1. 1 The Empiricists: Berkeley Immaterialism Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

2. 2Outline 1. Introduction: Berkeley, The Dialogues 2. Esse est percipi vs. Representationalism 3. Against Representationalism 4. Against the material substance 5. Conclusion

3. 3IntroductionBerkeley Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana Berkeley’s life: - 1685 – 1753 - Irish, Trinity College, Anglican priest, Travel (Europe and US), Bishop of Cloyne Main works: - The Principles and the Dialogues - De Motu, Theory of Vision

4. 4Introduction Berkeley’s philosophy Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana The Dialogues: - Characters: Hylas and Philonous - Rules and advantages of dialogues in philosophy Berkeley’s philosophy - Religion - Against speculative philosophy and skepticism - Empiricism and Common Sense - Immaterialism and Idealism

5. 5Outline Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana 1. Introduction: Berkeley, The Dialogues 2. Esse est percipi vs. Representationalism 3. Against Representationalism 4. Against the material substance 5. Conclusion

6. 6 Esse est percipi vs Representationalism Esse est percipi Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  The only way things exist is in so far as they are perceived.  To be is to be perceived Berkeley’s argument: P1 Ordinary objects exist, and only ordinary objects exist P2 Ordinary objects = sensible things = what we perceive through the senses = combinations of sensible qualities CC: Only combinations of sensible qualities exist.

7. 7 Esse est percipi vs Representationalism The Representationalist’ objection Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  Not only sensations and ideas, but also external objects exist, as mind-independent beings. Question about P2: Do we perceive only combination of sensible qualities? Representationalism: - Direct perception of sensible qualities – mind dependent - Indirect perception of external objects – mind independent Core of the view: Distinction Primary vs Secondary qualities

8. 8Outline Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana 1. Introduction: Berkeley, The Dialogues 2. Esse est percipi vs. Representationalism 3. Against Representationalism 4. Against the material substance 5. Conclusion

9. 9 Against Representationalism 1 st Objection: Pleasure and Pain Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  Secondary qualities do not belong to external objects and exist within the mind only. The objection: (cf. Locke!) P1 Heat and Pain perceived at the same time, the same way P2 Either both belong to external objects, or both exist only in the mind P3: Pain does not belong to external objects CC: Heat does not belong to external objects

10. 10 Against Representationalism 2 nd Objection: Unobservable Causes Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  One cannot be empiricist and representationnalist at the same time! The objection: P1 Empiricism: all knowledge comes from experience, we cannot postulate the existence of unobservable entities P2 Representationalism: postulates unobservable causes for our sensations -Example of the real sound that is never heard CC: Representationalism conflicts with empiricism

11. 11 Against Representationalism 3 nd Objection: Relativity Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  The distinction between primary and secondary qualities is undermined! The objection: - Relativity of secondary qualities – taste – Which one is the true one? - Relativity of primary qualities – extension – Which one is the true one? CC: All qualities, primary and secondary are but sensations in our minds

12. 12 Against Representationalism Conclusion Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  Berkeley has shown that: (1)Representationalism is conflicting with empiricism and common sense (2)The pillar of representationalism, i.e. the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, is problematic (3)Both primary and secondary qualities exist only in our minds

13. 13Outline Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana 1. Introduction: Berkeley, The Dialogues 2. Esse est percipi vs. Representationalism 3. Against Representationalism 4. Against the material substance 5. Conclusion

14. 14 The Material Substance Hylas’ retreats Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  Metaphysical postulation of a material, mind-independent substratum. Material substance: unknown, unobservable, unconceived (mind-independent) material substance Material substance: cause of our sensations

15. 15 An Unconceived Material Substance 1 st Objection: The “Master Argument” Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  The notion of an unconceived material substance conflicts with Empiricism Hylas’ retreat: unknown, unobservable, unconceived (mind- independent) material substance The Master argument: We cannot conceive of an unconceived thing. Evaluating the Master argument: - Representans vs representatum - Empiricism

16. 16 An Unconceived Material Substance 2 nd Objection: The “Likeness Argument” Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  The notion of an unconceived material substance conflicts with representationalism. The Likeness argument: P1: Representationalism: ideas resemble the things they represent P2: Likeness Principle: Ideas cannot resemble anything but other ideas CC: The idea of an unconceived material substance is a contradictory notion Hylas’ retreat: unknown, unobservable, unconceived (mind- independent) material substance

17. 17 The Material Substance as a Cause 1 st Objection: Matter cause of Thought? Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  Matter cannot cause thoughts The objection: P1 Matter = extended, solid, moveable, unthinking substance P2 Thought = unextended, not solid, not moveable, thinking substance  Causal process?

18. 18 The Material Substance as a Cause 2 nd Objection: Can Matter cause anything? Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  Contradictory notion of an inactive entity being the origin of causal processes. The objection: P1 Matter = inert P2 To be a cause takes to be active CC : inert matter cannot cause anything at all

19. 19 The Material Substance Conclusion Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  Berkeley has shown that postulation the existence of a unknown material substance: (1)is conflicting with empiricism and common sense (2)leads to conceptual problems (3)does not have any explanatory power

20. 20Outline Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana 1. Introduction: Berkeley, The Dialogues 2. Esse est percipi vs. Representationalism 3. Against Representationalism 4. Against the material substance 5. Conclusion

21. 21 Berkeley’s Immaterialism Conclusion Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana  Berkeley has argued against the existence of absolute, mind- independent beings: (1)Epistemology: representationalism (2)Metaphysics: material substance It remains to see how we can do without it!