April 13, 2026 • 33 mins
What could be more basic than the idea of matter? In this episode, we take a look at the idealism of George Berkeley and his case against matter. You are guaranteed to have your mind blown (and to have your worldview unravel) as you hear an argument that is counter-intuitive but hard to disprove.
Follow Zach:
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Maybe everything is made of ideas.
You're like, we don't drink ideas, we don't smell ideas.
We don't. Are you sure if his system is
right, And I'm certainly not saying it is and most people
don't think it is, but if his system is right, it answers the
mind body problem. It destroys skepticism.
It gives a new proof for the existence of God.
It gives a standard for morals. It solves the issue of what
substances are and it solves almost all the problems in
(00:21):
physics. Hello and welcome again to
everyone's favorite podcast, Ideological.
I'm your host, Zach Lee, and today we have a fascinating
philosophical topic. I'm going to try to convince you
(00:42):
that there's no such thing as matter what mind over matter.
Quite literally, we're going to be looking at the philosophy of
a guy named George Barkley. And by saying that, I'm going to
try to convince you of that. I'm not saying that that's my
position. I'm just saying it's very hard
to disprove. So I'm going to try to convince
you using Barclays arguments that these things in front of
(01:04):
you, the desk, your phone, your car, where whatever it is, is
not actually made of matter. It might be, but I'm at least
going to give you a case that you probably have have never
heard for why it might not actually be made of matter,
which is insane because we thinkeverything is made of matter and
we say what is matter and we saysomething like atoms.
(01:25):
We say what are what are atoms? We're like, well, there's just a
small, small piece of matter andit's kind of a circular
definition That's really terrible.
So today we're going to have that philosophical hot topic and
it should be a ton of fun. Today I'm drinking a mini big
red. They're not a sponsor, so I
don't have any little jokes about them being sponsors.
(01:48):
Big Red soda tastes like, did you ever get it's like one of
the worst candies of all all time.
Candy corn is probably the worst.
Whoever invented candy corn is probably in Dante's like worst
circle of hell. But there's these, there's this
candy called like circus peanuts.
They're kind of orange. They're they're kind of like
hard, gross marshmallows. If you were to melt those and
(02:09):
drink that, that's kind of what,you know, Big Red tastes like.
OK, let's talk about the problemof matter and some problems in
philosophy. And a guy named George Barkley,
not to be confused with Charles Barkley, both excellent
philosophers, both excellent basketball players.
Let me just give you some problems in philosophy.
(02:30):
And Barkley is going to try to put forward a system that's
going to solve all of it. So we're talking about big
ticket philosophy. If he's right, he will basically
solve all the problems in philosophy, but it comes at a
high cost. It comes at common sense undone
because his view seems crazy, but he's actually pretty hard to
disprove. So few things.
First of all, in philosophy, thethe issue of substance, what is
(02:52):
a substance? What are things made of?
How many substances are there? So if you think of a horse and
then you think of the horse losing its hair, well you still
think that's still a horse. It just lost one of its
properties or accidents. It still has its horseness.
If you have a horse and it losesone leg, now you just have a
three legged horse. OK, I don't mean that as the sex
(03:14):
position. You just have a three legged
horse, but you still have a horse.
So the question though is it seems like you can change these
different attributes, these different accidents, these
different properties, but you haven't changed the substance,
horseness, what the horse actually is.
The problem though is you don't ever actually experience
horseness. You see the brownness of the
(03:36):
horse, you can feel the fur. You can hear that sound that it
makes. Nay, how was it going to do like
a really over the top nay, but it was it was going to be pretty
obnoxious. You don't actually see
horseness. You just kind of see the
properties. You just kind of see the
accidents. Well, what what is actually
behind those? Is there anything behind those
guys like David Hume would be like, no, it's just a bundle of
properties. You, you, you idiot.
(03:57):
And and so there's that problem and Barclay's going to tackle
that. There is the problem of
generalization and abstract ideas.
Meaning if you think of some, wehave a tendency to think of like
triangle as this abstract thing.Or we have a tendency to think
of human as this abstract thing.Or even if you get into certain
like platonic forms like goodness or beauty or something
(04:20):
as this abstract thing. The problem is is that that
idea, the abstract ideas might be contradictory.
Meaning think of triangle, not aspecific type of triangle, just
triangleness. Is that thought equilateral or
is it scalene, right? Is it like, is it, you know,
(04:42):
what kind of angles does it have?
It has right and obtuse and acute angles all at the same
time. And it's also like some of these
ideas are going to contradict. I'll give you a great example.
So one of the funniest sitcoms, sitcoms, I don't know if it's a
sitcom. One of the funniest shows is
called Community. It's about these people in
Community College. Highly recommend.
(05:02):
And their mascot for their Community College is the human
beings, but they don't want to pick any individual human being
because that would exclude the others.
So if you pick a white male, you're excluding other races and
women. Or if you pick, you know, an
Asian female, now you're what iswhat is a human being?
How do we turn this into a mascot?
(05:24):
So their mascot ends up being terrifying.
It's this like genderless, faceless race and skin
colorless, like it's just this kind of monster looking thing.
And it's supposed to be the human beings.
And that's kind of making fun ofthis idea that we, we, we come
across individual humans, but wedon't come across humanness.
(05:44):
We come across individual triangles, but we don't come
across triangle Ness. And so how, how, how should we
think of these abstract ideas? How should we think of these,
you know, these, these, these more general things?
He's going to deal with that andthen he'll deal with a bunch of
things. But I'm just trying to summarize
this so it doesn't take forever.He's going to deal with the mind
body problem here. Here's the issue.
(06:04):
How can different substances, that's just what some what
things are made of what, what ultimately there is in the
universe. These different things we call
substances. It's it's what stands under
substance, something's attributes or properties.
How can completely different substances interact?
Meaning how can your mind, whichseems to be immaterial, meaning
(06:26):
you can go get an MRI on your brain and if you're thinking of
a pink elephant, you will not see a tiny physical pink
elephant there. If it was physical, you would,
you'll see, you can see brain chemistry, you can see what's
firing, but you cannot see the pink elephant.
So how does your mind or your thoughts are something that
seems immaterial or God or angels or whatever you believe
in? Like, how can things that are
(06:47):
immaterial interact with things that are material?
Like This is why our friend Casper the Friendly Ghost, you
know, your friend and mine can walk through walls 'cause he
supposedly is this immaterial ghost substance.
And your wall is, I don't know, wood, sheetrock, whatever walls
are made of. So how can these two things
interact? Well, everyone in the early
modern period is trying to answer this question.
(07:09):
You have guys like Spinoza saying, well, everything is just
God or nature. Everything's actually the same
substance. He's a monist.
