation of this made by Berkeley is that this is not only true on an individual level, however that the same could be said at a collective level for the cumulative body of all human knowledge. Berkeley states, "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."
Overall, quite nice. Besides some of the notions on immaterialism and connections to God, there was much that I garnered from this.
June 2, 2016
George Berkeley was an English philosopher in the empiricist school. In this short treatise, he put forward many of his most influential ideas, including his critique of intellectual abstraction, and the dependence of reality on perception.
Unlike many other philosophers I've come across, Berkeley is direct and terse. He does not insult the reader's intelligence by dwelling unnecessarily on one topic, but moves forward at a brisk pace. Further, his writing is clear, organized, and he actively seeks to anticipate any objections that others might have to his points. This combination serves to make the Principles of Human Knowledge an enjoyable read.
I believe that this work can be read advantageously by anybody. However, those reader's who have knowledge of Descartes and Locke might get quite a bit more out of it. Much of what is contained in this little work is an elaboration, refinement, and at times a refutation of Locke's points in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In that work, Locke famously argues that the mind is a "blank slate" and that all of our thoughts are ultimately beholden to our experience. The "self" could not exist without sensation. Locke also points out that our sensations are only secondary qualities of objects. The primary qualities, or the arrangement of particles that actually make up an object, are largely unknowable. But Locke still believes they're there.
This was largely a response to Descartes and the rationalist school. In his Discourse on Method and Meditations, Descartes takes a sceptic stance, and maintains that all we perceive cannot be accepted as true. After all, we perceive things in dreams, but nobody thinks that those actually happen. He then concludes that all we can be sure of to exist is ourselves, and God. All external reality is doubtful.
Berkeley's position is the exact reverse. Far from saying that we should not trust our senses, Berkeley argues that nothing exists without us perceiving it. Instead of senses being an imperfect window to reality, or untrustworthy phantasms, sensations become synonymous with reality. (This goes further than Locke, as Berkeley argues that no such "primary qualities" exist, only secondary.) Descartes finds God as he meditates within himself. Berkeley finds God in everything we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. The two views could not be more dissimilar.
I would suggest this little book to any who wish to learn more about philosophy, but don't want to get bogged down in a 400 page book. It's enjoyable, short, and surprisingly relevant.
Unlike many other philosophers I've come across, Berkeley is direct and terse. He does not insult the reader's intelligence by dwelling unnecessarily on one topic, but moves forward at a brisk pace. Further, his writing is clear, organized, and he actively seeks to anticipate any objections that others might have to his points. This combination serves to make the Principles of Human Knowledge an enjoyable read.
I believe that this work can be read advantageously by anybody. However, those reader's who have knowledge of Descartes and Locke might get quite a bit more out of it. Much of what is contained in this little work is an elaboration, refinement, and at times a refutation of Locke's points in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In that work, Locke famously argues that the mind is a "blank slate" and that all of our thoughts are ultimately beholden to our experience. The "self" could not exist without sensation. Locke also points out that our sensations are only secondary qualities of objects. The primary qualities, or the arrangement of particles that actually make up an object, are largely unknowable. But Locke still believes they're there.
This was largely a response to Descartes and the rationalist school. In his Discourse on Method and Meditations, Descartes takes a sceptic stance, and maintains that all we perceive cannot be accepted as true. After all, we perceive things in dreams, but nobody thinks that those actually happen. He then concludes that all we can be sure of to exist is ourselves, and God. All external reality is doubtful.
Berkeley's position is the exact reverse. Far from saying that we should not trust our senses, Berkeley argues that nothing exists without us perceiving it. Instead of senses being an imperfect window to reality, or untrustworthy phantasms, sensations become synonymous with reality. (This goes further than Locke, as Berkeley argues that no such "primary qualities" exist, only secondary.) Descartes finds God as he meditates within himself. Berkeley finds God in everything we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. The two views could not be more dissimilar.
I would suggest this little book to any who wish to learn more about philosophy, but don't want to get bogged down in a 400 page book. It's enjoyable, short, and surprisingly relevant.
June 1, 2016
Out of Spinoza, Locke, Descartes, Hume and Berkeley, I certainly found Berkeley the most interesting; but, then, I am into Idealism, so it is to some degree understandable and indicates my bias really. Out of 17th-early 18th century philosophers, Berkeley intrigues me as much as Leibniz does. I might, if I were to expand philosophy to include quasi-mystical writers of the same era, include Swedenborg, Hutchinson, Boehme and Sterry.
Berkeley has often been misrepresented as being a philosopher that denied the existence of matter in the sense of real external objects. This is definitely not accurate. Some of his statements are ambiguous and can be wrenched from context and made to look like he supported the non-reality of the outside physical world, but, really, he denied the existence of matter in the philosophical sense of a substrate made up of abstracted accidents and qualities. Like other Idealists going back to Plato, Berkeley believed in a universal Spirit or Mind that necessitates that all reality is perceived and cannot exist apart from this perception. It is an interesting theory when one notes that quantum mechanics supports the notion that reality at the particle level does seem to presuppose an observer. It seems that there may be very current scientific support for Berkeley's supposition on some level.
