142. After what has been said, it is, I suppose, plain that our souls are not to be known in the same manner as senseless, inactive objects, or by way of _idea_. _Spirits_ and _ideas_ are things so wholly different, that when we say "they exist," "they are known," or the like, these words must not be thought to signify anything common to both natures(752). There is nothing alike or common in them; and to expect that by any multiplication or enlargement of our faculties, we may be enabled to know a spirit as we do a triangle, seems as absurd as if we should hope to _see a sound_. This is inculcated because I imagine it may be of moment towards clearing several important questions, and preventing some very dangerous errors concerning the nature of the soul.
[(753)We may not, I think, strictly be said to have an _idea_ of an active being, or of an action; although we may be said to have a _notion_ of them. I have some knowledge or notion of _my mind_, and its acts about ideas; inasmuch as I know or understand what is meant by these words. What I know, that I have some notion of. I will not say that the terms _idea_ and _notion_ may not be used convertibly, if the world will have it so.
But yet it conduceth to clearness and propriety, that we distinguish things very different by different names. It is also to be remarked that, all _relations_ including an act of the mind(754), we cannot so properly be said to have an idea, but rather a notion, of the relations and habitudes between things. But if, in the modern way(755), the word _idea_ is extended to _spirits_, and _relations_, and _acts_, this is, after all, an affair of verbal concern.]
143. It will not be amiss to add, that the doctrine of _abstract ideas_ has had no small share in rendering those sciences intricate and obscure which are particularly conversant about spiritual things. Men have imagined they could frame abstract notions of the _powers_ and _acts_ of the mind, and consider them prescinded as well from the mind or spirit itself, as from their respective objects and effects. Hence a great number of dark and ambiguous terms, presumed to stand for abstract notions, have been introduced into metaphysics and morality; and from these have grown infinite distractions and disputes amongst the learned(756).
144. But, nothing seems more to have contributed towards engaging men in controversies and mistakes with regard to the nature and operations of the mind, than the being used to speak of those things in terms borrowed from sensible ideas. For example, the will is termed the _motion_ of the soul: this infuses a belief that the mind of man is as a ball in motion, impelled and determined by the objects of sense, as necessarily as that is by the stroke of a racket. Hence arise endless scruples and errors of dangerous consequence in morality. All which, I doubt not, may be cleared, and truth appear plain, uniform, and consistent, could but philosophers be prevailed on to [(757)depart from some received prejudices and modes of speech, and] retire into themselves, and attentively consider their own meaning. [(758)But the difficulties arising on this head demand a more particular disquisition than suits with the design of this treatise.]
145. From what hath been said, it is plain that we cannot know the existence of _other spirits_ otherwise than by their operations, or the ideas by them, excited in us. I perceive several motions, changes, and combinations of ideas, that inform me there are certain particular agents, like myself, which accompany them, and concur in their production. Hence, the knowledge I have of other spirits is not immediate, as is the knowledge of my ideas; but depending on the intervention of ideas, by me referred to agents or spirits distinct from myself, as effects or concomitant signs(759).
146. But, though there be some things which convince us human agents are concerned in producing them, yet it is evident to every one that those things which are called the Works of Nature, that is, the far greater part of the ideas or sensations perceived by us, are _not_ produced by, or dependent on, the wills of _men_. There is therefore some other Spirit that causes them; since it is repugnant(760) that they should subsist by themselves. See sect. 29. But, if we attentively consider the constant regularity, order, and concatenation of natural things, the surprising magnificence, beauty and perfection of the larger, and the exquisite contrivance of the smaller parts of the creation, together with the exact harmony and correspondence of the whole, but above all the never-enough-admired laws of pain and pleasure, and the instincts or natural inclinations, appet.i.tes, and pa.s.sions of animals;-I say if we consider all these things, and at the same time attend to the meaning and import of the attributes One, Eternal, Infinitely Wise, Good, and Perfect, we shall clearly perceive that they belong to the aforesaid Spirit, "who works all in all" and "by whom all things consist."
147. Hence, it is evident that G.o.d is known as certainly and immediately as any other mind or spirit whatsoever, distinct from ourselves. We may even a.s.sert that the existence of G.o.d is far more evidently perceived than the existence of men; because the effects of Nature are infinitely more numerous and considerable than those ascribed to human agents. There is not any one mark that denotes a man, or effect produced by him, which does not more strongly evince the being of that Spirit who is the Author of Nature(761). For it is evident that, in affecting other persons, the will of man hath no other object than barely the motion of the limbs of his body; but that such a motion should be attended by, or excite any idea in the mind of another, depends wholly on the will of the Creator. He alone it is who, "upholding all things by the word of His power," maintains that intercourse between spirits whereby they are able to perceive the existence of each other(762). And yet this pure and clear Light which enlightens everyone is itself invisible [(763)to the greatest part of mankind].
