Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous

“The sublime notion of a God, and the comfortable expectation of immortality, do naturally arise from a close and methodical application of thought.”

Berkeley argues here that believing in God is not irrational or unscientific. Instead, he argues that reason and logic can be employed to justify the belief in God. This claim is somewhat contrary to Enlightenment philosophy, which often prioritized the scientific method over theism.

“The senses perceive nothing which they do not perceive immediately: for they make no inferences. The deducing therefore of causes or occasions from effects and appearances, which alone are perceived by sense, entirely relates to reason.”

Spoken by Philonous, this passage delineates between immediate perception (that which is perceived directly by the senses) and mediated perception, which involves the use of reason. In Philonous’s view, deduction cannot be used to prove the independent existence of matter, since deduction relies on the mind and not the senses.

“To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another.”

Hylas says this to bifurcate existence from perception. His materialist view depends on this distinction, and he will insist, in spite of Philonous’s many attempts to disabuse him of the notion, that matter does indeed exist independently of perception.

“Suppose now one of your hands hot, and the other cold, and that they are both at once put into the same vessel of water, in an intermediate state; will not the water seem cold to one hand, and warm to the other?”

Philonous poses this thought experiment to Hylas to demonstrate that the perception of heat is relative. Since the two hands perceive the same water in different ways, it follows that the properties of heat and cold are based entirely on perception.

“Is not time measured by the succession of ideas in our minds?”

Philonous here seems to suggest that time itself is not a sensible thing, noting that we can only measure it abstractly and through the lens of our ideas. Because it is an abstraction, it cannot be perceived with the senses and cannot be validated empirically.

“Everything which exists, is particular.”

Philonous argues against the concept of “kind” in this passage. He notes previously that while patterns and consistencies seem to exist in things, this is no proof in the existence of mind-independent matter.

“Whatever we perceive, is perceived immediately or mediately: by sense, or by reason and reflection.”

Philonous makes this claim to Hylas, who at this point in the dialogue holds out for a third possibility. Since he cannot conceive of what this third explanation might be, Philonous realigns the nature of perception within the immediate/ mediated framework.

“Beside spirits, all that we know or conceive are our own ideas.”

This is a distilled version of Philonous’s view on the nature of matter. Because only spirits and ideas exist in the world, the nature of reality is immaterial.

“But neither sense nor imagination are big enough to comprehend the boundless extent with all its glittering furniture.”

Philonous argues here that there are limits to human knowledge, and beyond those limits is the existence of God. In fact, it is in part because of these limitations that Philonous believes that God exists.

“Men commonly believe that all things are known or perceived by God, because they believe the being of a God, whereas I, on the other side, immediately and necessarily conclude the being of a God, because all sensible things must be perceived by him.”

Philonous carefully distinguishes his understanding of God’s omniscience from the common understanding of the same concept. Most people begin from the received belief that an all-powerful God exists and then conclude that such a God must see all things. Conversely, Philonous begins from the premise that things cannot exist without being perceived. He then argues that an omniscient God must exist, as the world could not exist without some mind capable of perceiving every part of it.

“There is a mind which affects me every moment with all the sensible impressions I perceive. And from the variety, order, and manner of these, I conclude the author of them to be wise, powerful, and good, beyond comprehension.”

Philonous attributes the cause of his ideas to God. He also implies that because some things are beyond the reach of human knowledge, it stands to reason that God exists. He uses the same mode of argumentation here that Hylas has employed, depending on deduction rather than empirical observation.

“Is it not a sufficient evidence to me of the existence of this glove, that I see it, and feel it, and wear it? Or if this will not do, how is it possible I should be assured of the reality of this thing, which I actually see in this place, by supposing that some unknown thing, which I never did or can see, exists after an unknown manner, in an unknown place, or in no place at all? How can the supposed reality of that which is intangible, be a proof that anything tangible really exists?”

The passage highlights Philonous’s empirical view of reality. The glove in question cannot be proven to exist because other gloves may or may not exist somewhere else. In Philonous’s view, this idea of likeness or kind is not a justification that matter exists.