The way that you're, you know, God and your thoughts and the
table and everything can interact is they're all the same
freaking thing. You've got others like Leibniz
saying, no, actually there's everything's monads, but they're
all completely different. So everything's a completely
different substance and they just are programmed to move in
(07:33):
harmony with one another, even though they're not causally
interacting. You've got guys like Descartes
who never really solves the mindbody problem.
How, how can your immaterial mind move your physical arm?
We it, it's it we don't know. Well, Berkeley is going to take
a view, which is everything is idea.
Everything are either minds thatperceive or things that are
(07:54):
perceived. We'll talk about that in a
second. So I say all that to say boring.
Oh, let's get some of this big red going.
Get some sugar circus peanuts. Delicious.
It's going to make my teeth red for this.
Is the red on my teeth or is thered in your mind?
We're going to talk about it in just a second.
Primary and secondary and tertiary qualities.
OK, so let me give you a quick, very quick, just a biography of
(08:21):
George Barkley and and then we'll talk about some of his
thoughts and we'll talk about why matter might not exist.
That sounds like the most insanething in the world.
What? A second ago when I said maybe
everything is made of ideas. You're like, we don't drink
ideas. We don't smell ideas.
We don't. Are you sure?
We'll talk about it? OK.
George Barkley. Barkley is how you pronounce his
(08:41):
name. It's spelled like Berkeley.
In fact, Berkeley, CA and University of California,
Berkeley are actually named after this guy.
He's a brilliant philosopher. You know, UC Berkeley, like
everybody has like that friend whose name used to be Michael
and now it's Michelle. And he went to UC Berkeley and
he majored in like, existential French feminism or something.
(09:02):
That's not really, you know, an academic field of study, you
know, Berkeley. So Berkeley is named after
Berkeley. It's pronounced Berkeley, but
it's spelled like Berkeley. So I'm going to say Berkeley.
And if I accidentally mess up, don't correct me 'cause I told
you that I already knew. He was born again.
He's not eternal. So many of the characters we go
over in this just fail to have their essence and their
(09:25):
existence be the same thing. You know, it's tough.
March 12th, 1685. He was born in Kilkeny, Ireland
and he was a teaching fellow at Trinity College Dublin, which is
a fantastic school by the way, where he also received his
Bachelor of Arts, his Master of Arts, his Bachelor of Divinity
and his Doctor of Divinity, which was like the equivalent of
a PhD and your habilitation after that.
(09:47):
So very well educated. He is a professor.
He is a religious figure. He is an Irishman.
For a while, he was actually theguy on the box of Lucky Charms,
which is so offensive now. But that's that's a fact.
It's not a fact. That's not true.
This episode's brought you by Lucky Charms.
Lucky Charms 0% real food. OK.
(10:08):
He was a Bishop in Ireland for about 20 years.
He wrote several works of philosophy.
His most famous, though, I'm going to give you 2 that
there's, I mean, he's, he's an exceptionally clear writer.
So if you're new to philosophy, you'll really like this guy
because he is, he's an exceptional communicator.
When you read certain people, Hegel, Wright or Derrida or
(10:30):
Heidegger or Kant, really, really terrible writers,
brilliant thinkers, terrible, terrible writers.
Like they could say it clearer than they do.
But Berkeley does a great job ofdoing that, of of writing
clearly unlike that sentence I just said, A Treatise concerning
the Principles of Human Knowledge is one of his big
works. And then three dialogues between
Hylas and Filonus. So those names by the way, are
(10:54):
based on Greek words. Hylas comes from Hulay and
Greek, which means matter or would also, and Filonus which
means lover of the mind or loverof ideas.
And so you can see that these two people are going to go back
and forth, the matter guy and the idea guy.
We will talk about them soon. And by them I mean what they
stand for. He died again.
(11:15):
Unfortunately, he's not still around.
He died January 14th, 1753 in Oxford.
OK. His life is not as exciting as a
lot of other philosophers. I want to spend time though
today on his big ideas and hopefully blow your mind.
Are you ready to have your mind blown?
OK, let me give you a few. The first one I've already
mentioned. So, so the, the, the first one
(11:36):
at the beginning when I said there's these problems in
philosophy of thinking of abstract ideas, right?
Like if I just say think of a generic human, but not a
specific human, not one that's white or black or Asian or
Hispanic, not one that's male orfemale, not one that's tall or
short. What can you think of?
If I say think of a triangle, but not one that's equilateral,
not one that's scalene, not one that's like I just, it's, it
(11:57):
starts to become think of a number, not any particular
number, not one or seven or 2006, just think of number.
You're like, it's very difficult.
So he thinks so many of our problems come from this false
notion of abstract ideas. What we do is we get individual
perceptions, individual ideas, particular ideas, and then we
(12:18):
generalize and try to make this idea that there is these
abstract ideas. But we make a mistake when we do
that because we're taking these particulars, removing their
particularity and trying to makethem abstract.
He says this and principles of human knowledge, an idea which
considered in itself is particular, becomes general by
being made to represent or standfor all other particular ideas
(12:40):
of the same sort. That's where it comes from.
He also thinks a lot of our philosophy, and this kind of is
a precursor to analytic, analytic philosophy.
He thinks a lot of our problems in philosophy are due to a
misuse of language, especially when it comes to abstract ideas.
OK, now we're at the thing I wanted to talk about.
This episode won't be super long, but now we're at the thing
I wanted to talk about. He believes that there is no
(13:04):
such thing as matter. OK.
We have a tendency to think basically everything's made of
matter. Everything that you can see and
taste and touch and feel that you can do an experiment on
through the scientific method. We think those things are made
of matter. And some people that's think
that's all that exists, they're just materialists, everything
(13:24):
just matter. Others think that there are
immaterial things, maybe numbers, propositions, God, a
soul, you know, these kind of things that that would not be
made of matter that you could not see under a microscope or
something like that. That leads to a weird duality.
And so Barclay's like, I'm just going to solve this.
Everything is not made of matter.
Everything is made of idea. What does that mean?
(13:46):
Let me explain what it means because as soon as you hear
that, it just sounds ridiculous.Here's what he means, though.
This is very important. He's not saying that everything
is like ethereal. He's not saying that if you stub
your toe, it won't really hurt. He's not saying that things
aren't solid. There was a, there was a critic
of of Barkley named Samuel Johnson that said, I refute
(14:09):
Barkley thus and he kicked a rock.
Barkley's way too smart for that, that that's that's not his
point. He's not saying that they're
somehow less real. We think of ideas as like these
floaty things in our heads and then like a rock is like a
that's real. It's hard.
It hurts if you throw it and hitsomebody or whatever it is.
That's not what he means. Here's what he means.
Pay attention. This is very important.