148. It seems to be a general pretence of the unthinking herd that they cannot _see_ G.o.d. Could we but see Him, say they, as we see a man, we should believe that He is, and believing obey His commands. But alas, we need only open our eyes to see the Sovereign Lord of all things, with a _more_ full and clear view than we do any one of our fellow-creatures. Not that I imagine we see G.o.d (as some will have it) by a direct and immediate view; or see corporeal things, not by themselves, but by seeing that which represents them in the essence of G.o.d; which doctrine is, I must confess, to me incomprehensible(764). But I shall explain my meaning. A human spirit or person is not perceived by sense, as not being an idea. When therefore we see the colour, size, figure, and motions of a man, we perceive only certain sensations or ideas excited in our own minds; and these being exhibited to our view in sundry distinct collections, serve to mark out unto us the existence of finite and created spirits like ourselves. Hence it is plain we do not see a man, if by _man_ is meant, that which lives, moves, perceives, and thinks as we do: but only such a certain collection of ideas, as directs us to think there is a distinct principle of thought and motion, like to ourselves, accompanying and represented by it. And after the same manner we see G.o.d: all the difference is that, whereas some one finite and narrow a.s.semblage of ideas denotes a particular human mind, whithersoever we direct our view we do at all times and in all places perceive manifest tokens of the Divinity: everything we see, hear, feel, or anywise perceive by sense, being a sign or effect of the power of G.o.d; as is our perception of those very motions which are produced by men(765).
149. It is therefore plain that nothing can be more evident to any one that is capable of the least reflexion than the existence of G.o.d, or a Spirit who is intimately present to our minds, producing in them all that variety of ideas or sensations which continually affect us, on whom we have an absolute and entire dependence, in short "in whom we live, and move, and have our being." That the discovery of this great truth, which lies so near and obvious to the mind, should be attained to by the reason of so very few, is a sad instance of the stupidity and inattention of men, who, though they are surrounded with such clear manifestations of the Deity, are yet so little affected by them that they seem, as it were, blinded with excess of light(766).
150. But you will say-Hath Nature no share in the production of natural things, and must they be all ascribed to the immediate and sole operation of G.o.d? I answer, If by _Nature_ is meant only the _visible series_ of effects or sensations imprinted on our minds according to certain fixed and general laws, then it is plain that Nature, taken in this sense, cannot produce anything at all(767). But if by _Nature_ is meant some being distinct from G.o.d, as well as from the laws of nature and things perceived by sense, I must confess that word is to me an empty sound, without any intelligible meaning annexed to it. Nature, in this acceptation, is a vain chimera, introduced by those heathens who had not just notions of the omnipresence and infinite perfection of G.o.d. But it is more unaccountable that it should be received among Christians, professing belief in the Holy Scriptures, which constantly ascribe those effects to the immediate hand of G.o.d that heathen philosophers are wont to impute to Nature. "The Lord, He causeth the vapours to ascend; He maketh lightnings with rain; He bringeth forth the wind out of His treasures." Jerem. x. 13.
"He turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night." Amos v. 8. "He visiteth the earth, and maketh it soft with showers: He blesseth the springing thereof, and crowneth the year with His goodness; so that the pastures are clothed with flocks, and the valleys are covered over with corn." See Psal. lxv. But, notwithstanding that this is the constant language of Scripture, yet we have I know not what aversion from believing that G.o.d concerns Himself so nearly in our affairs. Fain would we suppose Him at a great distance off, and subst.i.tute some blind unthinking deputy in His stead; though (if we may believe Saint Paul) "He be not far from every one of us."
151. It will, I doubt not, be objected that the slow, gradual, and roundabout methods observed in the production of natural things do not seem to have for their cause the _immediate_ hand of an Almighty Agent: besides, monsters, untimely births, fruits blasted in the blossom, rains falling in desert places, miseries incident to human life, and the like, are so many arguments that the whole frame of nature is not immediately actuated and superintended by a Spirit of infinite wisdom and goodness.