“Upon the whole, I am content to own the existence of matter is highly improbable; but the direct and absolute impossibility of it does not appear to me.”

Hylas’s attempts to refute Philonous have been reduced to this weak position. No longer able to argue affirmatively that matter exists, he instead says that it might exist, since it cannot be definitively disproven.

“We keep a stir about knowledge, and spend our lives in the pursuit of it, when, alas! we know nothing all the while: nor do I think it possible for us ever to know anything in this life.”

Hylas has become a skeptic, which is the exact charge he leveled against Philonous at the beginning of the dialogues. Falling into despair, he asserts that the pursuit of knowledge is futile, since nothing can be certainly confirmed.

“I am of a vulgar cast, simple enough to believe my senses, and leave things as I find them.”

Philonous aligns with the common people who accept the reality of their experiences without digging too much into meaning. This is an open criticism of philosophers who insist on refusing simplicity in favor of more complicated views.

“I do not therefore say my soul is an idea, or like an idea. However, taking the word idea in a large sense, my soul may be said to furnish me with an idea, that is, an image, or likeness of God, though indeed extremely inadequate.”

Philonous tries to refute Hylas’s suggestion that since the soul cannot be immediately perceived by the senses, it, like matter, is an idea. Philonous argues that the soul produces ideas, including of God, which distinguishes it from matter.

“I know or am conscious of my own being; and that I myself am not my ideas, but somewhat else, a thinking active principle that perceives, knows, wills, and operates about ideas.”

Philonous argues against Hylas’s claim that because material substance does not exist independent of the mind, neither can spiritual substance exist outside the mind. Philonous objects, countering that because he is an active agent, rather than a passive substance, he must exist.

“Ask the first man you meet, and he shall tell you, to be perceived is one thing, and to exist is another.”

At this point, Hylas speaks is running out of objections and counterarguments. His line of reasoning here is argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy that enlists the prevailing opinion of the majority to prove a claim. Even if Hylas is right in his presumption, this really proves nothing at all in his argument other than many people agree with him. It does not prove that matter exists independent of the mind.

“The question between the materialists and me is not, whether things have a real existence out of the mind of this or that person, but whether they have an absolute existence, distinct from being perceived by God, and exterior to all minds.”

Importantly, Philonous clarifies his position as not denying the reality of his sensory experiences. Hylas questions how Philonous’s view affects interpretations of reality, claiming that nothing can exist if matter does not exist. Philonous objects, and the quote shows how he makes the distinction between his view and that of materialists like Hylas.

“These are the novelties, these are the strange notions which shock the genuine uncorrupted judgment of all mankind; and being once admitted, embarrass the mind with endless doubts and difficulties. And it is against these and the like innovations, I endeavor to vindicate common sense.”

Philonous expresses his purpose with this passage. He is alluding to philosophers who introduce notions that attempt to explain but instead unnecessarily complicate. As an empiricist, Philonous believes that knowledge can only be gained by observation. This claim is in opposition to rationalists who use reason, inference, and imagination to arrive at truth.

“Nothing cannot be seen, or felt, or tasted: it is therefore real.”

Philonous uses this line of reasoning presented in the negative to prove the affirmative. All objects can be perceived by the senses, which means they exist but do not have an absolute existence independent of perception.

“All objects are eternally known by God, or, which is the same thing, have an eternal existence in His mind: but when things, before imperceptible to creatures, are, by a decree of God, made perceptible to them; then are they said to begin a relative existence, with respect to created minds.”

Philonous’s claim here is that creation means being able to perceive objects that God knows. Human perception, therefore, is dependent on divine decree.

“This is the literal obvious sense suggested to me, by the words of the Holy Scripture: in which is included no mention or no thought, either of substratum, instrument, occasion, or absolute existence.”

Philonous uses the Bible to refute abstract ideas presented by materialist philosophers. He believes that rooted in the scriptures is an empirical view in which reality is grounded solely on what can be observed through the senses.