(14:29):
By matter he means this abstractnotion that nobody has actually
perceived. Nobody's just perceived matter.
We perceive a table, we perceivea tree, we perceive water, we
perceive the human arm. We don't perceive matter.
Even if you cut it down into andyou think these actually exist.
(14:52):
These might just be hypotheticalentities though, quarks or atoms
or whatever. Cool.
You're you're just seeing quarksand atoms.
You're not seeing matter. And so he thinks that matter,
what we mean by matter and philosophy is a misuse of words.
What we mean is we mean something that is never
perceived by any mind. OK, We have a tendency to think
that there was no humans, there was no creatures that, you know,
(15:14):
are cognizant and there was no God or anything like that, that
there would still be these things out floating around in
space called matter. And he thinks, how would you
know that? How on earth would you prove
that things exist unperceived? Everything you know you've
somehow perceived it's being perceived by you or somebody
(15:36):
else. So pause and pay attention.
This is this is very important. This clarifier will make this
make way more sense. He does not mean matter equals
hard things that are real and ideas equal floaty things and
everything's just an idea. So an idea knife won't stab you.
That's not what he means. What he means is by matter.
He means things that are not perceived, that are abstract in
(15:56):
general. And by ideas, listen, he just
means things that are perceived by some mind.
That's what he means by idea. OK.
So when you define it that way, it starts to make a little bit
more sense. I have a tendency to think that
this big red can is made of matter, right?
(16:17):
Some sort of aluminum or whatever cans are made out of.
I can feel it. It's cold.
It's nice. I can, you know, I can taste it.
That's disgusting. So it's like the Arby's of of
sodas, but I think it's matter. But here, notice what I'm doing.
I'm perceiving it right now. I see it, I touch it with my
(16:40):
hand, I taste it with my taste buds.
Whatever it is, it's not in any way just this thing that is not
perceived. What he defines as matter, it's
actually being perceived a lot. Think of it this way.
Name something that you know that exists, that no one has
ever perceived in their mind or through their senses.
(17:03):
Well, that's really hard to do. Well, I've never seen a Unicorn.
OK, But all you've done is you've seen a horse and you've
seen wings, and you just put it together in your mind, and even
right now you're thinking of it,so you're perceiving it.
Well, there's this computer in front of me and I can see it, so
I'm perceiving it. Like, how would you prove that
something exists, matter that noone has ever perceived?
(17:26):
As soon as you perceived it, it would now be perceived, which
makes it an idea in Barclays definition and requires some
mind. Let's back up.
When I touch this table, I have a table in front of me.
You can't see it, but the computer's not just floating.
You'll just have to take my wordfor it.
I have a table, a desk in front of me.
(17:47):
When I touch this desk, OK, I'm not actually touching the desk.
My nerve endings don't extend into the wood of the desk.
When I push my hand on the desk,I'm not feeling the desk.
Technically I'm feeling my hand.The desk is pushed.
I'm not saying the desk doesn't exist, but I'm saying the desk
is pushing on my hand and the nerve endings run up my arm to
(18:10):
my brain and I have a sensation of feeling the desk.
If you cut your hand, the pain and the things that are telling
your body about pain are actually going up, going on up
here in your head. But you don't feel the pain in
your head. You feel it in your hand.
OK, I cannot actually get to this table.
I can only get to my thought table.
(18:31):
I can only get to the table as Iperceive it.
I can feel it, but I can't feel the table.
I can only feel as far as my hand goes.
All my experiences are skin in. I can see the table, but when I
do that, I'm not actually seeingit with my eyes.
I'm seeing it with my mind. If you took a person, removed
their brain, and they still had eyes and you put something in
front of them, they could not see it.
(18:51):
You see it in your brain or in your mind, however you want to
define that physical or not physical, but you're not.
I'm not. I can't get to the table itself.
I have the table as I perceive it through my eyes.
I have the table as I feel it with my hands, but all I have is
the perceived table. I have the thought table.
I can, I can lick the table. I'm just kidding.
(19:12):
I didn't do that. I can lick the table.
And again, I that's still something I'm perceiving.
It's still something where I'm using my senses.
I can't get to the actual thing itself.
I can only get to my perception of the thing.
And when you have that, it leadsto absolute skepticism.
How do I know that the table is the same to me as it is to you?
Right. Like if you ever played this
(19:34):
game where if you put your brainin someone else's body, maybe
what they think is green is actually what you see is yellow.
But you just always called it that your whole life and been
taught that your whole life, so you wouldn't actually know.
It's that we we can't get to thethings as they are in
themselves. We can only get to our
experience of the thing. And that leads to all kinds of
skepticism. How do I know that the table in
my mind is like the real table? How do I know that, you know
(19:55):
other people exist except Barclays going to solve that by
saying, oh, that that's all there is.
They're just perceived things. They're perceived things.
There is a table. And if I walk out of this room?
If no one is perceiving this table, then it disappears.
It's not a thing. And if you say no, it doesn't,
(20:16):
Zach, it doesn't disappear. It's still there.
Why do you think that? Well, because when I was in the
room and I perceived it, it was there.
I know. But when you leave the room and
you're no longer perceiving it, why the flying?
Do you think it's still there? Right.
It makes no sense to say. When I'm in a room, I see a
table and I know it exists. I walk out of the room and I
(20:36):
think it still exists. Why?
Well, because had I been perceiving it, I think it would
still be there. And you go check.
Well, now you're perceiving it again.
And then you leave. We're asking what about when
you're not perceiving it? So have you ever heard this
thing? So, so take a breath.
This is this is some deep stuff,but it's, it's very hard to
argue against. But it seems like it should not
be right. And it probably I, I don't know
(20:57):
if it's right or not. Who cares?
I don't give my view a lot of times on this show.
Big Red, the Arby's of cancerousliquids.
Let's take a break and back up and let me say it another way.
Have you ever heard this phrase?If a tree falls in the forest
and there is nobody around, nobody to hear it, does it still
(21:20):
make a sound? That idea is very much related
to what we're talking about hereat Barkley.
You have a tendency to think that if a tree falls in the
forest that it would make a sound.
Do you know why? Because every other time you've
seen and perceived and heard a tree fall in the forest, you
heard a sound. That's not the question.
The question is, does it make a sound when nobody is there to
(21:44):
hear it? You have to hear sounds.
We're not asking does it move the air?
It creates airwaves. But if there is no ear to hear
it, then there is no sound. And you say, no, I think it
still makes a sound. Why?
Because every time I've, you know, been around a tree that
fell, I heard it. Agreed.
What about when you're not there, though?
All you're talking about is a perceived tree.
(22:04):
All you're talking about is a tree that you did hear.
We're talking about a tree that nobody hears.
What on earth do you do with that?