But the answer to this objection is in a good measure plain from sect. 62; it being visible that the aforesaid methods of nature are absolutely necessary in order to working by the most simple and general rules, and after a steady and consistent manner; which argues both the wisdom and goodness of G.o.d(768). [(769)For, it doth hence follow that the finger of G.o.d is not so conspicuous to the resolved and careless sinner; which gives him an opportunity to harden in his impiety and grow ripe for vengeance.
(Vid. sect. 57.)] Such is the artificial contrivance of this mighty machine of Nature that, whilst its motions and various phenomena strike on our senses, the Hand which actuates the whole is itself unperceivable to men of flesh and blood. "Verily" (saith the prophet) "thou art a G.o.d that hidest thyself." Isaiah xlv. 15. But, though the Lord conceal Himself from the eyes of the sensual and lazy, who will not be at the least expense of thought(770), yet to an unbia.s.sed and attentive mind, nothing can be more plainly legible than the intimate presence of an All-wise Spirit, who fashions, regulates, and sustains the whole system of Being. It is clear, from what we have elsewhere observed, that the operating according to general and stated laws is so necessary for our guidance in the affairs of life, and letting us into the secret of nature, that without it all reach and compa.s.s of thought, all human sagacity and design, could serve to no manner of purpose. It were even impossible there should be any such faculties or powers in the mind. See sect. 31. Which one consideration abundantly outbalances whatever particular inconveniences may thence arise(771).
152. We should further consider, that the very blemishes and defects of nature are not without their use, in that they make an agreeable sort of variety, and augment the beauty of the rest of the creation, as shades in a picture serve to set off the brighter and more enlightened parts. We would likewise do well to examine, whether our taxing the waste of seeds and embryos, and accidental destruction of plants and animals before they come to full maturity, as an imprudence in the Author of nature, be not the effect of prejudice contracted by our familiarity with impotent and saving mortals. In _man_ indeed a thrifty management of those things which he cannot procure without much pains and industry may be esteemed wisdom.
But we must not imagine that the inexplicably fine machine of an animal or vegetable costs the great Creator any more pains or trouble in its production than a pebble does; nothing being more evident than that an Omnipotent Spirit can indifferently produce everything by a mere _fiat_ or act of his will. Hence it is plain that the splendid profusion of natural things should not be interpreted weakness or prodigality in the Agent who produces them, but rather be looked on as an argument of the riches of His power.
153. As for the mixture of pain or uneasiness which is in the world, pursuant to the general laws of Nature, and the actions of finite, imperfect Spirits, this, in the state we are in at present, is indispensably necessary to our well-being. But our prospects are too narrow. We take, for instance, the idea of some one particular pain into our thoughts, and account it _evil_. Whereas, if we enlarge our view, so as to comprehend the various ends, connexions, and dependencies of things, on what occasions and in what proportions we are affected with pain and pleasure, the nature of human freedom, and the design with which we are put into the world; we shall be forced to acknowledge that those particular things which, considered in themselves, appear to be evil, have the nature of good, when considered as linked with the whole system of beings(772).
154. From what hath been said, it will be manifest to any considering person, that it is merely for want of attention and comprehensiveness of mind that there are any favourers of Atheism or the Manichean Heresy to be found. Little and unreflecting souls may indeed burlesque the works of Providence; the beauty and order whereof they have not capacity, or will not be at the pains, to comprehend(773). But those who are masters of any justness and extent of thought, and are withal used to reflect, can never sufficiently admire the divine traces of Wisdom and Goodness that shine throughout the economy of Nature. But what truth is there which glares so strongly on the mind that, by an aversion of thought, a wilful shutting of the eyes, we may not escape seeing it? Is it therefore to be wondered at, if the generality of men, who are ever intent on business or pleasure, and little used to fix or open the eye of their mind, should not have all that conviction and evidence of the Being of G.o.d which might be expected in reasonable creatures(774)?
155. We should rather wonder that men can be found so stupid as to neglect, than that neglecting they should be unconvinced of such an evident and momentous truth(775). And yet it is to be feared that too many of parts and leisure, who live in Christian countries, are, merely through a supine and dreadful negligence, sunk into a sort of Atheism. [(776)They cannot say there is not a G.o.d, but neither are they convinced that there is. For what else can it be but some lurking infidelity, some secret misgivings of mind with regard to the existence and attributes of G.o.d, which permits sinners to grow and harden in impiety?] Since it is downright impossible that a soul pierced and enlightened with a thorough sense of the omnipresence, holiness, and justice of that Almighty Spirit should persist in a remorseless violation of His laws. We ought, therefore, earnestly to meditate and dwell on those important points; that so we may attain conviction without all scruple "that the eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good; that He is with us and keepeth us in all places whither we go, and giveth us bread to eat and raiment to put on;" that He is present and conscious to our innermost thoughts; and, that we have a most absolute and immediate dependence on Him. A clear view of which great truths cannot choose but fill our hearts with an awful circ.u.mspection and holy fear, which is the strongest incentive to Virtue, and the best guard against Vice.