It does seem that in the concluding remarks that Berkeley supports some kind of pantheism; at least, some of his statements appear to strongly support that reading. Pantheism I do not support, so I have some reservations about Berkeley's philosophy, but it is well worth studying at least. It is also interesting that Berkeley appears to have anticipated the pseudo-spiritual abstract philosophy of German Idealists like Hegel; of course, while anticipating it he was also against any such marriage of spirituality with abstract knowledge systems.
As it stands, Berkeley was a worth while read and I may revisit this work in the future.
Berkeley has often been misrepresented as being a philosopher that denied the existence of matter in the sense of real external objects. This is definitely not accurate. Some of his statements are ambiguous and can be wrenched from context and made to look like he supported the non-reality of the outside physical world, but, really, he denied the existence of matter in the philosophical sense of a substrate made up of abstracted accidents and qualities. Like other Idealists going back to Plato, Berkeley believed in a universal Spirit or Mind that necessitates that all reality is perceived and cannot exist apart from this perception. It is an interesting theory when one notes that quantum mechanics supports the notion that reality at the particle level does seem to presuppose an observer. It seems that there may be very current scientific support for Berkeley's supposition on some level.
It does seem that in the concluding remarks that Berkeley supports some kind of pantheism; at least, some of his statements appear to strongly support that reading. Pantheism I do not support, so I have some reservations about Berkeley's philosophy, but it is well worth studying at least. It is also interesting that Berkeley appears to have anticipated the pseudo-spiritual abstract philosophy of German Idealists like Hegel; of course, while anticipating it he was also against any such marriage of spirituality with abstract knowledge systems.
As it stands, Berkeley was a worth while read and I may revisit this work in the future.
December 15, 2025
The image of a chair you perceive in your dining room forms a thought in your mind that, in turn, creates an idea of its material existence.
Hence, this idea of a chair, spatially speaking, only exists in your mind, as no idea can be conceived or maintained outside of its bounds.
Since our chair is a thoughtless thing, the idea of its existence is inconceivable and unknown to it. So does it really exist, if it's unaware of itself?
George Berkeley (1685-1753) in A Treaty Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge doesn't seem to think so. He claims that we cannot attribute any real existence to thoughtless things. He further argues that matter, on its own, doesn't exist unless it's perceived at the same time. Therefore, existence and perceptions are inseparable. Thus, the moment you turn your head or hands away from that chair is the moment you can no longer be sure of its physical presence.
Interesting short book.
Hence, this idea of a chair, spatially speaking, only exists in your mind, as no idea can be conceived or maintained outside of its bounds.
Since our chair is a thoughtless thing, the idea of its existence is inconceivable and unknown to it. So does it really exist, if it's unaware of itself?
George Berkeley (1685-1753) in A Treaty Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge doesn't seem to think so. He claims that we cannot attribute any real existence to thoughtless things. He further argues that matter, on its own, doesn't exist unless it's perceived at the same time. Therefore, existence and perceptions are inseparable. Thus, the moment you turn your head or hands away from that chair is the moment you can no longer be sure of its physical presence.
Interesting short book.
May 6, 2021
As an empiricist, Berkeley stayed with perception and went against abstractions and concepts. Ideas are all that matter and they connect only with other ideas. Reality is nothing more than an active spirit perceiving. When we turn our back to things (i.e. ideas) they disappear; or maybe not because other spirits/humans still perceive them or maybe because God, as the absolute spirit, continues to perceive them. Substance (along with shape, movement, colors, and so on) exist only as ideas and as perceptions. If you believe that substance really exists, then you are an atheist or about to turn into one. Starting with the subject-object distinction mainly perpetuated by Descartes, Berkeley completely rejected the object and the rational approach, and developed a perfectly coherent and self-sustaining philosophy. Some of the implications of his philosophy are quite interesting and still relevant today. Great book!
May 8, 2016
Berkeley was such and intelligent man that it's absolutely impossible to imagine that he was actually a Bishop!!!
May 21, 2014
I gave this book three stars (rather than fewer) not because I agree with Berkeley's argument whatsoever or because his book is anything close to a model of careful, persuasive philosophy. I gave it three stars because:
(1) As an argument for idealism, and the first I've ever read, it was fascinating.
(2) Even though his argument for idealism is pretty lousy, the comprehensive philosophy he builds out of it--whereby he makes an, admittedly lousy, argument for God's existence and solves many dilemmas and paradoxes that have puzzled philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians throughout history--is impressively coherent and once again fascinating.
Still, it gets no more than three stars because the argument for idealism is kind of careless, especially because Berkeley says ad nauseam that his position is so obviously right and his argument so compelling that it would be absurd to disagree. I actually found many of his points at the very beginning, for example that "our sensory experiences are only of ideas, not things external to us" compelling, but he drew some pretty careless inferences (e.g. nothing exists outside of our minds) from that pretty uncontroversial first premise. I guess the root of my disagreement with him is that I reject his likeness principle, which is the whole foundation of his attack against the representationalist theory of perception and thus his idealism. I call his argument careless because he provides no argument for this crucial principle and then goes on to insist repeatedly that no one can sanely reject his position. I also found uncompelling his response to one very important materialist claim, the claim that even if we can't know for sure that an external world exists, it is more likely that it does than does not. Berkeley responds by saying that because materialists cannot explain how external bodies would cause our ideas, we don't have good reason to accept the claim that an external world more likely exists than not. I don't think response this is very strong; I think there are strong reasons to believe it is more likely that external things cause our ideas than spirits, even if materialists cannot explain how this could happen.
