George Berkeley and his philosophical contributions

George Berkeley

NATURE OF EXISTENCE

In this reading, we come across an interesting discussion, which focuses on the nature of existence of things and persons. Here, the two friends Hylas and Philonous are trying to argue the true nature of existence with Hylas, being a materialist arguing in favor of existence without or without perception while Philonous believes that to exist, mind should have an idea of the ting and without idea, things simply do not exist. Philonous is of the view that when we cannot see a thing in our mind, it is impossible to say that it actually exists. In other words, it is our senses that help us establish the existence of something but if they fail to do, that thing simply wouldn't exist. He cites the example of fire, which can be seen and touched but if our senses fail to acknowledge its heat, this fire would simply lose its existence. Hylas however argues that while some sensible things like God can only be perceived by mind but cannot be seen, so He exists even if we can't see him. But all other things exist whether the mind can perceive it or not. For example, if we cannot think of an orange, it doesn't mean that this fruit doesn't exist.

A found Philonous's theories absolutely ridiculous because whether mind can perceive something or not, whether it has idea of that or not, if it exists, it certainly dos exist. For example, if someone tells me that he met a person with only three fingers on his hand, I might nto be able to think of such a person but that doesn't altogether negate the claim made by my friend. Secondly, there are so many things that we have not yet seen but we can think of them because human beings possess logic and reason / for example, while we have seen other galaxies than the Milky way, we have been told that many other galaxies exist in the universe. We have all the reason to believe that they do even though we cannot exactly picture them.

I believe what Philonous meant by his argument was that unless something cannot be seen from mind's eye, its existence should not be believed o that it should be doubted. I do not understand how then would he believe in God whom no one has ever seen. Even if he is able to picture him, what evidence can be provided to prove that the God in his mind is the same God we have heard of or read about? This means that even mind cannot be fully trusted. I feel that if a thing exists in matter, then it is there, whether we believe it or not. Our senses do help us in feeling and imagining the properties of that ting or being but we cannot say that just because our minds are unable to picture such a thing means it doesn't exist altogether.

Philonous tries to establish the validity of his argument by presenting various examples. He believes that as long senses help us, we can imagine the existence of a person but if our senses fail us, then it means that the thing or person doesn't exist at all. However this is again ridiculous. Suppose you do not posses any of the five senses, but there is someone sitting right in front of you. You cannot see, feel or smell him but yet someone is trying to tell you that a person is sitting in front of you. It is only natural that you would doubt his existence since you cannot sense the person. So far Philonous's ideas appear valid and plausible but what if that person rises and stabs you in the chest. Would you still doubt his presence? Sure you couldn't picture him but now that you are injured, would you still remain in doubt about his presence?