OK, This is where he has his idea, and it's a famous phrase
with him. It's it's this phrase SES per
Kippy. To be is to be perceived.
What Barkley's trying to say is not that things are just
(22:27):
squishy, not that we're all justliving in a dream or something
weird. He's simply trying to say this.
When philosophers define matter in this this substance, they're
kind of defining something that no one's ever perceived.
It's like this mythical thing. And so he's saying my idea is
not crazy. The idea of matter's crazy.
This idea of this unperceived stuff, What is it if it's
(22:48):
unperceived, Right. Like what?
How would we know about it? You, you just have this weird
mythical stuff called matter that makes no sense.
What we have are things we perceive.
They're perceived by our minds or perceived by some mind.
OK, great. Barkley, what?
What is your view that if I leave, I'm, I'm observing the
table, and if I leave the room, no one's perceiving it.
Are you saying that the table disappears?
(23:08):
He's like, no, the table's stilltotally there because God is
perceiving it all the time. Not only are there other minds
probably perceiving this table, maybe there's some bugs in this
room. I hope not.
Maybe there's some bugs in this room.
Maybe a squirrel runs by and perceives the table.
But even if there are no createdminds that are viewing things,
God is viewing things all the time.
(23:30):
So God is a divine mind and he is perceiving everything all the
time, so it keeps it in existence.
And we are finite created minds to Berkeley.
And when we perceive something, we also get to perceive it.
But God is perceiving it all thetime, so it doesn't just
disappear. So in his mind, the only things
that exist there are minds. God's eternal and ours created.
(23:52):
There are minds that that are active and will, and then there
are ideas, these things that arepassive, that minds perceive,
and that's all that exists. Everything is idea.
This is why I'll say things likean idea can be nothing can be
like nothing but an idea. Let me give you an example.
(24:13):
So with guys like Locke, they'llseparate different kinds of
qualities and things. There's primary qualities like
extension or solidity, what he thinks are in objects
themselves. There's secondary qualities,
right, like color and these kindof things.
And, and, and what he does is hestarts dividing up what things
like, like what qualities thingshave in and of themselves, like
(24:34):
what qualities this can has in and of itself versus what
qualities are actually in my mind.
And what Barclay's trying to sayis they're the same damn thing.
Like you don't ever just see extension or solidity.
It's extension of a certain color.
It has a certain, you know, density.
Is that the right word? And it has these other thing,
(24:55):
like you don't just see extension, you see a certain
type of extension, again, a particular that you perceive.
So let me say it another way. So for somebody like, like
Locke, let's use this example. Do you think that warmth is in a
fire? You're probably saying, yeah, I
think warmth's in a fire. And I say why?
And you say, well, when I put myhand closer to the fire, I feel
(25:15):
more warmth. And I say, great, keep putting
your hand even closer to the fire.
And you say, oh, I felt pain. And I said, OK, do you think
pain's in the fire? Like why did you say warmth is
in the fire but not pain? Because you said your hand was
by it. You felt warmth.
And it goes a little bit further.
You feel pain. And you say that's in you, not
in the fire. Why one and not the other?
(25:35):
You're doing the same thing. And the point of that is to say,
OK, there's, there seem to be some things that are in you that
are perceived by your mind. What Barclay's trying to say is
everything that exists is, is perceived by your mind, right?
Like it's not just the warmth orthe pain.
In that example, you're seeing the fire like you're smelling
(25:57):
the fire, but like there is no fire apart from its perceptible
attributes anyway, or, or another one.
So, so like Locke would distinguish color as something
in your mind, not in the thing itself.
So we like to think that this big red can again is is red
itself, but that red is actuallyin your mind.
(26:17):
Why? Well, you'll notice there's not
a big streak of red right here. So how on earth am I seeing it?
Well, light is bouncing off of it going into my eyes, being
interpreted by my brain, and I see it as red.
You can't say that the red is inthe can because a color blind
person would see it and say it'sa different color.
Animals that don't see in color would say it's a different
(26:38):
color. You can have certain things
happen to your brain, injuries and stuff where you don't see
things as the right color. So if it's changeable, notice I
can't really just change the shape of the can in my mind.
I mean, I can through a thought,I can change it.
But like as I perceive it, that seems to be in the can itself.
But the the color is in me, right?
(26:58):
It's it's it's way over here. And yet in my mind, I'm still
able to see it as red. But there's no red streak right
here that's actually physically causing that to happen.
Well, anyway, Berkeley thinks all that doesn't make sense.
He thinks that you shouldn't separate primary from secondary
from tertiary qualities. You should just say all the
qualities are what we can perceive.
OK, Hope some of that blows yourmind.
(27:20):
Just wrecks. You're like, wait, what is
happening? I can't see the like.
I can't get to the can. I can only get to my thought
can. Yeah.
But maybe that's the only can that exist.
And that's Berkeley's point, Right?
And so that way you don't have to be a skeptic.
You can know that you're what you, what you perceive is is
knowable. OK, He says this So, so, so this
(27:46):
is what's tricky with his idea. OK, OK, great.
Berkeley thinks everything is idea.
It's perceived always by God's mind.
It's also can be perceived by other smaller minds like us or
animals or bugs or whatever. Cool.
That's awesome. So that seems like he's saying
that we've already talked about that I have a desk and if I
leave the office and no one's perceiving it, the desk
(28:08):
disappears. But again, he's thinking that
that would be true if God didn'texist.
So he says this. This is also in principles of
human knowledge, that consequently, so long as they
are not actually perceived by me, or do not exist in my mind
or that of any other created spirit, they must either have no
existence at all or else subsistin the mind of some eternal
(28:29):
spirit. That's his point.
He is saying that if there was no God and no other minds
perceiving the table, you would have to step out of the room and
wonder whether or not it actually still existed because
nothing's perceiving it. Again, when you step back in the
room and see it, you're perceiving it again.
That's not the question. The question is it still there
when no one's perceiving it? And if so, what is it matter?
Cool. What's matter?
(28:50):
We don't know. It's this colorless, tasteless,
shapeless. It's like the human being from,
you know, community. Like it's, it's so generic that
it doesn't actually stand for anyone particular human.
Let me give you a summary. He says this in three dialogues.
This is kind of a summary of hiswhole system, which I think is a
(29:11):
is a helpful, helpful summary tohave here.
He says those things they immediately perceive are the
real things. And the latter that are things
immediately perceived are ideas which exist only in the mind.
That's a pretty good summary of what he what he's saying.
OK, I want to read you. I don't know, hold on.
First of all, I think there's a lot of a lot of sound going on.
(29:32):
Somebody's doing some, some yardwork.
Somebody's doing some yard work outside.
I want to read you a quote that is very famous.