(1) As an argument for idealism, and the first I've ever read, it was fascinating.
(2) Even though his argument for idealism is pretty lousy, the comprehensive philosophy he builds out of it--whereby he makes an, admittedly lousy, argument for God's existence and solves many dilemmas and paradoxes that have puzzled philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians throughout history--is impressively coherent and once again fascinating.
Still, it gets no more than three stars because the argument for idealism is kind of careless, especially because Berkeley says ad nauseam that his position is so obviously right and his argument so compelling that it would be absurd to disagree. I actually found many of his points at the very beginning, for example that "our sensory experiences are only of ideas, not things external to us" compelling, but he drew some pretty careless inferences (e.g. nothing exists outside of our minds) from that pretty uncontroversial first premise. I guess the root of my disagreement with him is that I reject his likeness principle, which is the whole foundation of his attack against the representationalist theory of perception and thus his idealism. I call his argument careless because he provides no argument for this crucial principle and then goes on to insist repeatedly that no one can sanely reject his position. I also found uncompelling his response to one very important materialist claim, the claim that even if we can't know for sure that an external world exists, it is more likely that it does than does not. Berkeley responds by saying that because materialists cannot explain how external bodies would cause our ideas, we don't have good reason to accept the claim that an external world more likely exists than not. I don't think response this is very strong; I think there are strong reasons to believe it is more likely that external things cause our ideas than spirits, even if materialists cannot explain how this could happen.
October 14, 2019
A classic in the history of philosophy, although steeped in naive dogmatism and unsophisticated conceptual resources.
September 17, 2014
This work was the first I’d ever read by George Berkeley.
In this treatise, Berkeley expounds on his theory of immaterialism. This basically states that no material thing exists outside of that which perceives it and bears no relation whatsoever to solipsism—the belief that only the self exists.
Berkeley was a deeply religious man who believed that nature and matter did not exist without being perceived in consciousness; that this perception was an idea instilled in the spirits of men through the infinite all-perceiving mind of God. Therefore, the revelation of God as the very originator of creation is available to anyone not bound by the notion of material existence outside of consciousness.
From a materialist, purely Cartesian, Newtonian perspective, his ingenious works might seem ludicrous. There were no physicists at the time to chime in with theories of quantum physics that so readily collapse the foundations of materialism. Berkeley stood his ground alone.
The prose is bloated and bombastic, but let’s not forget the text was written in 1710, and compared to other writings of his time, his was simple and straight to the point.
A TREATISE CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE is a treasure to anyone with a spiritual or religious inclination. The message is as deep as it is subtle, and can be quite transformative if you allow its transcendental logic the benefit of a truly open mind.
In this treatise, Berkeley expounds on his theory of immaterialism. This basically states that no material thing exists outside of that which perceives it and bears no relation whatsoever to solipsism—the belief that only the self exists.
Berkeley was a deeply religious man who believed that nature and matter did not exist without being perceived in consciousness; that this perception was an idea instilled in the spirits of men through the infinite all-perceiving mind of God. Therefore, the revelation of God as the very originator of creation is available to anyone not bound by the notion of material existence outside of consciousness.
From a materialist, purely Cartesian, Newtonian perspective, his ingenious works might seem ludicrous. There were no physicists at the time to chime in with theories of quantum physics that so readily collapse the foundations of materialism. Berkeley stood his ground alone.
The prose is bloated and bombastic, but let’s not forget the text was written in 1710, and compared to other writings of his time, his was simple and straight to the point.
A TREATISE CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE is a treasure to anyone with a spiritual or religious inclination. The message is as deep as it is subtle, and can be quite transformative if you allow its transcendental logic the benefit of a truly open mind.
December 23, 2012
Okay, so someone tells you the world is all is in your mind. The world is an idea, nothing exists unless it is perceived by a mind. Crazy right? Well no - it just might be the case. We know Reality as a mental construct - a product of our minds. This book makes you think - what does it mean to exist, what is it, and that is a question worth looking at. George should be on everybody's self.
March 8, 2016
This work is an incredibly in-depth look at idealism. I would say it even rivals and perhaps surpasses the works of Descartes to some degree, though it seems to borrow considerably from that foundation. With that being said, I believe it pales in comparison, with regard to enlightenment, but still a worthy read, five stars.
July 17, 2015
I found it easier going than many like it. So ... what does this mean? According to the author's subjective idealism, if you haven't perceived this book it doesn't exist. So if you haven't read it, don't worry. You're not missing anything.
May 2, 2019
A treatise reaffirming the hegelian quip that in the frantic struggle conducted by many against abstraction, one finds themselves embodying the very apex of abstraction.
This book is the perfect blend of monotony, circular reasoning, and dogmatism. So if that's what you're into, give it a shot.
This book is the perfect blend of monotony, circular reasoning, and dogmatism. So if that's what you're into, give it a shot.
