16889266

To be is to be perceived how does Berkeley mean this?

I will dissect the principle of esse est percipi; to be is to be perceived in this essay. Consulting the
Treatises, I will establish Berkeleys principle (I), and explore, and evaluate, two of Hylass objections,
in Three Dialogues; (II) material existence post-mortem, and (III) shifting perception. I will (IV)
conclude that Berkeley is an amalgamation of various philosophies, and thus, posits no new thesis as
it repeats other philosophers.
(I) Berkeley articulates his principle in 1, 1-3 of Treatise, existence of unthinking things [] Their
esse is percipi, [not] possible [] out of the minds [] which perceive them. 1 Berkeley thinks physical
objects are collections of sensible qualities 2, only existing as ideas in the mind. Objects do not exist
independently of the mind, as sensible qualities are what our bodily senses perceive of the world, e.g.,
we can hear crickets chirping. Through our senses, collections of sensible qualities group together in
our mind, forming our idea of an object. This idea is our understanding of that objects properties.
Berkeley intuitively understood that without a mind to remember ideas, or senses that perceive,
nothing could exist, as ideas only exist in the mind. Berkeley concluded then, to be is to be
perceived.3
(II) Hylas4 objects to Philonouss5 thesis, by questioning if the mind were dead, would sensible things
continue to exist post-mortem, Suppofing you were annihilated, cannot you conceive it poffible that
things perceivable by fenfe may ftill exist ?6 Hylas views that once an object is perceived, and an idea
formed, it exists independently of the mind. Hylas respects esse est percepi, and stresses
Philonouss view that perception causes existence by necessity. It is not obvious that once existence
is established, and an idea formed, it has to be maintained by continuous perception. Philonous
reminds Hylas that everything exists in the mind of God, not just human minds, and so it exists
independently of human perception, but not of Gods perception. Berkeleys divine perception is
reminiscent of Platos Forms; God is the Form of the Good, and likewise, is the origin of knowledge.
The similarity is so great, it appears divine perception is a device of convenience, it allows Berkeley
to protect his theism, by repurposing Plato, without thinking originally. Divine perception also
reproduces Platos flaw, it is beyond verification by conclusive evidence, and probability, but also
falsification; it cannot be proved true, or false. The only resort is eschatological verification, but that
would still deny us conclusive knowledge, as we cannot return from the afterlife. Further still, divine
perception is twinned with mind independent materialism, as it also views reality as independent of
the human mind, but it pins God as the cause of external existence, and removes Him from the scope
of empirical verification. Simply, Berkeley has incorporated the flaw of materialism, and placed it
beyond falsification. Berkeleys philosophy collapses into a religious doctrine, dependent on faith to
maintain its integrity, as it denies itself scientific evidence, and is placed beyond reason.
(III) Hylas questions perception, as it can shift, leading to familiar objects becoming unfamiliar, the
true nature of a thing is difcovered by the fenfes. If fo, whence comes that difagreement ? 7. If
perception causes something to exist, and perceptions change, does the existence of the object also

1 Treatise, Of the Principles of Human Knowledge: Part 1.3, p 104

2 Ibid, Part 1.1, p 103 sensible qualities are the properties of a physical object, learned
through our bodily senses of ears, nose, and tongue etc.
3 Ibid, Part 1.3, p 104
4 Fictional critic of Berkeley in Three Dialogues; voice of critics, and atheists.
5 Fictional voice of Berkeley in Three Dialogues.
6 Three Dialogues (1776), The Third Dialogue, p 103

Word count: 1,097 inc. footnotes

16889266

change is Hylass wonder e.g., a man far away looks different to a man up close, is this still the same
man? Changing perceptions compounds Berkeleys principle, as having different ideas about the
same object leads to an ambiguous understanding of the external world, and of the ontological nature
of existence. Philonous accepts this complaint by distancing human perception from intuition,
instrumental perception, and tolerating multiple ideas of the same thing, as they are connected, and
differ according to circumstance, different senses being engaged, or the same sense behaving
differently8 e.g., food tastes differently before, and after, eating. The differences between similar
perceptions, if not too great, are consistent with the same idea, which tolerates changes in an object
without separating it into a new idea e.g., a new, and old book, are both books.
Berkeleys toleration of different perceptions is consistent with common sense. In daily life, the same
object maybe perceived as being characteristically different, but recognisably the same object as
before e.g., London at night feels more exciting than London at midday, but is the same city.
Berkeleys inclusion of different perceptions is antithetic to Descartes, and thus reveals the Bishops
commitment to preserving his belief, even at the expense of his philosophy. In Meditations9, Descartes
progresses towards establishing the nature of reality, and even though he maintains Gods existence,
he remains loyal to his scepticism towards the external world. Berkeley simply accepts the common
sense impression of reality, and although that presents readily accessible evidence for his theory, this
evidence is not exclusive to Berkeley e.g., Hylas bases his objection on this evidence, demonstrating
the plasticity of the common sense option. This reduces Berkeley to an interpretation of evidence, no
greater than its peers, and lacking for innovative scholarship.
(IV) I have dissected Berkeleys principle, and established his meaning in this essay with regard to
Treatises and Three Dialogues. I explored (II) material existence post-mortem, and (III) shifting
perception as objections to Berkeleys thesis, and I have dissected their flaws, and merits. It must be
stated that these objections are but two objections amongst many, and their counterarguments. It is
shown that Berkeley is not entirely unique in his view. Beyond this essay, the Bishop is similar to Kant,
and Locke etc. Simply, Berkeleys thesis is a rehash of philosophy, for the purpose of religion.
Bibliography:
Bishop, B. G. and Dancy, J. (ed.), A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Oxford
University Press Oxford 1998
Bishop, B. G., Principles of Human Knowledge and Three Dialogues, Oxford University Press Oxford
2009
Bishop, B. G., Three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. : In opposition to sceptics and atheists.,
(s.n.) London 1776
Fogelin, J. R., Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Berkeley and the Principles of Human Knowledge,
Routledge London 2001
Grayling, A. C., Berkeley: The Central Arguments, Duckworth London 1986
Kierkegaard, S., Fear and Trembling and The Sickness Unto Death, Princeton University Press
Princeton 1968
Saint, E. The Syrian, Mathews, G. E. Jr (tr.), Amar, J. P. (tr.) and McVey, K. (ed.), Selected Prose
Works, Catholic University of America Press Washington 1994

7 Ibid, p 128
8 Ibid, p 129
9 Descartes, R., Meditations on First Philosophy.

Word count: 1,097 inc. footnotes