http://gfdl.marxists.org.uk/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/intro.htm' Here we arrive at those “ill consequences” derived from the “absurd” doctrine of the existence of an external world which compelled Bishop Berkeley not only to refute this doctrine theoretically, but passionately to persecute its adherents as enemies. ;
Comment Mr. Lenin does implicitly recognise the 'internal' and the 'external' world — as this passage demonstrates.What was, according to Berkeley, absurd was to conceive of the existence of something (or anything) apart from the object under consideration being perceived (apprehended) — normally by a human being.
* . . . Instinctively defending himself against the accusation of what would nowadays be called subjective idealism and solipsism, he says that by our philosophy “we are not deprived of any one thing in nature” (§ 34). Nature remains, and the distinction between realities and chimeras remains, only “they both equally exist in the mind.” "I do not argue against the existence of any one thing that we can apprehend, either by sense or reflection. That the things I see with my eyes and touch with my hands do exist, really exist, I make not the least question. The only thing whose existence we deny is that which philosophers [Berkeley's italics] call Matter or corporeal substance. And in doing this there is no damage done to the rest of mankind, who, I dare say, will never miss it. . . . The Atheist indeed will want the colour of an empty name to support his impiety. . . .”
Comment No "matter" exists other than, for example, your leg, the reader, or your computer terminal, or some trees somewhere, or a fork-lift or a Sun or a planet ; or a frog or a worm (body).We arrive at those “ill consequences” derived from the “repugnant” doctrine of the existence of an external world which compelled Bishop Berkeley not only to refute this doctrine theoretically, but passionately to persecute its adherents as enemies. “For as we have shown the doctrine of Matter or corporeal Substance to have been the main pillar and support of Scepticsm, so likewise upon the same foundation have been raised all the impious schemes of Atheism and Irreligion. . . . . How great a friend material substance has been to Atheists in all ages were needless to relate. [etc].Bishop Berkeley apparently does admit the existence of "the things I see with my eyes and touch with my hands", etc. Unfortunately, the issue of Atheism had crept onto the subject — which is not necessarily involved.
"Matter", except when in reference to some actually approachable portion of matter somewhere, is an empty name ; in other words, please, the reader, show me the 'matter' which is not a shoe or a plant or an animal body etc.
This can be considered far apart from such questions as the existence of Deity ; (not forgetting that Atheism has had many shades and colours ; and that theism is usually arbitrary.)
Comment Did Bishop Berkeley consider “the existences of an external world” repugnant ? It seems that it was rather Mr. Lenin who did not quite read.The good Bishop’s writings contain some better formulations than the “straw men” attacked by Mr. Lenin. They may have been not without difficulties of their own ;
”Matter being once expelled out of nature drags with it so many skeptical and impious notions, such an incredible number of disputes and puzzling question [“the principle of economy of thought,” discovered by Mach in the ‘seventies, “philosophy as a conception of the world according to the principle of minimum expenditure of effort”—Avenarius in 1876!] which have been thorns . . . etc. [&#sect; 96).
Comment The above is a quotation from Berkeley (according to the text by this ‘philosopher’ – which I suppose may be accurate). Did either Avenarius or Mach really depend much on Bishop Berkeley ?
This is the claim clearly made by Mr. Lenin : is one to believe this ‘philosopher’ on such an account ? Clumsily indeed he then tries to “refute” Avenarius and Mach by “refuting” Berkeley. Was this “philosophy” meant in earnest ? Was this man simply deluded ? Or did he deliberately write bunk ? I (for one) am not quite sure, it seems that he did mean what he was saying but was very severely mistaken. But then, is one to believe anything “Bolshevik” ?
From Commonplace Book by George Berkeley
[ excerpts ]Doctrine of Identity best explained by taking the Will for volitions, the Understanding for ideas. The difficulty of consciousness of wt are never acted surely solv’d thereby.( Fraser, page 448 )
No identity (other than perfect likeness) in any individuals besides persons.
N. As well make tastes, smells, fear, shame, wit, virtue, vice, & all thoughts move wth local motion as immaterial spirit.
On account of my doctrine, the identity of finite substances must consist in something else than continued existence, or relation to determined time & place of beginning to exist—the existence of our thoughts (which being combined make all substances) being frequently interrupted & they having divers beginnings & endings.
Qu. Whether identity of person consists not in the Will ?
* * * Qu. Wherein consists identity of person ? Not in actual consciousness, for then I’m not the same person I was this day twelve-month, but while I think of wt I then did. Not in potential, for then all persons may be the same, for ought we know.
Mem. Story of Mr. Deering’s aunt.
Two sorts of potential consciousness — natural & præternatural. In the last § but one I mean the latter.
( Fraser, pages 480-1 )
Fraser, Alexander Campbell, 1819-1914. Title(s) Life and letters of George Berkeley. Publisher Oxford, Clarendon press, 1871. Paging 672 p. front. (port.) illus. 23 cm.