George Berkeley as the Famous British Empiricist - Essay Example

George Berkeley When mentioning John Locke and David Hume as some of the famous British Empiricists, one name is usually mentioned together with these important figures in the field of Philosophy is the name of George Berkeley. He was born an Irish in 1685 and died in 1753 after contributing to the field of Philosophy with epistemology being the main field in which his work is popular. To undermine his intellect, he earned his Master’s Degree at the age of 22 years and later on wrote different treatises with the first one being An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision, which was published in 1709. Thereafter, he wrote and published A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), and his major work known as Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous that was published in 1713, which was during his first trip to England. The work by Berkeley contributes to the field of Philosophy despite his earlier work that focused on the field of Mathematics. By the age of 30 years, Berkeley had published the three treatises that entrenched him as an important contributor to the world of Philosophy that are still applicable in the contemporary society. In doing so, the author made a mark similar to those made by both John Locke and David Hume. One of the fundamental contributions towards the field of Philosophy by Berkeley regards his development of the theory of immaterialism. This theory offers an explanation about the various approaches through which human beings obtain knowledge regarding objects that are material in nature. To understand his development of this theory, Berkeley was informed by his worldview on how religious cynicism was rampant in the society following the attacks on principles such as those developed by Aristotle. Besides, various philosophies on materialism that contributed to the skepticism on Christianity, which he noted pushed God further away from humanity with human beings actively disengaging from Christianity. I think this worldview contributed to Berkeley’s decision to develop his theory and work, in immaterialism, in order to ensure that Christians did not lose touch with God and explain the important role of religion, if not the role of Christianity, to the society. In summary, the theory holds esse est percipi, which loosely translates to “to be is to be perceived.” To an extent, I think this makes Berkeley and his entire Philosophy towards life take an idealist approach. In this case, the theory explains human beings as individuals whose knowledge and ideas about various material objects is based on sensations that people perceive to be true. This statement makes him come out as an idealist since he dismisses the knowledge obtained by human beings about material beings as something that is not true but a falsehood. I think his notion is that ideas are only an existent of what is in a human being’s mind with these ideas failing to correspond to a form of eternal entity as the one expressed by a Philosopher such a Plato. Indeed, Berkeley thought that God’s perception is responsible for creating external reality and not the knowledge that people obtain. Furthermore, Berkeley notes that God makes the idea of external reality stable for all human beings over time although the same God changes his mind in order to vary what Berkeley describes as laws of nature and consequently leads to miracles despite most of the perceptions remaining the same. I think Berkeley tried to put forward the impression that acquiring material knowledge from another form other than what is perceived to be from God is not right since it goes against the balance of nature. In this case, my opinion is that he tries to imply that going against what God has defined as true despite the evidence offered by science is against the law of nature. In fact, Berkeley stops at asking human beings to dismiss any scientific evidence and assume every imbalance of nature as a miracle from God. As a result, scientific evidence that we have about the different causes of things such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and other calamities that have a scientific basis behind their occurrence are miracles from God and should not be construed as acts occurring following various factors despite the scientific evidence available. Simply put, I think Berkeley has no regard for science as evidenced by his approach of implying that every occurrence is an act of a miracle from God despite the available evidence from Science. Berkeley attempts to demonstrate that there is nothing like matter that exists and any claim made by materialistic philosophy is a falsehood. To some extent, he agrees with John Locke although his philosophy is very different from what Locke proposed, which made him the father of classical liberalism. I think the two philosophers’ common point of agreement is that ideas form the basis of human knowledge. For Locke however, the basis of human knowledge is a result of human beings interaction with the empirical world, which is different from what Berkeley proposed. Nevertheless, Berkeley indicates that there is nothing like an empirical world that exists in the real world. To him, things come into existence following their perception by human beings with our reality being a result of what we perceive. I think the suggestion is that our understanding is arrived at following our acquaintance with objects of awareness in a sense that was fundamental in nature. However, when we follow Locke’s argument, there are ideas related to human being’s senses, their reflection, and their imagination. However, I think that Berkeley wants to pass on the idea that the ordinary objects that we know about are based on a collection of ideas often marked by a single name. In conclusion, I think Berkeley’s premise is that if something cannot be observed, then it does not exist. This premise has some odd consequences despite its attempt to address the problem resulting from the veil-of perception. Primarily, this premise suggests that a human being’s ideas are mental entities existing in an individual’s mind. More importantly, these ideas are subjective and there is likelihood to have an idea that they have never experienced before in their lives. In any case, I think Berkeley’s idea is that if objects in physical state are only ideas or a collection of these ideas, these objects are mental entities that lack the capacity to exist independently without being experienced by human beings. In effect, I think that this idealism by Berkeley contributes to a consequence that appears and sounds inexplicable. For example, take an example of an individual observing a tomato. In this case, the individual’s ideas of the tomato are only available because the tomato exists in the physical world and the individual can observe it and create perceptions based on its physical existence. However, the consequence of Berkeley’s premise is that if the individual does not experience the tomato, then there is nothing like the tomato and it does not exist in the physical world. In this case, Berkeley wants us to believe that something that exists in the physical world and human beings cannot observe it does not exist in real life. To him, the physical world has to be perceived in order for it to exist. Since we cannot experience part, of the scientific evidence that is available, there is no way we can perceive the evidence and the only sensible conclusion is that it does not exist, according to the philosophy put forward by Berkeley. Therefore, Berkeley wants us to understand everything that we cannot see as a miracle from God and God’s way of tilting the natural law. Read More