Turning the charge of skepticism around
Who really loses the world — the man who believes in matter or the man who denies it? Berkeley's boldest move is to pin the skepticism on his opponent.
The Principles had been met with ridicule and the charge that its author was a skeptic. In the Dialogues Berkeley turns that charge back: it is Hylas, the believer in matter, who ends unable to say the world is really colored, or warm, or there at all, because he has placed reality behind an unknowable material screen. Philonous, the immaterialist, keeps every ordinary thing exactly as it seems. So the counterintuitive doctrine, Berkeley argues, is the sober defence of common sense, and belief in matter is the road to doubt. The reversal is the whole rhetorical engine of the book.
- skepticism
- materialism
- common sense
- immaterialism
- idealism
- metaphysics
- reality
Enter a dialogue
- Your two speakers begin by agreeing that philosophers' paradoxes tempt ordinary people to doubt sacred truths. Why open a case for denying matter that way?
- Your materialist complains that you leave the 'empty forms and outside of things'. What would the missing inside be, beyond every quality we can see and feel?
- A person fears philosophers will argue the real world away. What does your claim offer them, when every ordinary thing stays just as it seems?
- Hylas, the believer in matter, ends by saying you are as much a sceptic as he. What in your idea of what makes a thing real avoids that?
- Unable to answer your arguments, the believer in matter still relapses into a vague surmise of 'I know not what, matter'. Why does a belief outlive its refutation?