• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Berkeley Discussed on BBC’s “In Our Time”

March 26, 2014 by Mark Linsenmayer 2 Comments

Johnson refutes BerkeleyA few listeners have pointed us at Melvyn Bragg's recent podcast on Berkeley (listen to it here). It starts off with the oft-cited anecdote about Samuel Johnson claiming to have refuted Berkeley by kicking a stone: obviously, such a stone that I can kick is not an "idea in my head." As should have been clear from our episode (and my recent post), this is an elementary misunderstanding of Berkeley.

The first 10 minutes of the podcast are all biography and discussion of how Berkeley followed Locke and and Descartes and fit into the scientific revolution/Enlightenment. At 11 min, we hear a bit about the Molyneux Problem: "whether a man who has been born blind and who has learnt to distinguish and name a globe and a cube by touch, would be able to distinguish and name these objects simply by sight, once he had been enabled to see." We hear about the bundle-theory of perceptions, which guest Michela Massimi equates to idealism. I'm not sure that these entirely coincide: You can have a metaphysical take on objects that says that these are just a bundle of properties (apple=red, juicy, solid with a particular texture, etc.) without saying that these properties are themselves perceptions, as opposed to something external to minds which is then perceived by minds.

We then get a rehearsal of the same basic arguments that we covered in the episode, but with a potentially important clarification from guest Tom Stoneham, who claims that Berkeley never actually said that "esse est percipi," i.e. did not make the general claim that the essence of all matter is that it is perceived, but that, of what we do perceive, its essence is that it is perceived. If we perceive something, its very nature is that it is an object of perception, and because those things are "all that matter to us, all that we perceive," then "that's enough" to account for what we call the real world. Stoneham presents Berkeley as a form of pragmatism: if there were something unperceived by any mind at all, it would make no practical difference; no one's going to be worried about the existence of things existing unperceived. This seems to me a particularly modern distortion of what Berkeley actually says, which is unequivocal in ruling out the thing-in-itself as not just practically useless, but as a self-contradiction.

Peter Millican (around 18 minutes in) adds the idea that Berkeley brings in God to assure the existence of things not perceived as a "parody," but this reading seemed to come right out of the passages that we read and referred to in the episode. Millican says that "there are not very strong hints" that Berkeley is using the continuity of physical objects as an argument for the existence of God, whereas this seemed blindingly evident to us in reading and discussing the text (and Massimi immediately agrees with us).

Stoneham follows up by emphasizing how on Berkeley's view (unlike Newton's view of absolute space and time existing independently of our minds), we're in direct communication with God; God directly injects our minds with these passive ideas. This seems pretty ineffective to me in satisfying our existential need for closeness with God: it doesn't make you feel any better when faced with tragedy, doesn't make you feel God's presence when you need it, and generally makes God look like a jerk for filling our heads with as much bad stuff as is often in there. Massimi brings up an extension of this charge right near the end of the podcast: If God is responsible for all of our ideas, then he's responsible for our sins as well. This charge is clearly not fair to Berkeley, as it's the essence of spirits (our mind, God's mind) to be active, i.e. causa sui (self-causing) and free, but as with all parts of Berkeley's view of the mechanics of these spirits, it's all left mysterious and unknowable. Berkeley claims he doesn't have to solve such problems, but only that his view doesn't introduce any more problems than his opponents' views: claiming, for instance, that it's physical objects that cause our perceptions as well as causing every movement of every other physical object just leads to all the metaphysical problems of free will that we're already familiar with, and Berkeley's view of spirits at least doesn't have Descartes's problems re. the causal interaction of mind and body. Berkeley sees all causality as mysterious, so solving it by pointing to a mystery is, if not actually informative, at least not so bullshitty as pretending that matters have actually been explained by pointing to the pineal gland or to hidden, occult powers within physical objects that effect other objects and minds.

At 27 minutes, Bragg shifts the conversation to talk about Berkeley vs. Newton (and Leibniz) on science, e.g. via Berkeley's essay "On Motion" (1721); this section of the podcast nicely fills in a gap our our discussion. At 31 minutes, we get some discussion of Berkeley's account that we can have a "notion" of our minds even though we don't have perceptions about our minds. This is not connected in the podcast with his argument for the existence of God, as it explicitly is in Berkeley and was in our discussion. Stoneham remarks that the book where Berkeley was really going to lay out his psychology (our knowledge of our own minds) was never written.

Finally, Bragg brings up Berkeley's final book, Siris, about tar water, and they have a chuckle about it just as we did, so we get to hear from Massimi who has apparently actually read that book, and gives us the connection between tar water and spirituality: "the subtle, imponderable substance called the ether, that was the matter of light, but also the matter of fire... and electrical phenomena." So Berkeley was writing in a tradition that was present in Newton himself; nothing in Berkeley's idealism ruled out whatever kind of metaphysically flavored science was popular in his day.

I don't think we should be surprised when silly things like this come up; in many discussions of historical science, theories that seemed reasonable at the time now seem laughable to us (phlogiston, anyone?). This is just part of the territory as we get into metaphysics proper, which is where scientists get most offended and/or scornful at the continued existence of philosophy. Kant dismissed metaphysics as largely groundless and speculative, but such speculation is a fun and important part of philosophy, even if it seems tacky and out of date relatively quickly.

Listen to Melvyn Bragg's "In Our Time" podcast on Berkeley.

-Mark Linsenmayer

Image Note: The cartoon is from a blog called "There Are Real Things."

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts Tagged With: George Berkeley, In Our Time, philosophy podcast

Comments

  1. astrid says

    March 27, 2014 at 6:06 am

    Peter Millikin is of course Peter Millican.
    http://www.millican.org/

    Stepping out of pedant’s corner now,
    I’ll have a listen, thanks.

    Reply
  2. Billie Pritchett says

    March 29, 2014 at 8:15 am

    It was a good episode. As a frequent listener of the BBC’s “In Our Time” podcast, though, I’d have to say that you guys’ discussion of philosophical ideas and figures, Berkeley included, is far better sequenced than BBC’s guest experts’ and your digressions are far more amusing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Seth Paskin on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023
  • Kunal on Why Don’t We Like Idealism?

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in