WorkGeorge Berkeley

An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision

Berkeley at twenty-four on how we see distance — not by geometry, he argued, but by learning to read touch in sight.

by George Berkeley140 passages held

  • English, the original language, and your language
First published
(aged 24)
Original language
English

Report a rights issue

Overview

How do we see how far away a thing is? Distance runs straight out from the eye, so it meets the retina as a single point that carries in itself no clue to its length — and the standard optics of the day, inherited through Kepler's account of the retinal image, tried to supply the missing information with unnoticed geometry, angles the mind was supposed to compute without knowing it. Berkeley, twenty-four and newly out of Trinity College, Dublin, threw the geometry out. We judge distance, size and situation, he argued, not by mathematics but by habit: the eye learns, through long correlation, to associate what it sees with what the hand would feel and the body would do to reach it. Sight and touch are two languages, and we translate one into the other so fast that the translation feels like seeing. The essay took up an old puzzle too — whether a man born blind and suddenly given sight would know a cube by looking — and answered no, since sight and touch share no idea in common. This was Berkeley's first major work and his most quickly accepted: natural philosophers, and later the founders of experimental psychology, took it up even as they balked at the immaterialism it was quietly clearing the ground for.

Key concepts

What is the puzzle of seeing distance?

Distance runs directly outward from the eye, so it strikes the retina as a single point with no length of its own to register. From that point alone the eye cannot read how far away a thing is. The puzzle Berkeley starts from is therefore how we come to perceive depth at all, given that the raw visual data carry no direct information about it.

What did Berkeley reject in the optics of his day?

He rejected the geometrical account, inherited through Kepler, which held that the mind judges distance by computing the angles formed by lines of sight — unnoticed calculations the eye supposedly performs. Berkeley denied we make any such computation; the relevant angles are not themselves seen, so they cannot be what we use. Throwing out this hidden geometry is the move that clears the way for his own explanation by habit.

What does it mean that sight and touch are two languages?

Berkeley means that visual appearances function as signs of tactile realities, connected only by learned association. What we see does not resemble what we feel; it merely predicts it, the way a word predicts its meaning. Through constant experience the eye learns to read one in terms of the other so quickly that interpreting feels like direct seeing. Spatial perception is thus acquired, like fluency in a language.

What is the Molyneux problem, and how does Berkeley answer it?

The Molyneux problem asks whether a person born blind, taught to tell a cube from a sphere by touch, would recognize them by sight alone if suddenly given vision. Berkeley answers no. Since sight and touch share no idea in common, the newly sighted person has never learned to link visual appearances to felt shapes, so they would see only unfamiliar patterns of light and could not identify the cube.

How does the essay relate to Berkeley's immaterialism?

The theory of vision quietly prepares the ground for it. By making the objects of sight mind-dependent signs rather than direct copies of an external world, Berkeley loosens the assumption that we perceive matter existing outside us. This was his first major work and his most readily accepted — natural philosophers and later experimental psychologists embraced it — even as they balked at the immaterialism it was clearing the way for.

Themes of the book

What this book returns to, gathered into themes and ordered by how much of the text each one occupies.

How we come to see distance

How can the eye tell how far away a thing is, when depth arrives at it as a single point with no length? Berkeley throws out the hidden geometry the optics of his day relied on.

Distance runs straight out from the eye, so it meets the retina as a single point that carries no clue to its length. The standard optics of the day, inherited through Kepler, tried to supply the missing information with unnoticed geometry — angles the mind was supposed to compute without knowing it. Berkeley, twenty-four and fresh from Trinity College, Dublin, threw the geometry out. We do not calculate distance, size and situation; the eye has no access to such angles. His problem is genuine and precise, and it forces a completely different account of how the given point of light becomes a seen world with depth.

  • vision
  • perception
  • optics
  • geometry
  • distance
  • magnitude
  • mathematics
  • distance perception

Sight and touch as two languages

If the eye cannot compute depth, how do we learn to see it? Berkeley's answer is habit: the eye learns to read what it sees as a sign of what the hand would feel.

We judge distance, size and situation, Berkeley argues, not by mathematics but by habit. Through long correlation, the eye learns to associate what it sees with what the hand would touch and the body would do to reach it. Sight and touch are thus two languages, and we translate one into the other so fast that the translation feels like seeing itself. Visual cues become signs of tactile realities, connected by experience rather than by nature or geometry. This makes spatial perception something learned and read, like a language acquired in infancy, rather than something given whole in the image.

  • perception
  • touch
  • language
  • experience
  • learning
  • philosophy of perception
  • visual perception
  • philosophy of vision

The senses share no common idea

Do the eye and the hand grasp the same shape? Berkeley says no — and answers the old puzzle of the newly sighted with a firm denial that unsettles common sense.

The deep claim behind the essay is that sight and touch share no idea in common: the visual shape of a thing differs in kind, not merely in degree, from the shape the hand would feel. So Berkeley takes up the Molyneux problem — whether a man born blind and suddenly given sight would recognize a cube by looking — and answers no. Having never learned to link the two languages, the newly sighted person would see only meaningless color and light, unable to match it to anything felt. The heterogeneity of the senses is what makes the whole theory of vision necessary rather than optional.

  • experience
  • learning
  • touch
  • perception
  • apparent magnitude
  • sense perception
  • signs
  • cross-modal perception

Within this work

passages held
140
distinct concepts
119
by passages held, corpus-wide
#158

What this book thinks together

Every arc around the wheel is one concept in this book. A ribbon joins two the text reaches for together, and its width is how many of its passages hold both. Strongest: perception with vision.
Concept co-occurrence, strongest first 8 concepts, joined by 22 pairings. 156 shared passages in all. 57 weaker pairings reach beyond these concepts and are not drawn.
ConceptPaired conceptShared passages
perceptionvision28
opticsperception20
epistemologyperception14
perceptionspatiality13
experienceperception12
empiricismperception10
geometryperception9
opticsvision8
spatialityvision6
empiricismvision5
epistemologyvision5
empiricismspatiality4
geometryoptics4
empiricismgeometry2
empiricismoptics2
epistemologyexperience2
epistemologygeometry2
epistemologyoptics2
epistemologyspatiality2
experiencegeometry2
experiencevision2
geometryspatiality2

Works held

The author's work in order, this book marked in place. Your-language title first, the original beneath it where the two differ; side chips show which full texts are held.

  1. 1709 An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision you are here EN
  2. 1710 A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge

    The head-on statement of Berkeley's immaterialism, aimed at Locke and Descartes — and, because he never wrote the second part he promised, the whole of it that survives.

    EN
  3. 1713 Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous in Opposition to Sceptics and Atheists

    Berkeley's second attempt at the case of the Principles, put into dialogue to win over the general reader whom the first book had only estranged.

    EN
Sign in or subscribe to discuss this work

— or open another of their works