The Tension Between George Berkeley and His Philosophical Adversaries

George Berkeley, the 18th-century Irish philosopher and bishop, carved a distinctive niche in the history of philosophy with his radical and provocative ideas. Central to his philosophical contributions are idealism and immaterialism, propositions that sparked intense debates and set him in opposition to many of his contemporaries and successors. The tension between Berkeley’s views and those of the philosophers misaligned with his positions is a fascinating study of contrasting worldviews, epistemologies, and metaphysical commitments.

1. Idealism and the Reality of Perception

Berkeley’s idealism asserts that material objects do not exist independently of our perceptions; instead, reality consists solely of minds and their ideas. This radical departure from the then-prevailing materialism and empiricism set him at odds with thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and David Hume. For Hobbes and Locke, the material world exists independently of our perceptions, with Locke positing a dual nature of objects, comprising primary qualities (inherent in the objects) and secondary qualities (dependent on perception). Hume, although skeptical of substance, leaned towards empirical realism, acknowledging an external world causing our perceptions.

Berkeley’s challenge to materialism was met with fierce criticism. Bertrand Russell and G.E. Moore championed common sense realism, arguing for the independent existence of material objects. Russell, in particular, emphasized that sense data represent external objects, a view grounded in the belief that the external world is real and knowable through empirical observation. Moore’s famous “Here is one hand” argument epitomized the straightforward refutation of idealism, insisting on the undeniable reality of the physical world.

2. Subjective Idealism and the Nature of Objects

Berkeley’s subjective idealism posits that objects are merely collections of sensations perceived by a mind. This notion was diametrically opposed to the views of Locke, Descartes, and Kant. Locke’s empiricism allowed for the existence of primary qualities inherent in objects, independent of any observer. Descartes’ rationalism argued for innate ideas and the separation of mind and matter, providing a dualistic framework that Berkeley vehemently rejected. Kant’s transcendental idealism introduced a priori categories structuring experience, yet still acknowledged the noumenal world beyond mere perception.

Philosophers like A.J. Ayer and Willard Van Orman Quine further cemented the opposition to Berkeley’s immaterialism. Ayer’s logical positivism and Quine’s naturalized epistemology both upheld the importance of empirical verification and the existence of a physical reality, dismissing Berkeley’s notion of objects as mere sensory collections. Their commitment to scientific realism underscored a fundamental divergence from Berkeley’s reliance on the mind-dependent nature of objects.

3. The Rejection of Abstract Ideas

Berkeley’s rejection of abstract ideas was another contentious point. He argued that all ideas are specific and particular, opposing the view that abstract concepts are necessary for general knowledge. This stance clashed with the positions of John Locke and Immanuel Kant, who believed that abstraction is essential for understanding and reasoning about the world. Locke argued that abstract ideas are formed by generalizing from particular experiences, while Kant posited that categories of understanding are a priori structures shaping our experience.

G.W.F. Hegel and Bertrand Russell also disagreed with Berkeley on this point. Hegel’s dialectical method involved abstract reasoning to synthesize opposites and form higher truths, a process integral to his philosophy. Russell, on the other hand, valued logical analysis and the role of abstract entities in mathematics and science. For both, abstraction was a critical tool for advancing knowledge, directly opposing Berkeley’s insistence on the particularity of ideas.

4. God as the Sustainer of Perceptions

Berkeley’s theological commitment that God sustains perceptions when not observed by humans added a religious dimension to his philosophy, contrasting sharply with the secular and often skeptical outlooks of his critics. Thomas Hobbes and David Hume represented the materialist and empirical critiques, dismissing the necessity of a divine perceiver. Hume, in particular, was skeptical of religious explanations and sought naturalistic accounts of human perception.

Bertrand Russell and G.E. Moore rejected the idea that divine perception is necessary for the existence of the material world. Russell’s atheism and commitment to scientific explanations clashed with Berkeley’s theological idealism. Moore’s common sense philosophy upheld the independent reality of physical objects without recourse to divine intervention.

5. Critique of Materialism

Berkeley’s critique of materialism was a direct assault on the philosophical foundations laid by Thomas Hobbes and continued by empiricists like John Locke. Hobbes’ mechanistic worldview, where everything is matter in motion, starkly contrasted with Berkeley’s immaterialist stance. Locke, while a theist, maintained a belief in the existence of material substances, grounding knowledge in sensory experience. For Berkeley, this materialist view led to skepticism and atheism, denying the spiritual and divine dimensions he deemed essential.

Philosophers like A.J. Ayer and Daniel Dennett further entrenched the materialist perspective. Ayer’s logical positivism dismissed metaphysical claims, including Berkeley’s spiritual assertions, focusing instead on empirical verification. Dennett’s materialist philosophy of mind posited that consciousness and mental states are products of physical processes, leaving no room for Berkeley’s immaterialism.

6. Theory of Vision

Berkeley’s theory of vision, which argued that knowledge of spatial properties is learned through experience, opposed innate and a priori explanations offered by philosophers like René Descartes and Immanuel Kant. Descartes believed in innate ideas and the mind’s inherent capabilities, while Kant argued that our knowledge of space and time is a priori, structuring all sensory experience.

Bertrand Russell and Willard Van Orman Quine offered scientific and logical frameworks that combined empirical data with theoretical constructs, rejecting Berkeley’s purely experiential account. Russell’s integration of logical analysis and empirical observation and Quine’s holistic view of knowledge both contradicted Berkeley’s emphasis on learned experience.

7. Relational Theory of Space and Time

Berkeley’s relational theory of space and time posited that these dimensions depend on the objects and their relationships within them, opposing the absolute conceptions held by Isaac Newton and Immanuel Kant. Newton’s view of space and time as absolute frameworks existing independently of objects directly contradicted Berkeley’s relational stance. Kant’s a priori intuitions of space and time, necessary for structuring experience, also conflicted with Berkeley’s dependent relational theory.

Philosophers like G.W.F. Hegel and Saul Kripke further disagreed with Berkeley. Hegel’s dialectical process involved a synthesis of opposites, not merely relational dependencies, while Kripke’s modal logic suggested necessary truths about space and time beyond empirical relations.

Conclusion

The tension between George Berkeley and his philosophical adversaries illuminates profound divergences in the understanding of reality, perception, and knowledge. Berkeley’s idealism and immaterialism challenged the materialist and empiricist foundations of his time, advocating for a reality grounded in perception and divine sustenance. His rejection of abstract ideas and materialism, along with his relational theory of space and time, set him at odds with prominent thinkers who upheld the independent existence of the material world and the necessity of abstraction for knowledge.

This rich tapestry of philosophical debate underscores the enduring significance of Berkeley’s contributions and the robust challenges posed by his critics. The dialogues between Berkeley and his opponents continue to resonate, offering valuable insights into the nature of reality and the limits of human understanding.