156. For, after all, what deserves the first place in our studies is, the consideration of G.o.d and our DUTY; which to promote, as it was the main drift and design of my labours, so shall I esteem them altogether useless and ineffectual if, by what I have said, I cannot inspire my readers with a pious sense of the Presence of G.o.d; and, having shewn the falseness or vanity of those barren speculations which make the chief employment of learned men, the better dispose them to reverence and embrace the salutary truths of the Gospel; which to know and to practise is the highest perfection of human nature.
THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND PHILONOUS THE DESIGN OF WHICH IS PLAINLY TO DEMONSTRATE THE REALITY AND PERFECTION OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE, THE INCORPOREAL NATURE OF THE SOUL, AND THE IMMEDIATE PROVIDENCE OF A DEITY, IN OPPOSITION TO SCEPTICS AND ATHEISTS, ALSO TO OPEN A METHOD FOR RENDERING THE SCIENCES MORE EASY, USEFUL, AND COMPENDIOUS
_First published in 1713_
Editor"s Preface
This work is the gem of British metaphysical literature. Berkeley"s claim to be the great modern master of Socratic dialogue rests, perhaps, upon _Alciphron_, which surpa.s.ses the conversations between Hylas and Philonous in expression of individual character, and in dramatic effect. Here conversation is adopted as a convenient way of treating objections to the conception of the reality of Matter which had been unfolded systematically in the book of _Principles_. But the lucid thought, the colouring of fancy, the glow of human sympathy, and the earnestness that pervade the subtle reasonings pursued through these dialogues, are unique in English metaphysical literature. Except perhaps Hume and Ferrier, none approach Berkeley in the art of uniting metaphysical thought with easy, graceful, and transparent style. Our surprise and admiration are increased when we recollect that this charming production of reason and imagination came from Ireland, at a time when that country was scarcely known in the world of letters and philosophy.
The immediate impression produced by the publication of the _Principles_, is shewn in Berkeley"s correspondence with Sir John Percival. Berkeley was eager to hear what people had to say for or against what looked like a paradox apt to shock the reader; but in those days he was not immediately informed by professional critics. "If when you receive my book"-he wrote from Dublin in July, 1710, to Sir John Percival(777), then in London,-"you can procure me the opinion of some of your acquaintances who are thinking men, addicted to the study of natural philosophy and mathematics, I shall be extremely obliged to you." In the following month he was informed by Sir John that it was "incredible what prejudice can work in the best geniuses, even in the lovers of novelty. For I did but name the subject matter of your book of _Principles_ to some ingenious friends of mine and they immediately treated it with ridicule, at the same time refusing to read it, which I have not yet got one to do. A physician of my acquaintance undertook to discover your person, and argued you must needs be mad, and that you ought to take remedies. A bishop pitied you, that a desire of starting something new should put you upon such an undertaking.
Another told me that you are not gone so far as a gentleman in town, who a.s.serts not only that there is no such thing as Matter, but that we ourselves have no being at all."
Berkeley"s reply is interesting. "I am not surprised," he says, "that I should be ridiculed by those who won"t take the pains to understand me. If the raillery and scorn of those who criticise what they will not be at the pains to understand had been sufficient to deter men from making any attempts towards curing the ignorance and errors of mankind, we should not have been troubled with some very fair improvements in knowledge. The common cry"s being against any opinion seems to me, so far from proving false, that it may with as good reason pa.s.s for an argument of its truth.
However, I imagine that whatever doctrine contradicts vulgar and settled opinion had need be introduced with great caution into the world. For this reason it was that I omitted all mention of the non-existence of Matter in the t.i.tle-page, dedication, preface and introduction to the _Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge_; that so the notion might steal unawares upon the reader, who probably might never have meddled with the book if he had known that it contained such paradoxes."