March 18, 2018
The Meaning of Reality
I was taught from a very young age that reality is what exists independently of human perception and knowledge, and we gain knowledge of reality if and only if our ideas correspond to it. Fantasy is that which has no correspondence in reality, and exists only in the mind of an individual -- unless he communicates his fantasy, others have no way of knowing it.
George Berkeley, after whom University of California at Berkeley was named, shows a different way of interpreting reality. He reasons that ideas in the mind can only be derived from ideas in the mind, and not what exists independently of the mind. Therefore, our sense perceptions are signs, not of material substances existing outside the mind, instead, they are signs of ideas which subsist in the mind of God and are communicated to us directly and individually, without "nature" as an intermediary. The "laws of nature" are not attributes of material substances, but attributes of the inter-relations of the divine ideas communicated to us, like the rules of syntax and semantics in the study of language.
Descartes and Berkeley
Descartes is known for the dictum, "I think therefore I am". Berkeley's philosophy can be simplified as, "I think thereby the world exists". Both philosophers converge on one point: "I think therefore God is".
Like Descartes, Berkeley started from meditating within his own mind, and saw that the mind is different in nature from the object it perceives -- the former is active and immortal whereas the latter is not. They both inferred the existence of God, by acknowledging the limitation of their mind -- they can only effect and perceive a very small portion of reality, of which a far superior Mind must be the Author.
Unlike Descartes, Berkeley denies the reality of matter as an inert substrate with the potential to come into existence by participating in forms. To his mind, matter is inconceivable, and what is inconceivable is non-existent by definition. However, he can't explain the fact that others can conceive it. In addition, he admits that he doesn't perceive other minds from the senses, and must infer their existence indirectly by logic. An argument can be made that the existence of matter is inferred indirectly by logic apart from the senses. Personally I think Descartes is the more logically consistent of the two.
(Read full review at Nemo's Library)
I was taught from a very young age that reality is what exists independently of human perception and knowledge, and we gain knowledge of reality if and only if our ideas correspond to it. Fantasy is that which has no correspondence in reality, and exists only in the mind of an individual -- unless he communicates his fantasy, others have no way of knowing it.
George Berkeley, after whom University of California at Berkeley was named, shows a different way of interpreting reality. He reasons that ideas in the mind can only be derived from ideas in the mind, and not what exists independently of the mind. Therefore, our sense perceptions are signs, not of material substances existing outside the mind, instead, they are signs of ideas which subsist in the mind of God and are communicated to us directly and individually, without "nature" as an intermediary. The "laws of nature" are not attributes of material substances, but attributes of the inter-relations of the divine ideas communicated to us, like the rules of syntax and semantics in the study of language.
Descartes and Berkeley
Descartes is known for the dictum, "I think therefore I am". Berkeley's philosophy can be simplified as, "I think thereby the world exists". Both philosophers converge on one point: "I think therefore God is".
Like Descartes, Berkeley started from meditating within his own mind, and saw that the mind is different in nature from the object it perceives -- the former is active and immortal whereas the latter is not. They both inferred the existence of God, by acknowledging the limitation of their mind -- they can only effect and perceive a very small portion of reality, of which a far superior Mind must be the Author.
Unlike Descartes, Berkeley denies the reality of matter as an inert substrate with the potential to come into existence by participating in forms. To his mind, matter is inconceivable, and what is inconceivable is non-existent by definition. However, he can't explain the fact that others can conceive it. In addition, he admits that he doesn't perceive other minds from the senses, and must infer their existence indirectly by logic. An argument can be made that the existence of matter is inferred indirectly by logic apart from the senses. Personally I think Descartes is the more logically consistent of the two.
(Read full review at Nemo's Library)
June 29, 2013
Berkeley does not hedge on his maxim esse est percipi (being is being perceived). He jumps in head first, bets all on black and puts all of his eggs in one basket without actually mixing metaphors. Berkeley ramps up Locke’s arguments and simplifies them. He does away with Locke’s notion of a substratum of existence and commits fully to the idea that all we can perceive are Ideas. What has hindered his predecessors was their unfounded belief that Matter has existence apart from the mind. By casting aside Matter, the paradoxes of geometric problems, as well as the dilemma in deciphering levels of reality, are set aside.
Which leads to the next question. Dr. Bradatan writes a great Introduction in which he summarizes the question and answer:
Berkeley dispenses with any drawn out methodology underlying his premise that we experience the Idea of things, and not things themselves. Which probably doesn’t win any converts to his extreme view of existence. But it’s a fascinating way to view the world.
Which leads to the next question. Dr. Bradatan writes a great Introduction in which he summarizes the question and answer:
If there is no such thing as matter, what is it, then, that we experience in the outside world? It is God’s Discourse. The world is living word. In Principles, as well as in most of Berekely’s other philosophical works, nature is seen as the “visual language” that God uses to speak with us. The things we see around us, their unfolding and succession, their changing into one another, are not meaningless occurrences, but they form divine speech; they say something about the “Author of Nature.” Introduction, Pg. XIII.The world only exists because it is perceived. Not only by us (or more appropriately me, because I can’t be sure you exist), but by the Spirit (codename : God) as well. It is the Spirit’s act of perception which maintains existence when I am not actively perceiving. It’s all very Hindu actually. There’s a story in which Vishnu sleeps dreaming of the universe and Brahma sits on a lotus growing from his navel. When Brahma opens his eyes, the world is created and, after millions of years, Brahma blinks and the world is destroyed only to be recreated when Brahma reopens his eyes. Or something close to that. Though I’m sure Berkeley, who was a Bishop in the Anglican Church, would object to the comparison.