It's written by Ronald Knox. I've actually included it here
in, you know, my book was what some would say is the best intro
to philosophy ever written. Let's see who endorsed this
book. Nelson Mandela endorsed this
book. Looks like Taylor Swift endorsed
it. She said, I didn't understand
(29:53):
this 'cause I'm a little ditzy, but maybe one day you'll be more
famous than me. Thanks, Tay.
Tay. That's what he that's what she
lets me call her. And I've got a little section on
here. Here's the quote.
Or the famous Limerick by a guy named Ronald Knox about
Berkeley. Listen to this Limerick.
It's fantastic. There was a young man who said
God must find it exceedingly oddto think that the tree should
(30:16):
continue to be when there's no one about in the quad.
Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd.
I'm always about in the quad andthat's why the tree will
continue to be since observed byyours faithfully.
God, it's a fantastic quote justto they just describes Barclays
system. He's trying to say that even
(30:38):
when you're not in the quad, this, you know, area outside of
a building, whatever, God is still observing the tree.
And that's how you know that it still exists.
Now, let me tell you why Berkeley's such a big deal if
his system is right, and I'm certainly not saying it is and
most people don't think it is, but if his system is right, it
answers the mind body problem. It destroys skepticism.
It gives a new proof for the existence of God.
(30:59):
It gives a standard for morals. It solves the issue of what
substances are, and it solves almost all the problems in
physics. So when I say he is a formidable
philosopher, he's amazing. But there's some problems with
this system. Let me give you a few.
The biggest one people bring up,I think, is absolutely asinine.
(31:19):
And it's this, well, that soundsweird.
Who cares if it's not like if, if all the logic and all of the
demonstration, all the argumentation point in some
direction, You have to consider it.
Not saying he's right, but I'm just saying you can't dismiss an
argument because it's weird. Every view's weird.
I mean, Berkeley would flip thison you and say your idea of
unperceived matter, which feels like some sort of fairy tale,
(31:40):
stuff like that is weird. So you can't just say it's
weird. The bigger problems are this.
Is there some circularity in hissystem?
Is the concept of God also in your mind?
Is that something that you're perceiving?
Or how do you know other humans exist?
You might be a mind, but it might lead to syllabusism and
there are no other minds. Also, a lot of people critique
(32:05):
him because he believes that allthe things that we perceive are
ideas, but he also thinks that there are minds that are
perceiving them. So there's two kinds of things,
minds and ideas, the perceiver and the thing that is perceived.
Well, how do you know that there's a perceiver?
Guys like Hume will critique this idea by saying, wait, we
just have this stream of experiences.
We don't necessarily have a soulor an US or a self.
(32:28):
How could you? And he, he tries to deal with
this some in some of his works, Berkeley does where he's like,
listen, you can't think of mindslike an idea because then they
would be idea. They'd be things that are
perceived. They're the things that do the
perceiving. It's something that I have that
allows me to see the other stuff.
It's not the stuff itself. Does that create some sort of
division, some sort of bifurcation between minds and
(32:50):
and ideas? So what do you think of our boy
Berkeley? Do you think there's such a
thing as matter? If so, what do you mean?
Because I bet as soon as you start defining matter, you're
going to start defining things that people have perceived with
their senses. And then you're back to an idea
because again, you only perceivethrough your senses in your
mind. All your senses go back to your
mind. What do you think about Barkley?
(33:11):
He's common sense undone. He's really smart.
His idea is crazy. It if it works, it solves a lot
of problems. It seems very counterintuitive.
Post in the comments, quick click, retweet, regram.
Like put it on your Myspace withyour Papa Roach song.
Add it to Wolf or whatever that one is WOOF from the office, I
(33:35):
think or whatever. So thanks for joining us.
Let me know your thoughts on matter and ideas and we will
talk to you next time.
Maybe everything is made of ideas.
You're like, we don't drink ideas, we don't smell ideas.
We don't. Are you sure if his system is
right, And I'm certainly not saying it is and most people
don't think it is, but if his system is right, it answers the
mind body problem. It destroys skepticism.
It gives a new proof for the existence of God.
It gives a standard for morals. It solves the issue of what
substances are and it solves almost all the problems in
(00:21):
physics. Hello and welcome again to
everyone's favorite podcast, Ideological.
I'm your host, Zach Lee, and today we have a fascinating
philosophical topic. I'm going to try to convince you
(00:42):
that there's no such thing as matter what mind over matter.
Quite literally, we're going to be looking at the philosophy of
a guy named George Barkley. And by saying that, I'm going to
try to convince you of that. I'm not saying that that's my
position. I'm just saying it's very hard
to disprove. So I'm going to try to convince
you using Barclays arguments that these things in front of
(01:04):
you, the desk, your phone, your car, where whatever it is, is
not actually made of matter. It might be, but I'm at least
going to give you a case that you probably have have never
heard for why it might not actually be made of matter,
which is insane because we thinkeverything is made of matter and
we say what is matter and we saysomething like atoms.
(01:25):
We say what are what are atoms? We're like, well, there's just a
small, small piece of matter andit's kind of a circular
definition That's really terrible.
So today we're going to have that philosophical hot topic and
it should be a ton of fun. Today I'm drinking a mini big
red. They're not a sponsor, so I
don't have any little jokes about them being sponsors.
(01:48):
Big Red soda tastes like, did you ever get it's like one of
the worst candies of all all time.
Candy corn is probably the worst.
Whoever invented candy corn is probably in Dante's like worst
circle of hell. But there's these, there's this
candy called like circus peanuts.
They're kind of orange. They're they're kind of like
hard, gross marshmallows. If you were to melt those and
(02:09):
drink that, that's kind of what,you know, Big Red tastes like.
OK, let's talk about the problemof matter and some problems in
philosophy. And a guy named George Barkley,
not to be confused with Charles Barkley, both excellent
philosophers, both excellent basketball players.
Let me just give you some problems in philosophy.
(02:30):
And Barkley is going to try to put forward a system that's
going to solve all of it. So we're talking about big
ticket philosophy. If he's right, he will basically
solve all the problems in philosophy, but it comes at a
high cost. It comes at common sense undone
because his view seems crazy, but he's actually pretty hard to
disprove. So few things.
First of all, in philosophy, thethe issue of substance, what is
(02:52):
a substance? What are things made of?
How many substances are there? So if you think of a horse and
then you think of the horse losing its hair, well you still
think that's still a horse. It just lost one of its
properties or accidents. It still has its horseness.
If you have a horse and it losesone leg, now you just have a
three legged horse. OK, I don't mean that as the sex
(03:14):
position. You just have a three legged
horse, but you still have a horse.
So the question though is it seems like you can change these
different attributes, these different accidents, these
different properties, but you haven't changed the substance,
horseness, what the horse actually is.
