_? p?p??, ???? d? ?? ?e??? ??t?? a?t????ta?

?? ???? ??? fas? ???' ?e?a?? ?? d? ?a? a?t??

sf?s?? ?tas?a???s?? ?p?????? ???e' ????s??._

APPENDIX

ON BISHOP BERKELEY'S IDEALISM

When one a.s.serts that a writer is wrong in one of the arguments which he uses, it is well to begin by making sure that he really does use the argument in question. For this purpose it is useful to quote the pa.s.sages in which the writer uses the argument, and such pa.s.sages, for my own satisfaction, I will speedily cite from Bishop Berkeley. But first, in order that the reader may know that the interpretation which I put on these extracts is not one peculiar to myself, but is in harmony with the general tenor of Berkeley's metaphysical writings, I will quote from Professor Fraser, who, in his preface to the _Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous_, states Berkeley's argument to be as follows: "As the common reason of men, tested by their actions, demands the _permanence_ of sensible things, even though they are not permanently present to the senses of any one embodied mind, it follows that the very existence of the things of sense (apart from any 'marks of design' in their collocations) implies the permanent existence of Supreme Mind, by whom all real objects are perpetually conceived, and in whom their orderly appearances, disappearances, and reappearances in finite minds may be said to exist potentially."

And now for Berkeley's own words, (1) In the _Second Dialogue between Hylas and Philonous_ (p. 304 of Professor Fraser's edition), he says, "To me it is evident that sensible things cannot exist otherwise than in a mind or spirit. Whence I conclude, not that they have no real existence, but that, seeing they depend not on my thought, and have an existence distinct from being perceived by me, _there must be some other mind wherein they exist_. As sure, therefore, as the sensible world really exists, so sure is there an infinite omnipresent Spirit, who contains and supports it."

(2) In the _Third Dialogue_ (p. 325 of Professor Fraser's edition) we have: "_Hyl._ Supposing you were annihilated, cannot you conceive it possible that things perceivable by sense may still exist?--_Phil._ I can; but then it must be in another mind. When I deny sensible things an existence out of the mind, I do not mean my mind in particular, but all minds. Now, it is plain they have an existence exterior to my mind; since I find them by experience to be independent of it. There is therefore some other mind wherein they exist, during the intervals between the times of my perceiving them: as likewise they did before my birth, and would do after my supposed annihilation. And, as the same is true with regard to all other finite created spirits, it necessarily follows there is an _omnipresent Eternal Mind_, which knows and comprehends all things, and exhibits them to our view."

(3) The independent, real existence of things is affirmed with emphasis in the _Second Dialogue_ (_ibid._, p. 307): "It is evident that the things I perceive are my own ideas, and that no idea can exist unless it be in a mind. Nor is it less plain that these ideas or things by me perceived, either themselves or their archetypes, exist independently of my mind; since I know myself not to be their author, it being out of my power to determine at pleasure what particular ideas I shall be affected with upon opening my eyes or ears. They must therefore exist in some other mind, whose will it is they should be exhibited to me. The things, I say, immediately perceived are ideas or sensations, call them which you will. But how can any idea or sensation exist in, or be produced by, anything but a mind or spirit?"

(4) Finally, in _The Principles of Human Knowledge_, -- 90, in explaining the two senses of "external": "The things perceived by sense may be termed _external_, with regard to their origin--in that they are not generated from within by the mind itself, but imprinted by a Spirit distinct from that which perceives them. Sensible objects may likewise be said to be 'without the mind' in another sense, namely when they exist in some other mind; thus when I shut my eyes, the things I saw may still exist, but it must be in another mind."

Berkeley's argument in brief, therefore, is that we believe things to be permanent, and must therefore believe in a permanent, Divine mind in which they may exist. The question which I wish to raise is as to this permanence of things; for, if things are not permanent, they cannot testify to the permanence of the Divine mind. I will begin my questionings with the concluding words of the last-quoted pa.s.sage: "when I shut my eyes, the things I saw may still exist, but it must be in another mind." The expression "the things I saw" would seem to be ambiguous. Are the things I saw the sensations of sight which I had, or are they something different? If they are my sensations, they certainly do not exist when my eyes are closed--things are not permanent. If the things I see are something different from my sensations of sight, then the common-sense Realist would seem to be right, and Berkeley's Idealism must be given up. Let us examine each alternative.

It looks, at first, as though Berkeley himself would say that the things I saw are identical with my sensations of sight: in the third pa.s.sage quoted above he says, "the things I perceive are my own ideas ... the things, I say, immediately perceived are ideas or sensations, call them which you will." Let us, therefore, see the consequences of adhering strictly to this interpretation of the ambiguous phrase. It will follow in the first place that, unless I can see with my eyes shut, the things I see are not permanent, but do cease to exist when I close my eyes.