Berkeley dispenses with any drawn out methodology underlying his premise that we experience the Idea of things, and not things themselves. Which probably doesn’t win any converts to his extreme view of existence. But it’s a fascinating way to view the world.
March 17, 2012
Je n'avais pas été autant emballé par un ouvrage de philosophie depuis la lecture de l'enquête sur l'entendement humain de Locke. Berkeley est un ecclésiastique écossais du début du XVIIIème siècle, qui partant des positions empiristes, radicalise cette position pour partir en guerre contre l'abstraction qu'il considère comme la source des maux et errances de la philosophie. Il souhaite aussi abattre l'athéisme par des arguments définitifs; mais si je trouve qu'il ne parvient pas à convaincre sur ce dernier point, il avance des arguments fort convaincants pour nier l'existence de la matière : cette dernière étant une substance, abstraction inaccessible à nos sens, elle possède bien moins d'évidence que les manifestations sensorielles dont nous sommes frappés. Cette idée est bien plus facile à entendre après plusieurs siècle de progrès en science physique, alors qu'au mépris du grec, il est devenu banal de scinder une chose nommée atome, que lorsqu'elle fut émise. Il m'est pourtant plus difficile d'admettre le mépris atroce qu'il exprime contre les progrès du calcul infinitésimal qui nous sont familiers, tant ses applications présentent de succès, et son acharnement contre Newton me semble relever d'un excès de défiance contre l'abstraction, indispensable dans la vie pratique pour organiser nos connaissance, et pouvoir agir. Malgré tout, son scepticisme est rafraichissant, car limiter la portée de nos certitudes augmente notre curiosité et nos chances d'augmenter notre savoir, suivant le sillon de Descartes.
January 31, 2019
Enjoyable book, although his writing style gets on my nerves.
November 6, 2022
La primera vez que tuve constancia de la existencia de Berkeley fue a través de Politzer. Pensaba que el inmaterialismo de Berkeley se basaba en negar la existencia de la realidad y que todo es producido por nuestra mente, de forma que el conocimiento es imposible. Esto es un error de interpretación que creo que, al igual que me pasaba a mí, le sucede a más gente. Aunque bueno, por algo estaría considerado como empirista.
Básicamente el ensayo trata de negar la teoría de Locke sobre la existencia de una sustancia material oculta. Berkeley afirma que la existencia depende de la mente. Existir consiste en ser percibido, no intentan decir que es falso que existan. Para él, ser percibido implica la necesidad de un sujeto pensante. Esto no lleva al solipsismo, una mesa no va a dejar de existir porque no haya nadie que la perciba. Aquí entra la idea de la existencia de Dios como sujeto pensante. Las ideas que percibimos están ahí porque están pensandas por una mente superior. No sé puede entender el pensamiento de Berkeley sin la idea de Dios, toda su teoría se viene abajo si prescindimos de esta premisas. De hecho, Berkeley pretende demostrar, con su teoría del conocimiento, la existencia de Dios. Por tanto, las ideas no dependen exclusivamente de la mente humana, están pensadas por Dios. La ciencia es posible, estudia la relación de las ideas pensadas por Dios con la mente humana que las percibe y es posible adelantarse a esta percepción. No obstante, Dios no tiene porque actuar del mismo modo, a partir de esto explica la existencia de los milagros.
Para mi, la manera en que Berkeley emplea el término idea es un tanto confuso, ya que se refiere a los objetos inmediatos de sensación, no niega la existencia de los objetos de percepción sensorial, su teoría del conocimiento no afecta a la realidad del mundo sensible, está diseñada para demostrar la existencia de Dios. También niega la existencia de ideas abstractas (no es posible imaginar la idea de hombre en abstracto sin pensar en un hombre concreto), pero a mi modo de ver confunde idea abstracta con imagen.
Básicamente el ensayo trata de negar la teoría de Locke sobre la existencia de una sustancia material oculta. Berkeley afirma que la existencia depende de la mente. Existir consiste en ser percibido, no intentan decir que es falso que existan. Para él, ser percibido implica la necesidad de un sujeto pensante. Esto no lleva al solipsismo, una mesa no va a dejar de existir porque no haya nadie que la perciba. Aquí entra la idea de la existencia de Dios como sujeto pensante. Las ideas que percibimos están ahí porque están pensandas por una mente superior. No sé puede entender el pensamiento de Berkeley sin la idea de Dios, toda su teoría se viene abajo si prescindimos de esta premisas. De hecho, Berkeley pretende demostrar, con su teoría del conocimiento, la existencia de Dios. Por tanto, las ideas no dependen exclusivamente de la mente humana, están pensadas por Dios. La ciencia es posible, estudia la relación de las ideas pensadas por Dios con la mente humana que las percibe y es posible adelantarse a esta percepción. No obstante, Dios no tiene porque actuar del mismo modo, a partir de esto explica la existencia de los milagros.
