The Works of George Berkeley. Vol. 1 of 4 · George Berkeley
Part First
In Scotland the writings of Reid, Beattie, Oswald, Dugald Stewart, Thomas Brown, and Sir W. Hamilton form a magazine of objections. Reid—who curiously seeks to refute Berkeley by refuting, not more clearly than Berkeley had done before him, the hypothesis of a wholly representative sense-perception—urges the spontaneous belief or common sense of mankind, which obliges us all to recognise a direct presentation of the external material world to our senses. He overlooks what with Berkeley is the only question in debate, namely, the meaning of the term _external_; for, Reid and Berkeley are agreed in holding to the reality of a world regulated independently of the will of finite percipients, and is sufficiently objective to be a medium of social intercourse. With Berkeley, as with Reid, _this_ is practically self-evident. The same objection, more scientifically defined—that we have a natural belief in the existence of Matter, and in our own immediate perception of its qualities—is Sir W. Hamilton’s assumption against Berkeley; but Hamilton does not explain the reality thus claimed for it. “Men naturally believe,” he says, “that _they themselves_ exist—because they are conscious of a Self or Ego; they believe that _something different from themselves_ exists—because they believe that they are conscious of this Not-self or Non-ego.” (_Discussions_, p. 193.) Now, the existence of a Power that is independent of each finite Ego is at the root of Berkeley’s principles. According to Berkeley and Hamilton alike, we are immediately percipient of solid and extended phenomena; but with Berkeley the phenomena are dependent on, at the same time that they are “entirely distinct” from, the percipient. The Divine and finite spirits, signified by the phenomena that are presented to our senses in cosmical order, form Berkeley’s external world.
The _Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous_ were published in London in 1713, “printed by G. James, for Henry Clements, at the Half-Moon, in St. Paul’s churchyard,” unlike the _Essay on Vision_ and the _Principles_, which first appeared in Dublin. The second edition, which is simply a reprint, issued in 1725, “printed for William and John Innys, at the West End of St. Paul’s.” A third, the last in the author’s lifetime, “printed by Jacob Tonson,” which contains some important additions, was published in 1734, conjointly with a new edition of the _Principles_. The _Dialogues_ were reprinted in 1776, in the same volume with the edition of the _Principles, with Remarks_. The _Dialogues_ have been translated into French and German. The French version appeared at Amsterdam in 1750. The translator’s name is not given, but it is attributed to the Abbé Jean Paul de Gua de Malves(780), by Barbier, in his _Dictionnaire des Ouvrages anonymes et pseudonymes_, tom. i. p. 283. It contains a Prefatory Note by the translator, with three curious vignettes (given in the note below) meant to symbolise the leading thought in each Dialogue(781). A German translation, by John Christopher Eschenbach, Professor of Philosophy in Rostock, was published at Rostock in 1756. It forms the larger part of a volume entitled _Sammlung der vornehmsten Schriftsteller die die Wirklichkeit ihres eignen Körpers und der ganzen Körperwelt läugnen_. This professed Collection of the most eminent authors who are supposed to deny the reality of their own bodies and of the whole material world, consists of Berkeley’s _Dialogues,_ and Arthur Collier’s _Clavis Universalis_, or _Demonstration of the Non-existence or Impossibility of an __ External World_. The volume contains some annotations, and an Appendix in which a counter-demonstration of the existence of Matter is attempted. Eschenbach’s principal argument is indirect, and of the nature of a _reductio ad absurdum_. He argues (as others have done) that the reasons produced against the independent reality of Matter are equally conclusive against the independent reality of Spirit.
Berkeley’s _Principles_ appeared three years before the _Clavis Universalis_. Yet Collier tells us that it was “after a ten years’ pause and deliberation,” that, “rather than the world should finish its course without once offering to inquire in what manner it exists,” he had “resolved to put himself upon the trial of the common reader, without pretending to any better art of gaining him than dry reason and metaphysical demonstration.” Mr. Benson, his biographer, says that it was in 1703, at the age of twenty-three, that Collier came to the conclusion that “there is no such thing as an external world”; and he attributes the premises from which Collier drew this conclusion to his neighbour, John Norris. Among Collier’s MSS., there remains the outline of an essay, in three chapters, dated January, 1708, on the non-externality of the _visible_ world. There are several coincidences between Berkeley and Collier. Berkeley virtually presented his new theory of Vision as the first instalment of his explanation of the Reality of Matter. The first of the two Parts into which Collier’s _Clavis_ is divided consists of proofs that the Visible World is not, and cannot be, external. Berkeley, in the _Principles_ and the _Dialogues_, explains the reality of Matter. In like manner the Second Part of the _Clavis_ consists of reasonings in proof of the impossibility of an external world independent of Spirit. Finally, in his full-blown theory, as well as in its visual germ, Berkeley takes for granted, as intuitively known, the existence of sensible Matter; meaning by this, its relative existence, or dependence on living Mind. The third proposition of Collier’s system asserts the real existence of visible matter in particular, and of sensible matter in general.
The invisibility of distances, as well as of real magnitudes and situations, and their suggestion by interpretation of visual symbols, propositions which occupy so large a space in Berkeley’s Theory of Vision, have no counterpart in Collier. His proof of the non-externality of the visible world consists of an induction of instances of visible objects that are allowed by all not to be external, although they seem to be as much so as any that are called external. His Demonstration consists of nine proofs, which may be compared with the reasonings and analyses of Berkeley. Collier’s Demonstration concludes with answers to objections, and an application of his account of the material world to the refutation of the Roman doctrine of the substantial existence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist. The universal sense-symbolism of Berkeley, and his pervading recognition of the distinction between physical or symbolical, and efficient or originative causation, are wanting in the narrow reasonings of Collier. Berkeley’s more comprehensive philosophy, with its human sympathies and beauty of style, is now recognised as a striking expression and partial solution of fundamental problems, while Collier is condemned to the obscurity of the Schools(782). Dedication TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD BERKELEY OF STRATTON(783), MASTER OF THE ROLLS IN THE KINGDOM OF IRELAND, CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER, AND ONE OF THE LORDS OF HER MAJESTY’S MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNCIL.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.