Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous by Berkeley Essay

Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous by Berkeley - Essay Example Further on I will explain the importance of both materialistic and immaterialistic explanations of the objects and trying to find the most persuading argument, either materialistic or sensual one. Part A The main argument of Berkley is that idealism refers to daily practices and is inconsistent with science, while materialism is focused on the identity of the object and is a trigger for studying the laws of nature. Hylas claims that different senses provide individuals with diversity of perceptions and knowledge about the one and the same thing. He is a materialist in his essence and throughout the dialogue he tries to persuade Philonus of the need to be closer to the matter and not to the wanderings of one’s mind. The unity of ideas about a particular thing is an integrative element for delving into the depth of the nature of things.. He introduces a character of Hylas, which is a materialist and Philonous, which is an immaterialist. Hylas claims that from a materialistic poi nt of view to see something with the help of the microscope is to see the same thing, which can be seen with the naked eye. Philonous opposes to him and argues that if to refer to our senses and emotions, we will see different things with and without microscopes. Still, the role of microscope cannot be denied. It plays a role of correlation of different perceptions of one thing. This is one of the strongest points suggested by Hylas. Further discussion between Hylas and Philonous concerns different perception of the word â€Å"same† for philosophers and linguists. Both interlocutors are not focused on the meaning of the word â€Å"same†. There is a deeper discussion about correlation of different perceptions of abstracted ideas of identity. Individuals may perceive diversity or identity in different abstract ideas. In case a correlation of different visions of one thing occurs, then idealistic and materialistic visions are correlated. In other words, empirical evidence found by the scientists refers to idealistic intentions. Both Hylas and Philonous establish the same connections, but for the former different visions of the object do not change its essence and for the latter different visions make the object different. Hylas claims that the naked eye and the microscope are two different means for perception of one thing. On the one hand, there is essence in different subjects and there is a limit of knowledge. Materialists refer to complex explanations and there is no need for this type of deep and profound interpretations, because matter transcends the limits of one’s knowledge. Thus, knowledge about the world cannot be deeper in case of complex knowledge about matter occurs. On the other hand, ideas of matter are opposed to unseen or unperceived ideas. There is a good question: whether these ideas consist of molecules and atoms? The laws of nature and their hidden sides are unseen and Berkeley claims that there are only some assertions t hat God defines. A measure between perceived and unperceived objects or ideas is vague. Philonous claims that different sensations are appropriate for existence of a real object. Moreover, these sensations assure individuals of existence of certain objects (example with a cherry). Berkley underlines that in case an object is unperceived, it does not exist for sure. In the same way he undermines theoretical developments of science. Berkley underlin