Para mi, la manera en que Berkeley emplea el término idea es un tanto confuso, ya que se refiere a los objetos inmediatos de sensación, no niega la existencia de los objetos de percepción sensorial, su teoría del conocimiento no afecta a la realidad del mundo sensible, está diseñada para demostrar la existencia de Dios. También niega la existencia de ideas abstractas (no es posible imaginar la idea de hombre en abstracto sin pensar en un hombre concreto), pero a mi modo de ver confunde idea abstracta con imagen.
August 28, 2020
Ar yra realus pasaulis, kuris egzistuoja nepriklausomai nuo mūsų patyrimo? Sveikas protas sako, kad, be abejo, egzistuoja. Tačiau Berkeley savo tyrinėjimuose priėjo prie priešingos išvados. Berkeley manė, kad mūsų potyriai, be abejo, realūs. Tačiau nėra jokio pagrindo manyti, kad egzistuoja kažkoks pasaulis, kurį jie atspindi. Ir išties, kaip gali manyti, kad egzistuoja kažkas, ko niekaip negali patikrinti?
Taip jau sutapo, kad Berkeley skaičiau iškart po Orwello 1984, kur Berkeley idėja naudojama kaip oficiali Okeanijos partijos pozicija. Tiesa, vien Berkeley nepakanka paaiškinti Okeanijos metafizinės sistemos. Dar reikėtų pridurti XX a. filosofo Heideggerio indėlį. Heideggeris sakė, kad pasaulį sudaro žmonių interpretacijos. Sujungus ir apdorojus šių filosofų sistemas, sukuriama Okeanijos metafizika: žmonių galvas galima prikimšti bet kokių nesąmonių, ir tai bus šių žmonių realybė, nes jokios kitos realybės be esančiosios galvose tiesiog nėra.
Taip jau sutapo, kad Berkeley skaičiau iškart po Orwello 1984, kur Berkeley idėja naudojama kaip oficiali Okeanijos partijos pozicija. Tiesa, vien Berkeley nepakanka paaiškinti Okeanijos metafizinės sistemos. Dar reikėtų pridurti XX a. filosofo Heideggerio indėlį. Heideggeris sakė, kad pasaulį sudaro žmonių interpretacijos. Sujungus ir apdorojus šių filosofų sistemas, sukuriama Okeanijos metafizika: žmonių galvas galima prikimšti bet kokių nesąmonių, ir tai bus šių žmonių realybė, nes jokios kitos realybės be esančiosios galvose tiesiog nėra.
August 19, 2022
It’s insane how similar the last ten or so principles are to Jacob Bauthumley’s The Light and Dark Sides of God. But, to wit, I am the meme that goes “man that has only seen Cars watching any movie,: ‘wow, this is like Cars!’”
May 21, 2023
Soms cool, maar ik begrijp volledig waarom Kant tegen klassiek idealisme was!
Idealism...never again. Laat solipsist wederom een scheldwoord zijn.
Idealism...never again. Laat solipsist wederom een scheldwoord zijn.
December 31, 2022
ჯორჯ ბერკლი იყო ემპირიალისტი ფილოსოფოსი, რომელიც ფიქრობდა, რომ სამყაროში ყველაფერი არსებული არის იდეების ნაკრები.ბერკლის აზრით ორი რამ არსებობს სამყაროში: იდეები და გონება/მიმღები რომლებიც მათ აღიქვამს და გადაამუშავებს.ის წერდა,რომ ყველაფერი მატერიალური რამ სამყაროში არის იდეა აღქმული ჩვენს მიერ (მხედველობა, სმენა, გემო, შეხება და ყნოსვა).
მაგალითად რა არის ვაშლი: ის არის იდეათა კრებული. მას აქვს გემო, ფერი, ტექსტურა და ფორმა. ამ ყველაფრის ერთად თავმოყრა კი გვაძლევს ვაშლს და ვაშლს რა გემო ექნება დამოკიდებულია მხოლოდ მიმღებზე ვინც მას შეჭამს.მიზეზი თუ რატომ არ ქრება მატერიალური საგნები მაშინ როცა არ ვუყურებთ მათ, არის ის რომ მათ ყოველთვის ჰყავთ დამკვირვებელი ღმერთის სახით.
ასეთ სამყაროში ღმერთის მთავარი იდეა კი ადამიანია.
მაგალითად რა არის ვაშლი: ის არის იდეათა კრებული. მას აქვს გემო, ფერი, ტექსტურა და ფორმა. ამ ყველაფრის ერთად თავმოყრა კი გვაძლევს ვაშლს და ვაშლს რა გემო ექნება დამოკიდებულია მხოლოდ მიმღებზე ვინც მას შეჭამს.მიზეზი თუ რატომ არ ქრება მატერიალური საგნები მაშინ როცა არ ვუყურებთ მათ, არის ის რომ მათ ყოველთვის ჰყავთ დამკვირვებელი ღმერთის სახით.
ასეთ სამყაროში ღმერთის მთავარი იდეა კი ადამიანია.
October 19, 2017
George Berkeley's Treatise is largely a response to the intellectual storm stirred up by Locke and Descartes, even quoting Locke on several occasions within the Treatise.
