Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous - Coursework Example

Insert Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous Three dialoges between Hylas and Philonouswas written by George Berkley in 1713. In this dialogue, Berkley uses Hylas as his primary contemporary philosophical adversary. Hylas comes from the Greek word Hule which means matter matter or wood. Philonous is the character that Berkley uses to argue his metaphysical views which are contrary to those that Hylas brings forward. The word Philonous is also derived from the Greek context. It is derived from two Greek words, phil and nous, which when translated to English means Lover of Mind. In this dialogue, Berkley, through Philonous, brings forth a strong argument against the theory of materialism and argues out his points in a way that shows how strongly he believes in immaterialism. According to Philonous, immaterialism proves and brings forth the erroneous nature of skepticism. This paper will be assessing the arguments that have been developed to oppose materialism and those that have been brought forth to support the theory of immaterialism and how it refutes skepticism. The paper will be assessing how successful the arguments that Berkley presents are in convincing the reader and the reasons for their success or failure. This dialogue is in three parts. In the first part of the dialogue, Hylas expresses his utter disdain of skepticism and points out to the opinion that he has heard Philonous to hold that there is no such thing as material substance in the world; a skeptical opinion. However, according to Philonous, it is Hylas who is skeptical and he seeks to prove that to him. The two therefore begin to engage in a philosophical battle of wits. Philonous begins by questioning Hylas on heat as a secondary quality. He questions Hylas of how one can be able to experience pain or pleasure through heat if it is not perceived in the mind. Philonous gives a hypothetical situation to Hylas of putting his hand near a fire. According to Hylas, there is only one sensation that one can feel when they do this. But Philonous proves that to be contrary to reality. When the hand is put near the fire, there are two sensations that are perceived or experienced at the same time; pain, and heat. Through this argument, Philonous is able to convince Hylas that a particular sensation cannot exist in reality if it is not perceived by the mind. He also manages to convince him that heat and such sensations are not a real being. They are only existent if they are perceived by the mind. Philonous then proceeds to argue out about sound. Hylas believes that sound is a sensation that is created as a result of movement in the air particles. However, Philonousgoes ahead and shutters Hylas’ philosophical standing because no sensation can exist outside the mind. The mind is what enables a sensation to exist. Hylas eventually agrees that sound can have no real being without the mind, just like the sensation of heat.The next argument that Philonous presents is about colors. Hylas, in his philosophical stand believes that everything that is visible to the human eye has color that is present in it. This argument then develops to one that is based on the sense of sight. At the end of it all, Philonous gets to convince Hylas that color exists as a perception of what we see. This is because when an object is illuminated under different kinds of light, the color appearance seems to change. Therefore, the color of any object is not definite and it is determined by one’s perception of sight. The argument on things as perceived by sight still continues beyond this point. The two argue about the size and extension. Philonous argues that everything in this world that has the privilege of sight, be it an animal, ant, or any other creature, perceives the sizes of things according to their sight. Philonous gives an example of a mite. A mite at its size is supposed to be able to see its own foot and things that are equal in size or lesser to it as bodies of some considerable dimension. However, the mite appears to the human as a hardly discernible creature or even non-existent. The point that Philonous brings forth is that one particular can in itself be of two different dimensions. This is because size and dimension is a variable that is dependent on the perception of the mind by virtue of the sense of sight. Basically, Berkley is able to use Philonous to bring forth his arguments against materialism. According to Berkley, sensations and qualities such as sound, color and size are all existent depending on how they are perceived by the mind. The degree or extent to which this qualities are existent in real terms is conditional of the perception of the mind. In other words, the secondary qualities cannot subsist each alone on themselves except by the mind. Figure and motion as he concluded cannot exist without the mind simply because it is impossible to even separate them from secondary qualities in though so as to conclude that they are self-existent. At the end of the first part of the dialogue, Philonous dismisses the notion of materialism simply because it is deemed to be independent and out of all minds. According to Philonous, the tree or house (the manner) in which you think of is conceived in the mind. And whatever is conceived in the mind is in the mind. It can therefore be concluded that the arguments that Philonous presents against materialism are successful and are rather credible. This is so because he manages to make Hylas to allude to his way of thought even though he does not completely change his opinion of thought as a skeptical one. The two then meet the following day and continue with their discussion from where they left it. This is the second dialogue. After taking much thought about what they had debated in their previous meeting, Hylas believes that Philonous is as much a skeptic as he himself is. According to Philonous, all that we conceive or have come to know and know are our own ideas. The only thing that is independent of our ideas are spirits. Philonous clarifies that he does not deny that sensible things do exist except in mind and in spirit. However, there are things whose existence does not depend on the thought or perception of the mind. For this reason, Philonous believes that there must be some “infinite omnipresent spirit” somewhere out there that supports their existence. One such thing that is existent by virtue of perception of this “infinite omnipresent spirit” is the world as we know it. This produces the point of religion in the conversation between the two men. Hylas argues that Philonous’ belief is simply similar to his belief and that of every other Christian of the existence of God. However, Philonous is quick to dismiss this because other Christians simply believe in the existence of God while according to him, God exists because all sensible things must be perceived by him. However, Hylas is not content with this argument and suggests that it is not important how he arrives to his belief as long as they all believe in the same thing. But Philonous still insists and points out that philosophers and other Christians believe that God exists and therefore he perceives all things whereas he believes that sensible things really do exist and if they do exist, then they are perceived by an infinite mind and the existence of that infinite mind proves that there is a God. The two then proceed to a debate about what their perception of matter is. According to Hylas, the reality of sensible things cannot be maintained without having to suppose that matter exists. The two take the glove Philonous is wearing as an example of a sensible thing. Philonous argues that the supposed reality of that which is intangible cannot be used as proof of that which is tangible, or that which is imperceptible prove the existence of that which can be perceived. Philonous reminds Hylas that through his own concessions, he agrees that matter, implied as an extended solid, figured, moveable substance cannot be in existence without the mind. At the end of this dialogue, Hylas admits that Philonous arguments have proved to him that matter is impossible simply because it is unconceivable in the mind. In the third dialogue, Hylas agrees with Philonous that material substance is simply a baseless hypothesis that he decides not to defend the hypothesis any more. In his opinion, Philonous believes and perceives that real things are those things which can be seen, felt, and perceived by the senses that are present within us. He also clarifies the point that his belief is not based on just his mind only. In essence, what he means is that the existence of things is as perceived by all minds. Conclusion Berkley believes that the immaterialism provides a refute for skepticism. This is because in this theory the existence of matter is dismissed as the core reason why things are as they are. The reason for this, as pointed out earlier is simply because the supposed reality of that which is intangible cannot be used as proof of that which is tangible, or that which is imperceptible proof of the existence of that which can be perceived. All the arguments that Berkley presents have been successful simply because at the end of it all, he manages to use Philonous to change the perception of Hylas that matter can be perceived as the cause of the existence of all things; the theory material substance is simply baseless and at the end of it all, Hylas chooses to no longer defend. This is because he sees the truth that is existent in the arguments of Philonous that the existence and perception cannot be independent of being perceived in the mind. Berkley also suggests that notion that God exists and therefore he controls everything is not true. The fact that sensible things exist are a proof that God exist since their existence is dependent of being conceived by an infinite and omnipresent mind. Work Cited Berkeley, G. Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. (1734). Print Read More