With characteristic fervour he disclaims "variety and love of paradox" as motives of the book of _Principles_, and professes faith in the unreality of abstract unperceived Matter, a faith which he has held for some years, "the conceit being at first warm in my imagination, but since carefully examined, both by my own judgment and that of ingenious friends." What he especially complained of was "that men who have never considered my book should confound me with the sceptics, who doubt the existence of sensible things, and are not positive as to any one truth, no, not so much as their own being-which I find by your letter is the case of some wild visionist now in London. But whoever reads my book with attention will see that there is a direct opposition between the principles that are contained in it and those of the sceptics, and that I question not the existence of anything we perceive by our senses. I do not deny the existence of the sensible things which Moses says were created by G.o.d. They existed from all eternity, in the Divine Intellect; and they became perceptible (i.e.
were created) in the same manner and order as is described in Genesis. For I take creation to belong to things only as they respect finite spirits; there being nothing new to G.o.d. Hence it follows that the act of creation consists in G.o.d"s willing that those things should become perceptible to other spirits which before were known only to Himself. Now both reason and scripture a.s.sure us that there _are_ other spirits besides men, who, "tis possible, might have perceived this visible world as it was successively exhibited to their view before man"s creation. Besides, for to agree with the Mosaic account of the creation, it"s sufficient if we suppose that a man, in case he was existing at the time of the chaos of sensible things, might have perceived all things formed out of it, in the very order set down in scripture; all which is in no way repugnant to my principles."
Sir John in his next letter, written from London in October, 1716, reports that the book of _Principles_ had fallen into the hands of the highest living English authority in metaphysical theology, Samuel Clarke, who had produced his _Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of G.o.d_ four years before. The book had also been read by Whiston, Newton"s successor at Cambridge. "I can only report at second-hand," he says, "that they think you a fair arguer, and a clear writer; but they say your first principles you lay down are false. They look upon you as an extraordinary genius, ranking you with Father Malebranche, Norris, and another whose name I forget, all of whom they think extraordinary men, but of a particular turn of mind, and their labours of little use to mankind, on account of their abstruseness. This may arise from these gentlemen not caring to think after a new manner, which would oblige them to begin their studies anew; or else it may be the strength of prejudice."
Berkeley was vexed by this treatment on the part of Clarke and Whiston. He sent under Sir John"s care a letter to each of them, hoping through him to discover "their reasons against his notions, as truth is his sole aim."
"As to what is said of ranking me with Father Malebranche and Mr. Norris, whose writings are thought to be too fine-spun to be of any great use to mankind, I have this answer, that I think the notions I embrace are not in the least agreeing with theirs, but indeed plainly inconsistent with them in the main points, inasmuch as I know few writers I take myself at bottom to differ more from than from them. Fine-spun metaphysics are what on all occasions I declare against, and if any one shall shew anything of that sort in my Treatise I will willingly correct it." Sir John delivered the letters to two friends of Clarke and Whiston, and reported that "Dr.
Clarke told his friend in reply, that he did not care to write you his thoughts, because he was afraid it might draw him into a dispute upon a matter which was already clear to him. He thought your first principles you go on are false; but he was a modest man, his friend said, and uninclined to shock any one whose opinions on things of this nature differed from his own." This was a disappointment to the ardent Berkeley.
"Dr. Clarke"s conduct seems a little surprising," he replies. "That an ingenious and candid person (as I take him to be) should refuse to shew me where my error lies is something unaccountable. I never expected that a gentleman otherwise so well employed as Dr. Clarke should think it worth his while to enter into a dispute with me concerning any notions of mine.
But, seeing it was clear to him I went upon false principles, I hoped he would vouchsafe, in a line or two, to point them out to me, that so I may more closely review and examine them. If he but once did me this favour, he need not apprehend I should give him any further trouble. I should be glad if you have opportunity that you would let his friend know this.
There is nothing that I more desire than to know thoroughly all that can be said against what I take for truth." Clarke, however, was not to be drawn. The incident is thus referred to by Whiston, in his _Memoirs_ of Clarke. "Mr. Berkeley," he says, "published in 1710, at Dublin, the metaphysical notion, that matter was not a real thing(778); nay, that the common opinion of its reality was groundless, if not ridiculous. He was pleased to send Mr. Clarke and myself each of us a book. After we had perused it, I went to Mr. Clarke to discourse with him about it, to this effect, that I, being not a metaphysician, was not able to answer Mr.
Berkeley"s subtle premises, though I did not believe his absurd conclusions. I therefore desired that he, who was deep in such subtleties, but did not appear to believe Mr. Berkeley"s conclusion, would answer him.
_Which task he declined_."