The problem though is you don't ever actually experience
horseness. You see the brownness of the
(03:36):
horse, you can feel the fur. You can hear that sound that it
makes. Nay, how was it going to do like
a really over the top nay, but it was it was going to be pretty
obnoxious. You don't actually see
horseness. You just kind of see the
properties. You just kind of see the
accidents. Well, what what is actually
behind those? Is there anything behind those
guys like David Hume would be like, no, it's just a bundle of
properties. You, you, you idiot.
(03:57):
And and so there's that problem and Barclay's going to tackle
that. There is the problem of
generalization and abstract ideas.
Meaning if you think of some, wehave a tendency to think of like
triangle as this abstract thing.Or we have a tendency to think
of human as this abstract thing.Or even if you get into certain
like platonic forms like goodness or beauty or something
(04:20):
as this abstract thing. The problem is is that that
idea, the abstract ideas might be contradictory.
Meaning think of triangle, not aspecific type of triangle, just
triangleness. Is that thought equilateral or
is it scalene, right? Is it like, is it, you know,
(04:42):
what kind of angles does it have?
It has right and obtuse and acute angles all at the same
time. And it's also like some of these
ideas are going to contradict. I'll give you a great example.
So one of the funniest sitcoms, sitcoms, I don't know if it's a
sitcom. One of the funniest shows is
called Community. It's about these people in
Community College. Highly recommend.
(05:02):
And their mascot for their Community College is the human
beings, but they don't want to pick any individual human being
because that would exclude the others.
So if you pick a white male, you're excluding other races and
women. Or if you pick, you know, an
Asian female, now you're what iswhat is a human being?
How do we turn this into a mascot?
(05:24):
So their mascot ends up being terrifying.
It's this like genderless, faceless race and skin
colorless, like it's just this kind of monster looking thing.
And it's supposed to be the human beings.
And that's kind of making fun ofthis idea that we, we, we come
across individual humans, but wedon't come across humanness.
(05:44):
We come across individual triangles, but we don't come
across triangle Ness. And so how, how, how should we
think of these abstract ideas? How should we think of these,
you know, these, these, these more general things?
He's going to deal with that andthen he'll deal with a bunch of
things. But I'm just trying to summarize
this so it doesn't take forever.He's going to deal with the mind
body problem here. Here's the issue.
(06:04):
How can different substances, that's just what some what
things are made of what, what ultimately there is in the
universe. These different things we call
substances. It's it's what stands under
substance, something's attributes or properties.
How can completely different substances interact?
Meaning how can your mind, whichseems to be immaterial, meaning
(06:26):
you can go get an MRI on your brain and if you're thinking of
a pink elephant, you will not see a tiny physical pink
elephant there. If it was physical, you would,
you'll see, you can see brain chemistry, you can see what's
firing, but you cannot see the pink elephant.
So how does your mind or your thoughts are something that
seems immaterial or God or angels or whatever you believe
in? Like, how can things that are
(06:47):
immaterial interact with things that are material?
Like This is why our friend Casper the Friendly Ghost, you
know, your friend and mine can walk through walls 'cause he
supposedly is this immaterial ghost substance.
And your wall is, I don't know, wood, sheetrock, whatever walls
are made of. So how can these two things
interact? Well, everyone in the early
modern period is trying to answer this question.
(07:09):
You have guys like Spinoza saying, well, everything is just
God or nature. Everything's actually the same
substance. He's a monist.
The way that you're, you know, God and your thoughts and the
table and everything can interact is they're all the same
freaking thing. You've got others like Leibniz
saying, no, actually there's everything's monads, but they're
all completely different. So everything's a completely
different substance and they just are programmed to move in
(07:33):
harmony with one another, even though they're not causally
interacting. You've got guys like Descartes
who never really solves the mindbody problem.
How, how can your immaterial mind move your physical arm?
We it, it's it we don't know. Well, Berkeley is going to take
a view, which is everything is idea.
Everything are either minds thatperceive or things that are
(07:54):
perceived. We'll talk about that in a
second. So I say all that to say boring.
Oh, let's get some of this big red going.
Get some sugar circus peanuts. Delicious.
It's going to make my teeth red for this.
Is the red on my teeth or is thered in your mind?
We're going to talk about it in just a second.
Primary and secondary and tertiary qualities.
OK, so let me give you a quick, very quick, just a biography of
(08:21):
George Barkley and and then we'll talk about some of his
thoughts and we'll talk about why matter might not exist.
That sounds like the most insanething in the world.
What? A second ago when I said maybe
everything is made of ideas. You're like, we don't drink
ideas. We don't smell ideas.
We don't. Are you sure?
We'll talk about it? OK.
George Barkley. Barkley is how you pronounce his
(08:41):
name. It's spelled like Berkeley.
In fact, Berkeley, CA and University of California,
Berkeley are actually named after this guy.
He's a brilliant philosopher. You know, UC Berkeley, like
everybody has like that friend whose name used to be Michael
and now it's Michelle. And he went to UC Berkeley and
he majored in like, existential French feminism or something.
(09:02):
That's not really, you know, an academic field of study, you
know, Berkeley. So Berkeley is named after
Berkeley. It's pronounced Berkeley, but
it's spelled like Berkeley. So I'm going to say Berkeley.
And if I accidentally mess up, don't correct me 'cause I told
you that I already knew. He was born again.
He's not eternal. So many of the characters we go
over in this just fail to have their essence and their
(09:25):
existence be the same thing. You know, it's tough.
March 12th, 1685. He was born in Kilkeny, Ireland
and he was a teaching fellow at Trinity College Dublin, which is
a fantastic school by the way, where he also received his
Bachelor of Arts, his Master of Arts, his Bachelor of Divinity
and his Doctor of Divinity, which was like the equivalent of
a PhD and your habilitation after that.
(09:47):
So very well educated. He is a professor.
He is a religious figure. He is an Irishman.
For a while, he was actually theguy on the box of Lucky Charms,
which is so offensive now. But that's that's a fact.
It's not a fact. That's not true.
This episode's brought you by Lucky Charms.
Lucky Charms 0% real food. OK.
(10:08):
He was a Bishop in Ireland for about 20 years.
He wrote several works of philosophy.
His most famous, though, I'm going to give you 2 that
there's, I mean, he's, he's an exceptionally clear writer.
So if you're new to philosophy, you'll really like this guy
because he is, he's an exceptional communicator.
When you read certain people, Hegel, Wright or Derrida or
(10:30):
Heidegger or Kant, really, really terrible writers,
brilliant thinkers, terrible, terrible writers.
Like they could say it clearer than they do.