Berkeley would be described in current philosophical terms as an idealist. The main purpose of his treatise is to show that we are all spirit and reality does not exist outside our perception of it. The world is sustained by God and the perceptions of men. No objects have an "essence" or even a "substance", they only exist as qualities that we perceive in them.
The world according to Berkeley is very "real" in the sense that it follows natural laws set by God and may be interacted with by other lesser spirits (men) in a consistent manner, but he rejects entirely the notion of matter.
This form of idealism solves many of the tricky philosophical problems with the existence of matter, its interaction with space and time, and the definition of infinitesimals, but I believe it opens up a different (and nastier) can of worms. For example:
"33 ... The ideas imprinted on the Senses by the Author of nature are called REAL THINGS; and those excited in the imagination being less regular, vivid, and constant, are more properly termed IDEAS, or IMAGES OF THINGS, which they copy and represent. But then our sensations, be they never so vivid and distinct, are nevertheless IDEAS, that is, they exist in the mind, or are perceived by it, as truly as the ideas of its own framing. The ideas of Sense are allowed to have more reality in them, that is, to be more STRONG, ORDERLY, and COHERENT than the creatures of the mind; but this is no argument that they exist without the mind. They are also LESS DEPENDENT ON THE SPIRIT, or thinking substance which perceives them, in that the are excited by the will of another and more powerful spirit; yet still they are IDEAS, and certainly no IDEA, whether faint or strong, can exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving it."
"36 ... There are spiritual substances, minds, or human souls, which will or excite ideas in themselves at pleasures; but these are faint, weak, and unsteady in respect of others they perceive by sense -- which, being impressed upon them according to certain rules or laws of nature, speak themselves the effects of a mind more powerful and wise than human spirits. These latter are said to have more REALITY in them than the former: by which is meant that they are more affecting, orderly, and distinct, and that they are not fictions of the mind perceiving them. And in this sense the sun that I see by day is the real sun, and that which I imagine by night is the idea of the former."
If the only difference between reality and imagination is the magnitude of "affection, order, and distinction", then it makes sense based on Berkeley's premises that our ideas are indeed weak reflections of reality. But this is a one-way sieve. It is clearly evident that our momentary experiences are distinct from our mental recall or reconstruction of them, but why can't we simply imagine an experience with enough order and distinction to become reality? Let's suppose that we take a hip new psychedelic and hallucinate a scene vividly with just as much order and distinction as our sober perception of reality. Does it then become "real"? Can we actually create the world around us by willing the alterations of our own perceptions so long as they are orderly and distinct? This is the weak link of Berkeley's treatise, and unfortunately also the foundation on which he builds the rest of his arguments.
Worth the read if you are interested in understanding one of the influential figures of modern idealism.
Berkeley would be described in current philosophical terms as an idealist. The main purpose of his treatise is to show that we are all spirit and reality does not exist outside our perception of it. The world is sustained by God and the perceptions of men. No objects have an "essence" or even a "substance", they only exist as qualities that we perceive in them.
The world according to Berkeley is very "real" in the sense that it follows natural laws set by God and may be interacted with by other lesser spirits (men) in a consistent manner, but he rejects entirely the notion of matter.
This form of idealism solves many of the tricky philosophical problems with the existence of matter, its interaction with space and time, and the definition of infinitesimals, but I believe it opens up a different (and nastier) can of worms. For example:
"33 ... The ideas imprinted on the Senses by the Author of nature are called REAL THINGS; and those excited in the imagination being less regular, vivid, and constant, are more properly termed IDEAS, or IMAGES OF THINGS, which they copy and represent. But then our sensations, be they never so vivid and distinct, are nevertheless IDEAS, that is, they exist in the mind, or are perceived by it, as truly as the ideas of its own framing. The ideas of Sense are allowed to have more reality in them, that is, to be more STRONG, ORDERLY, and COHERENT than the creatures of the mind; but this is no argument that they exist without the mind. They are also LESS DEPENDENT ON THE SPIRIT, or thinking substance which perceives them, in that the are excited by the will of another and more powerful spirit; yet still they are IDEAS, and certainly no IDEA, whether faint or strong, can exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving it."
"36 ... There are spiritual substances, minds, or human souls, which will or excite ideas in themselves at pleasures; but these are faint, weak, and unsteady in respect of others they perceive by sense -- which, being impressed upon them according to certain rules or laws of nature, speak themselves the effects of a mind more powerful and wise than human spirits. These latter are said to have more REALITY in them than the former: by which is meant that they are more affecting, orderly, and distinct, and that they are not fictions of the mind perceiving them. And in this sense the sun that I see by day is the real sun, and that which I imagine by night is the idea of the former."
If the only difference between reality and imagination is the magnitude of "affection, order, and distinction", then it makes sense based on Berkeley's premises that our ideas are indeed weak reflections of reality. But this is a one-way sieve. It is clearly evident that our momentary experiences are distinct from our mental recall or reconstruction of them, but why can't we simply imagine an experience with enough order and distinction to become reality? Let's suppose that we take a hip new psychedelic and hallucinate a scene vividly with just as much order and distinction as our sober perception of reality. Does it then become "real"? Can we actually create the world around us by willing the alterations of our own perceptions so long as they are orderly and distinct? This is the weak link of Berkeley's treatise, and unfortunately also the foundation on which he builds the rest of his arguments.