Next, my sensations cannot exist in somebody else's mind--the fact that you can see the object when your eyes are open does not enable me to see it with my eyes closed. On the other hand, of course, it does not follow that because my eyes are closed n.o.body else can see anything--only, this does not make my sensations permanent, or prove that they can exist in someone else's mind. In fine, if "the things I saw" are the sensations of sight that I had, then Berkeley's argument from the permanent existence of "things" to their existence in a permanent mind breaks down doubly; for, first, my sensations plainly are not permanent; and, second, my sensations cannot exist in another mind, permanent or otherwise.

At this point it is necessary to note that "existence" has been used in this connection in a double sense: actual existence has been distinguished from potential. It is on this distinction that Mill bases his definition of matter as "the permanent possibility of sensation"; but the distinction is derived from Berkeley, who has, as usual, given the most lucid explanation. In his _MS. Common Place Book_ (quoted in Fraser, i. 325, n. 9), Berkeley says, "Bodies, taken for powers, do exist when not perceived; but this existence is not actual. When I say a _power_ exists, no more is meant than that _if_, in the light, I open my eyes, and look that way, I shall see the body." Thus far Mill will go with Berkeley; and thus far both are open to the reproach of not giving a plain answer to a plain question. The plain question of common sense to the Idealist is: Do things exist when unperceived? Does the furniture of my room exist when n.o.body is in the room to perceive it? To which the Idealist replies that if I go into the room I shall see the furniture--which is perfectly true, but is no answer to the question.

There is, indeed, no particular reason why Mill should not plainly answer "No," if it were not for fear of giving a shock to the man of common sense who cannot readily comprehend how it is that the coal in his grate has come to be consumed if the process of combustion has been suspended in his absence. But with Berkeley the case is different: for him the permanence of things and the common-sense belief in that permanence have a value as furnishing an additional argument in favour of a Supreme Mind. But he too evades rather than meets the plain question of the plain man: "Do things exist when no one is conscious of them?" His reply is, "Yes, for the Divine Mind is conscious of them"--which again is true, but is not an answer to the question.

However, the point of immediate interest for our present purpose is to ascertain whether the conception of "potential" existence can lend to things that permanence which according to Berkeley necessitates the a.s.sumption of a permanent mind. Now, by the potential existence of a body or thing no more is meant than that _if_ I open my eyes and look in the right direction, I shall see the thing; and the things I see are my sensations, ideas, call them what you will. But that I can see with my eyes shut is beyond possibility of proof--it certainly is not proved by the fact that I can see with my eyes open; and neither is it proved by the fact that other people see things when my eyes are closed. In fine, if the things I see are my sensations, then things cannot have a permanent existence; and no inference as to the permanence of the Divine Mind can be drawn.

We are driven, therefore, to suppose that the things I see are different, partially or wholly, from my sensations. And this supposition seems to be implied by various pa.s.sages in Berkeley. For instance, he says (i. p. 307), "the things I perceive are my own ideas ... the things, I say, immediately perceived are ideas or sensations, call them which you will," where he seems to distinguish what is _immediately_ perceived (_i.e._ sensations) from something else. And a few lines before he seems to be inclined to admit the existence of something else than my sensations, for he says "ideas or things by me perceived, either themselves or their archetypes, exist independently of my mind."

The permanence of things is undoubtedly an inference. We find by experience that effects which are produced by causes acting before our very eyes are at other times produced by their causes in our absence: the fire burns in my absence as well as in my presence. Obviously, therefore, the thing which produces its effects when I have no sensations of it must be different from those sensations; and it must be an existing thing, otherwise its effects will be effects produced by a non-existent cause. To say that the un.o.bserved cause in these cases is a possibility of sensation does not mend matters. A possible sensation is a sensation which, as a matter of fact, does not exist and never did. It is a piece of pure imagination; and consequently on this theory the whole past history of the universe is imaginary. Neither are matters mended by denying that there are such things as "causes," and affirming that we only know "invariable and unconditional antecedents." How can a possible sensation, that is, an event which did not take place, precede one which does take place? How can an imagination of my mind have preceded the existence of my mind?

Perhaps it may be said that if Mill's Psychological Theory of Mind and Matter is not satisfactory, neither is the theory of the direct apprehension of reality wholly consistent with itself. It affirms the direct apprehension of reality, yet on examination the direct apprehension turns out to be an inference. Thus: things must have an existence different from our sensations because they produce their effects, and therefore exist, in our absence.

The reply is simple. Unless we believed the effects, which we do perceive, to be real things, we should not infer the causes, which we do not perceive, to be real either. Common sense believes that things _continue_ to exist when we turn our eyes away: their existence beyond the range of observation is an inference from their existence in our observation. Their inferred permanence is deduced from their observed independence.