What Clarke"s criticism of Berkeley might have been is suggested by the following sentences in his _Remarks on Human Liberty_, published seven years after this correspondence: "The case as to the proof of our free agency is exactly the same as in that notable question, whether the [material] world exists or no? There is no demonstration of it from experience. There always remains a bare possibility that the Supreme Being may have so framed my mind, that I shall always be necessarily deceived in every one of my perceptions as in a dream-though possibly there be no material world, nor any other creature existing besides myself. And yet no man in his senses argues from thence, that experience is no proof to us of the existence of things. The bare physical possibility too of our being so framed by the Author of Nature as to be unavoidably deceived in this matter by every experience of every action we perform, is no more any ground to doubt the truth of our liberty, than the bare natural possibility of our being all our lifetime in a dream, deceived in our [natural] belief of the existence of the material world, is any just ground to doubt the reality of its existence." Berkeley would hardly have accepted this a.n.a.logy. Does the conception of a material world being dependent on percipient mind for its reality imply _deception_ on the part of the "Supreme Being"? "Dreams," in ordinary language, may signify illusory fancies during sleep, and so understood the term is misapplied to a universally mind-dependent universe with its steady natural order.
Berkeley disclaims emphatically any doubt of the reality of the sensible world, and professes only to shew in what its reality consists, or its dependence upon percipient life as the indispensable realising factor. To suppose that we can be "necessarily deceived in every one of our perceptions" is to interpret the universe atheistically, and virtually obliges us in final nescience to acknowledge that it is wholly uninterpretable; so that experience is impossible, because throughout unintelligible. The moral trustworthiness or perfect goodness of the Universal Power is I suppose the fundamental postulate of science and human life. If all our temporal experience can be called a dream it must at any rate be a dream of the sort supposed by Leibniz. "Nullo argumento absolute demonstrari potest, dari corpora; nec quidquam prohibet _somnia quaedam bene ordinata_ menti nostrae, objecta esse, quae a n.o.bis vera judicentur, et ob consensum inter se quoad usum veris equivalent(779)."
The three _Dialogues_ discuss what Berkeley regarded as the most plausible Objections, popular and philosophical, to his account of living Mind or Spirit, as the indispensable factor and final cause of the reality of the material world.
The princ.i.p.al aim of the _First Dialogue_ is to ill.u.s.trate the contradictory or unmeaning character and sceptical tendency of the common philosophical opinion-that we perceive in sense a material world which is _real_ only in as far as it can exist in absolute independence of perceiving mind. The impossibility of any of the qualities in which Matter is manifested to man-the primary qualities not less than the secondary-having real existence in a mindless or unspiritual universe is argued and ill.u.s.trated in detail. Abstract Matter, unrealised in terms of percipient life, is meaningless, and the material world becomes real only in and through living perception. And Matter, as an abstract substance without qualities, cannot, without a contradiction, it is also argued, be presented or represented, in sense. What is called _matter_ is thus melted in a spiritual solution, from which it issues the flexible and intelligible medium of intercourse for spiritual beings such as men are; whose faculties moreover are educated in interpreting the cosmical order of the phenomena presented to their senses.
The _Second Dialogue_ is in the first place directed against modifications of the scholastic account of Matter, which attributes our knowledge of it to inference, founded on sense-ideas a.s.sumed to be representative, or not presentative of the reality. The advocates of Matter independent and supreme, are here a.s.sailed in their various conjectures-that this Matter may be the active Cause, or the Instrument, or the Occasion of our sense-experience; or that it is an Unknowable Something somehow connected with that experience. It is argued in this and in the preceding Dialogue, by _Philonous_ (who personates Berkeley), that unrealised Matter-intending by that term either a qualified substance, or a Something of which we cannot affirm anything-is not merely unproved, but a proved impossibility: it must mean nothing, or it must mean a contradiction, which comes to the same thing. It is not _perceived_; nor can it be _suggested_ by what we perceive; nor _demonstrated_ by reasoning; nor _believed in_ as an article in the fundamental faith of intuitive reason. The only consistent theory of the universe accordingly implies that concrete realities must all be either (a) phenomena presented to the senses, or else (b) active spirits percipient of presented phenomena. And neither of these two sorts of concrete realities is strictly speaking independent of the other; although the latter, identical amid the variations of the sensuous phenomena, are deeper and more real than the mere data of the senses. The _Second Dialogue_ ends by subst.i.tuting, as concrete and intelligible Realism, the universal and constant dependence of the material world upon active living Spirit, in place of the abstract hypothetical and unintelligible Realism, which defends Matter unrealised in percipient life, as the type of reality.
In the _Third Dialogue_ plausible objections to this conception of what the reality of the material world means are discussed.