But Berkeley does a great job ofdoing that, of of writing
clearly unlike that sentence I just said, A Treatise concerning
the Principles of Human Knowledge is one of his big
works. And then three dialogues between
Hylas and Filonus. So those names by the way, are
(10:54):
based on Greek words. Hylas comes from Hulay and
Greek, which means matter or would also, and Filonus which
means lover of the mind or loverof ideas.
And so you can see that these two people are going to go back
and forth, the matter guy and the idea guy.
We will talk about them soon. And by them I mean what they
stand for. He died again.
(11:15):
Unfortunately, he's not still around.
He died January 14th, 1753 in Oxford.
OK. His life is not as exciting as a
lot of other philosophers. I want to spend time though
today on his big ideas and hopefully blow your mind.
Are you ready to have your mind blown?
OK, let me give you a few. The first one I've already
mentioned. So, so the, the, the first one
(11:36):
at the beginning when I said there's these problems in
philosophy of thinking of abstract ideas, right?
Like if I just say think of a generic human, but not a
specific human, not one that's white or black or Asian or
Hispanic, not one that's male orfemale, not one that's tall or
short. What can you think of?
If I say think of a triangle, but not one that's equilateral,
not one that's scalene, not one that's like I just, it's, it
(11:57):
starts to become think of a number, not any particular
number, not one or seven or 2006, just think of number.
You're like, it's very difficult.
So he thinks so many of our problems come from this false
notion of abstract ideas. What we do is we get individual
perceptions, individual ideas, particular ideas, and then we
(12:18):
generalize and try to make this idea that there is these
abstract ideas. But we make a mistake when we do
that because we're taking these particulars, removing their
particularity and trying to makethem abstract.
He says this and principles of human knowledge, an idea which
considered in itself is particular, becomes general by
being made to represent or standfor all other particular ideas
(12:40):
of the same sort. That's where it comes from.
He also thinks a lot of our philosophy, and this kind of is
a precursor to analytic, analytic philosophy.
He thinks a lot of our problems in philosophy are due to a
misuse of language, especially when it comes to abstract ideas.
OK, now we're at the thing I wanted to talk about.
This episode won't be super long, but now we're at the thing
I wanted to talk about. He believes that there is no
(13:04):
such thing as matter. OK.
We have a tendency to think basically everything's made of
matter. Everything that you can see and
taste and touch and feel that you can do an experiment on
through the scientific method. We think those things are made
of matter. And some people that's think
that's all that exists, they're just materialists, everything
(13:24):
just matter. Others think that there are
immaterial things, maybe numbers, propositions, God, a
soul, you know, these kind of things that that would not be
made of matter that you could not see under a microscope or
something like that. That leads to a weird duality.
And so Barclay's like, I'm just going to solve this.
Everything is not made of matter.
Everything is made of idea. What does that mean?
(13:46):
Let me explain what it means because as soon as you hear
that, it just sounds ridiculous.Here's what he means, though.
This is very important. He's not saying that everything
is like ethereal. He's not saying that if you stub
your toe, it won't really hurt. He's not saying that things
aren't solid. There was a, there was a critic
of of Barkley named Samuel Johnson that said, I refute
(14:09):
Barkley thus and he kicked a rock.
Barkley's way too smart for that, that that's that's not his
point. He's not saying that they're
somehow less real. We think of ideas as like these
floaty things in our heads and then like a rock is like a
that's real. It's hard.
It hurts if you throw it and hitsomebody or whatever it is.
That's not what he means. Here's what he means.
Pay attention. This is very important.
(14:29):
By matter he means this abstractnotion that nobody has actually
perceived. Nobody's just perceived matter.
We perceive a table, we perceivea tree, we perceive water, we
perceive the human arm. We don't perceive matter.
Even if you cut it down into andyou think these actually exist.
(14:52):
These might just be hypotheticalentities though, quarks or atoms
or whatever. Cool.
You're you're just seeing quarksand atoms.
You're not seeing matter. And so he thinks that matter,
what we mean by matter and philosophy is a misuse of words.
What we mean is we mean something that is never
perceived by any mind. OK, We have a tendency to think
that there was no humans, there was no creatures that, you know,
(15:14):
are cognizant and there was no God or anything like that, that
there would still be these things out floating around in
space called matter. And he thinks, how would you
know that? How on earth would you prove
that things exist unperceived? Everything you know you've
somehow perceived it's being perceived by you or somebody
(15:36):
else. So pause and pay attention.
This is this is very important. This clarifier will make this
make way more sense. He does not mean matter equals
hard things that are real and ideas equal floaty things and
everything's just an idea. So an idea knife won't stab you.
That's not what he means. What he means is by matter.
He means things that are not perceived, that are abstract in
(15:56):
general. And by ideas, listen, he just
means things that are perceived by some mind.
That's what he means by idea. OK.
So when you define it that way, it starts to make a little bit
more sense. I have a tendency to think that
this big red can is made of matter, right?
(16:17):
Some sort of aluminum or whatever cans are made out of.
I can feel it. It's cold.
It's nice. I can, you know, I can taste it.
That's disgusting. So it's like the Arby's of of
sodas, but I think it's matter. But here, notice what I'm doing.
I'm perceiving it right now. I see it, I touch it with my
(16:40):
hand, I taste it with my taste buds.
Whatever it is, it's not in any way just this thing that is not
perceived. What he defines as matter, it's
actually being perceived a lot. Think of it this way.
Name something that you know that exists, that no one has
ever perceived in their mind or through their senses.
(17:03):
Well, that's really hard to do. Well, I've never seen a Unicorn.
OK, But all you've done is you've seen a horse and you've
seen wings, and you just put it together in your mind, and even
right now you're thinking of it,so you're perceiving it.
Well, there's this computer in front of me and I can see it, so
I'm perceiving it. Like, how would you prove that
something exists, matter that noone has ever perceived?
(17:26):
As soon as you perceived it, it would now be perceived, which
makes it an idea in Barclays definition and requires some
mind. Let's back up.
When I touch this table, I have a table in front of me.
You can't see it, but the computer's not just floating.
You'll just have to take my wordfor it.
I have a table, a desk in front of me.
(17:47):
When I touch this desk, OK, I'm not actually touching the desk.
My nerve endings don't extend into the wood of the desk.
When I push my hand on the desk,I'm not feeling the desk.
Technically I'm feeling my hand.The desk is pushed.
I'm not saying the desk doesn't exist, but I'm saying the desk
is pushing on my hand and the nerve endings run up my arm to
(18:10):
my brain and I have a sensation of feeling the desk.
If you cut your hand, the pain and the things that are telling
your body about pain are actually going up, going on up
here in your head. But you don't feel the pain in
your head. You feel it in your hand.
OK, I cannot actually get to this table.
I can only get to my thought table.
(18:31):
I can only get to the table as Iperceive it.
