Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous

Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous

The Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous is a text of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley in 1713 which sets out to convince Londoners that intellectuals, far from being extravagant and foolish theses immaterialists are valid and conform to common sense. These dialogues are two characters clash, Hylas, defender of the doctrine materialist (and contrary to that of Berkeley) and Philonous, which only exist for the minds and ideas. In three interviews, Philonous, Berkeley will convince Hylas of the merits of his philosophical arguments.

The third dialogue begins with the despair of Hylas, who was forced to skepticism. However, he hoped to rebut the position Philonous, as Philonous refuted his. In the sentence “A piece of sensible bread, for instance, would stay in my stomach better than ten thousand times as much of that insensible, unintelligible, real bread you speak of”. (p. 163) Berkeley addressed himself to all the objections which could be against his philosophy, there are over 20. These objections are not presented in a clear order. However, they can be grouped thematically: The first group of objections concerns the notion of substance. Berkeley concluded that there is only one type of substance: the spiritual substance, all the rest are ideas which exist in the mind. But the notion of a spiritual substance it is more intelligible than that of a material substance? The second set of objections focuses on what it means to "exist". Is it being able to be seen or is it actually is perceived? Can a mind that perceives may be mistaken about what he sees? Do two minds perceive the same object? The third group of objections relates to natural science. Science is based on the idea that the material world exists independently of our mind. It is based on a metaphysical prejudice. Is that science is still possible with the philosophy of Berkeley? Its claim to explain the inner workings of things is in order? The last group of objections concerns the question of whether God is the cause of the world, according to Berkeley, is perfect enough to be the Christian God. If God is the cause of our ideas, it is because of our pain and our bad deeds, which seems to imply an imperfection.

After answering these objections Berkeley concludes by describing the benefits of its "immaterialism" compared to "materialism". He warns against errors that lead to reject immaterialism. At the end of the dialogue we understand that Philonous is not the skeptic that he seemed to be in the first dialogue: it does not argue that nothing can be known to the world, rather it establishes the reality of our perceptions. The world of Berkeley is not the world of a material substance that we would be unknown; it is not a world where God is absent. God is in immediate contact with the spirits who collect ideas. Either skepticism or atheism cannot overcome; the way is open for common sense ...