Worth the read if you are interested in understanding one of the influential figures of modern idealism.
February 20, 2018
The brilliance of Berkeley's philosophy is that it gave David Hume something to improve on, and it opened up whole new areas to doubt and critical observation. These two contributions are staggeringly important to our advancement in my opinion (the fact that the prose is crisp and witty is simply an added bonus). Nonetheless, in the present day Berkeley's philosophy seems fairly bizarre. After all, only a seasoned obscurantist would claim that matter doesn't exist all things (perceptions) that do exist do so in the form of ideas in 2013. This isn't to say many don't try, but Berkeley didn't have cognitive science, cosmology, chemistry, set theory, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, electromagnetism, artificial intelligence, or David Hume to assist his endeavor.
For what was known at the time, Berkeley's ideas were unorthodox but prescient. The exaggerated claims of knowledge by natural philosophers at the time needed to be brought down. Berkeley assisted. The subjectivity of reality hadn't been fully realized. Berkeley helped us get there. Language matters, Berkeley noticed. Maybe most importantly, Berkeley partially cleared a path of doubt for Hume to later completely doubt.
Nonetheless, Berkeley's philosophy suits his own beliefs too well (infinitely as a useless/chimerical concept, consciousness being an immaterial soul, the existence of an ideal state, the architect of reality as the Catholic God) and doesn't offer the 'clear proof' of god he thinks it does. His clear proof is nullified when the reliability of the ideas inside the human mind are called into question by Hume not too long after.
Berkeley gets three stars (plus a half if it were available) because the work is an enjoyable and thought-provoking classic even if the ideas are dated, and although he helped move us forward, some of his ideas are quite obscurantist in nature meaning I can't fall head over heals for it despite my admiration for many of his thoughts.
For what was known at the time, Berkeley's ideas were unorthodox but prescient. The exaggerated claims of knowledge by natural philosophers at the time needed to be brought down. Berkeley assisted. The subjectivity of reality hadn't been fully realized. Berkeley helped us get there. Language matters, Berkeley noticed. Maybe most importantly, Berkeley partially cleared a path of doubt for Hume to later completely doubt.
Nonetheless, Berkeley's philosophy suits his own beliefs too well (infinitely as a useless/chimerical concept, consciousness being an immaterial soul, the existence of an ideal state, the architect of reality as the Catholic God) and doesn't offer the 'clear proof' of god he thinks it does. His clear proof is nullified when the reliability of the ideas inside the human mind are called into question by Hume not too long after.
Berkeley gets three stars (plus a half if it were available) because the work is an enjoyable and thought-provoking classic even if the ideas are dated, and although he helped move us forward, some of his ideas are quite obscurantist in nature meaning I can't fall head over heals for it despite my admiration for many of his thoughts.
April 26, 2013
This is a great version of Berkeley's text, and Dancy has written a very helpful introduction. I have two other books by Dancy, which are intellectually substantial but can be difficult to get into and at times are challenging reads. In this case, his introduction contains a powerful and accessible analysis. Dancy's introduction is interesting, and directly useful to anyone at an undergraduate level facing the challenge of writing good essays on Berkeley. If you just want Berkeley's text you can get a cheaper version of the book, but if you want something more helpful this version is well worth the additional cost.
October 17, 2008
The body of ideas in this book are communicated quite neatly in Berkeley's introduction, which whether you agree with what he says or not is a really neat rounded little idea. For the most part of the book Berkeley goes through these ideas in much needed greater detail, but he often will repeat the same arguments over and over in a monotonous chant, which towards the end of the book gets very tiresome, as he has failed to see that the true implications of his philosophy are exactly nothing, and should make no difference to Science or our negotiation of what we perceive.
Read
January 25, 2026In inner Idealism(Berkeley philosophy subsumed), the keyword ‘s not Idealism, but the operative word ‘inner’. Inner and inward springs every spiritual co psychological advances since the ancients.
A dualism emerges out to outer, proving our sciences empirically to be. For corporealism/materialism ‘s justified by evolution, in all its forms and variations. Their proof lies in temporality.
Let this dualism advance til unity ‘s universal.
And behold and observe what wonders the One non-temporally.
A dualism emerges out to outer, proving our sciences empirically to be. For corporealism/materialism ‘s justified by evolution, in all its forms and variations. Their proof lies in temporality.
Let this dualism advance til unity ‘s universal.
And behold and observe what wonders the One non-temporally.
February 27, 2019
If anyone else talked or wrote like this, with constant contradictions and nonsensical absurdities, we would call them a lunatic, but if you tack on the title of "philosopher", then they are magically worthy of being listened to in all their absurdities. Read this if you have no fear of your brain oozing out of your ear as it's turned to mush.
February 26, 2020
This book blows chunks. Why Berkeley is heralded as a great philosopher I cannot know. The guy goes "actually everything you see is all there is, and God made it that way. and all the answers are what we know. Philosophy done." I hate this book, and the fact I have to learn it feels lame. boo.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 148 reviews