Abstract: Was Berkeley a Skeptic About the External World? A Study in Error
“Descartes,
Locke, and Newton, took away the world... Berkeley restored the world. Berkeley
has brought us back to the world that only exist because it shines and sounds.”
– W.B. Yeats
“The vulgar
view of Berkeley, then as now, was of a befooled enthusiast who sought
notoriety by his paradoxes.” (Turbayne 1955: 244)
Bishop
Berkeley is popularly held to have endorsed scepticism about the existence of
an external world. We have the famous incident of Samuel Johnson refuting
Berkeley by kicking a rock, proving that the external world is real; similarly,
over a century later, G.E. Moore held up his hand during a lecture, and
declared it to be real, in order to refute idealism.
But is this
common impression correct? This paper will trace the long history of discussion
on this question, and demonstrate that there is widespread agreement amongst
Berkeley scholars that the answer is “no”: Berkeley did not reject the existence of the external world. Indeed, some
prominent Berkeley scholars have even denied that he was an idealist at all;
instead, they contend, he was a common-sense realist, and at the same time an
immaterialist.
Since the view of Berkeley as someone who rejected the
existence of an external world relies heavily on his rejection of the concept
of matter, as understood before him by Galileo, Descartes, Malebranche, and
Locke, we must be very clear about to what Berkeley denied existence and to
what he didn’t deny it. Sometimes it is said that Berkeley denied the existence
of “the physical world.” This is true only if we take “the physical world” in a
special sense. Berkeley did not deny the real, independent existence of what
any ordinary person before the 16th or 17th century would
have called “the physical world”: the world that we see, hear, smell, taste,
and touch, the world that has rocks in it that hurt us when we kick them. What
he denied existed was, instead, a specialized and recently developed
philosophical concept: the “matter” recently posited by a number of thinkers
preceding him, such as those mentioned above.
If that
consensus amongst serious readers of Berkeley is correct, then it will also be
interesting to investigate how the perception that he is one has persisted for
so long. Therefore, this paper is, to some extent, an examination of how
popular error can persist for centuries in the face of overwhelming expert
opinion convicting the vulgar view of falsehood.
How can we explain the persistence of this error? It will be
our contention that the explanation is the persistent temptation to interpret
thinkers in an ahistorical manner, as if their ideas can be lifted out of the
contemporary conversation in which they were engaged and evaluated as if they
had appeared in the pages of Philosophy
Today. This error was the target of critiques by both R.G. Collingwood and
the so-called “Cambridge School” of historians, most notably Quentin Skinner
and J.G.A. Pocock. The proposed work will serve as an illustration of the
importance of their views.
Comments
Post a Comment