Today we will talk about George Berkeley and his idealism. So, let’s set the stage. Imagine you’re following the great thinkers of the past—Descartes, Locke—you’re exploring the nature of reality, questioning what we can truly know. But then comes Berkeley, and he takes a radical turn. He asks: What if everything we perceive is actually dependent on our perception? What if there is no external world beyond our minds?
To fully understand Berkeley’s position, let’s look at Locke’s idea of primary and secondary qualities. Locke believed that objects have primary qualities—things like size, shape, and motion—that exist independently of the observer. Then there are secondary qualities—like color, taste, and sound—that exist only because we perceive them.
But Berkeley wasn’t convinced. He argued that all qualities—primary and secondary—are actually dependent on the observer. Think about it: if you look at an object from different angles, its shape appears to change. If you move closer or farther away, its size seems different. According to Berkeley, this means that even so-called primary qualities are not independent of perception.
And this is where Berkeley introduces his famous principle: “Esse est percipi”—to be is to be perceived. In other words, something only exists if it is being observed. Radical, right? This idea places Berkeley in the camp of idealism—a school of thought that argues reality is entirely a construct of the mind. Unlike rationalists like Descartes or empiricists like Locke, Berkeley suggests that the external world has no independent existence beyond our perception of it.
Now, this may sound fascinating, but it also raises serious questions. If everything exists only in our minds, then what happens when we’re not looking? Does the world simply vanish? Berkeley’s answer? No, because there is always one omnipresent observer: God. According to Berkeley, God perceives everything at all times, ensuring the continued existence of the world.
But here’s the real challenge: if Berkeley is right, what does that mean for science? Science is based on the assumption that there is an objective reality to study. But if reality is just a collection of perceptions, then what are we really studying? This is why many critics argue that while Berkeley’s philosophy may be logically sound, it’s not particularly useful when it comes to advancing knowledge.