Class Notes (838,386)
Canada (510,872)
York University (35,470)
Philosophy (680)
PHIL 1000 (69)

Introduction to George Berkeley's Immaterialism in the Three Dialogues

4 Pages
Unlock Document

PHIL 1000
Beryl Logan

2011-11-02 The crucial parts of knowing Locke for reading Berkeley are few the sense are perceiver dependent external objects are perceiver independent primary/secondary quality distinction substance and the substances material Berkeley will dispute Locke's four points here of the external world epistemology dialogues p.9 dialogue begins with Hylas telling Philonous on a previous conversation the night before. Philonous was the topic of conversation because he is a sceptic. The issue is of material substance and because Philonous denies such a thing he is a shown to be a lacking in common sense and being a sceptic Hylas is going to support the position that there is material substance he is going to take a Lockean position and Philonous is going to take the Berkelian position what Philonous is going to show how Hylas that believing in material substance is the sceptical position and that Berkeley’s position is non-sceptical position. Philonous is going to enquire from Hylas by what he means of scepticism. He accused him being a sceptic so in order to correctly clarify Philonous asks Hylas what do you mean by sceptic? The answer that gives is the general answer. (prof's pet peeve: 1. it should be people for who not and things for that.) One who doubts everything Philonous is going to eventually show that eh doesn't doubt everything. In fact he's going to take a poisition that is sceptic resistant. Bottom of page 11 Through the dfferent movements of the dialogue, Philonous gets Hylas to admit his mistakes. One who accepts that existence of matter is a greater sceptic Again Hylas refines his position and the bottom of page 11 this will happen all throughout the dialogue. Hylas will continually refine his position as he is correct by P Wherever a claim can be accepted without argument that is the sceptic what he wants Philonous to show him is which one of us denies the reality of things or professes the greater ignorance of them either denying the reality of sensible-meaning things that are sensed by the senses- page 12 (prof is okay with essays in a dialogue form. NOT EASY but can really good and interesting.) It's very hard sometimes with this exchange in the three dialogues to figure out which points to highlight there's a lot of back and forth which really doesn't contribute to our real understanding p.14 So Hylas at the beginning seems to take the position of naive realism. Hylas is making a distinction between the objects that exists and the perception of that object to exist and perceive are completely different i ask whether... what phil is suggesting that the i mean... there is stuff in the external world independent of our perceptions Hylas is going to take the position that the book out there is light and two inches by five inches, etc they begin their sensory discussion with heat Hylas says what ever degree of heat.... whatever heat we perceive is in the object according to Hylas e.g. Take a bucket of water and put one had in a fridge for a couple of minute and then put both hands in the bucket each hand will feel differently. (found bottom of page 17) any doctrine that contains an absurdity(a contradiction) is false according to Philonous any theory that contains a contradic
More Less

Related notes for PHIL 1000

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.