I can feel it, but I can't feel the table.
I can only feel as far as my hand goes.
All my experiences are skin in. I can see the table, but when I
do that, I'm not actually seeingit with my eyes.
I'm seeing it with my mind. If you took a person, removed
their brain, and they still had eyes and you put something in
front of them, they could not see it.
(18:51):
You see it in your brain or in your mind, however you want to
define that physical or not physical, but you're not.
I'm not. I can't get to the table itself.
I have the table as I perceive it through my eyes.
I have the table as I feel it with my hands, but all I have is
the perceived table. I have the thought table.
I can, I can lick the table. I'm just kidding.
(19:12):
I didn't do that. I can lick the table.
And again, I that's still something I'm perceiving.
It's still something where I'm using my senses.
I can't get to the actual thing itself.
I can only get to my perception of the thing.
And when you have that, it leadsto absolute skepticism.
How do I know that the table is the same to me as it is to you?
Right. Like if you ever played this
(19:34):
game where if you put your brainin someone else's body, maybe
what they think is green is actually what you see is yellow.
But you just always called it that your whole life and been
taught that your whole life, so you wouldn't actually know.
It's that we we can't get to thethings as they are in
themselves. We can only get to our
experience of the thing. And that leads to all kinds of
skepticism. How do I know that the table in
my mind is like the real table? How do I know that, you know
(19:55):
other people exist except Barclays going to solve that by
saying, oh, that that's all there is.
They're just perceived things. They're perceived things.
There is a table. And if I walk out of this room?
If no one is perceiving this table, then it disappears.
It's not a thing. And if you say no, it doesn't,
(20:16):
Zach, it doesn't disappear. It's still there.
Why do you think that? Well, because when I was in the
room and I perceived it, it was there.
I know. But when you leave the room and
you're no longer perceiving it, why the flying?
Do you think it's still there? Right.
It makes no sense to say. When I'm in a room, I see a
table and I know it exists. I walk out of the room and I
(20:36):
think it still exists. Why?
Well, because had I been perceiving it, I think it would
still be there. And you go check.
Well, now you're perceiving it again.
And then you leave. We're asking what about when
you're not perceiving it? So have you ever heard this
thing? So, so take a breath.
This is this is some deep stuff,but it's, it's very hard to
argue against. But it seems like it should not
be right. And it probably I, I don't know
(20:57):
if it's right or not. Who cares?
I don't give my view a lot of times on this show.
Big Red, the Arby's of cancerousliquids.
Let's take a break and back up and let me say it another way.
Have you ever heard this phrase?If a tree falls in the forest
and there is nobody around, nobody to hear it, does it still
(21:20):
make a sound? That idea is very much related
to what we're talking about hereat Barkley.
You have a tendency to think that if a tree falls in the
forest that it would make a sound.
Do you know why? Because every other time you've
seen and perceived and heard a tree fall in the forest, you
heard a sound. That's not the question.
The question is, does it make a sound when nobody is there to
(21:44):
hear it? You have to hear sounds.
We're not asking does it move the air?
It creates airwaves. But if there is no ear to hear
it, then there is no sound. And you say, no, I think it
still makes a sound. Why?
Because every time I've, you know, been around a tree that
fell, I heard it. Agreed.
What about when you're not there, though?
All you're talking about is a perceived tree.
(22:04):
All you're talking about is a tree that you did hear.
We're talking about a tree that nobody hears.
What on earth do you do with that?
OK, This is where he has his idea, and it's a famous phrase
with him. It's it's this phrase SES per
Kippy. To be is to be perceived.
What Barkley's trying to say is not that things are just
(22:27):
squishy, not that we're all justliving in a dream or something
weird. He's simply trying to say this.
When philosophers define matter in this this substance, they're
kind of defining something that no one's ever perceived.
It's like this mythical thing. And so he's saying my idea is
not crazy. The idea of matter's crazy.
This idea of this unperceived stuff, What is it if it's
(22:48):
unperceived, Right. Like what?
How would we know about it? You, you just have this weird
mythical stuff called matter that makes no sense.
What we have are things we perceive.
They're perceived by our minds or perceived by some mind.
OK, great. Barkley, what?
What is your view that if I leave, I'm, I'm observing the
table, and if I leave the room, no one's perceiving it.
Are you saying that the table disappears?
(23:08):
He's like, no, the table's stilltotally there because God is
perceiving it all the time. Not only are there other minds
probably perceiving this table, maybe there's some bugs in this
room. I hope not.
Maybe there's some bugs in this room.
Maybe a squirrel runs by and perceives the table.
But even if there are no createdminds that are viewing things,
God is viewing things all the time.
(23:30):
So God is a divine mind and he is perceiving everything all the
time, so it keeps it in existence.
And we are finite created minds to Berkeley.
And when we perceive something, we also get to perceive it.
But God is perceiving it all thetime, so it doesn't just
disappear. So in his mind, the only things
that exist there are minds. God's eternal and ours created.
(23:52):
There are minds that that are active and will, and then there
are ideas, these things that arepassive, that minds perceive,
and that's all that exists. Everything is idea.
This is why I'll say things likean idea can be nothing can be
like nothing but an idea. Let me give you an example.
(24:13):
So with guys like Locke, they'llseparate different kinds of
qualities and things. There's primary qualities like
extension or solidity, what he thinks are in objects
themselves. There's secondary qualities,
right, like color and these kindof things.
And, and, and what he does is hestarts dividing up what things
like, like what qualities thingshave in and of themselves, like
(24:34):
what qualities this can has in and of itself versus what
qualities are actually in my mind.
And what Barclay's trying to sayis they're the same damn thing.
Like you don't ever just see extension or solidity.
It's extension of a certain color.
It has a certain, you know, density.
Is that the right word? And it has these other thing,
(24:55):
like you don't just see extension, you see a certain
type of extension, again, a particular that you perceive.
So let me say it another way. So for somebody like, like
Locke, let's use this example. Do you think that warmth is in a
fire? You're probably saying, yeah, I
think warmth's in a fire. And I say why?
And you say, well, when I put myhand closer to the fire, I feel
(25:15):
more warmth. And I say, great, keep putting
your hand even closer to the fire.
And you say, oh, I felt pain. And I said, OK, do you think
pain's in the fire? Like why did you say warmth is
in the fire but not pain? Because you said your hand was
by it. You felt warmth.
And it goes a little bit further.
You feel pain. And you say that's in you, not
in the fire. Why one and not the other?
(25:35):
You're doing the same thing. And the point of that is to say,
OK, there's, there seem to be some things that are in you that
are perceived by your mind. What Barclay's trying to say is
everything that exists is, is perceived by your mind, right?
Like it's not just the warmth orthe pain.
In that example, you're seeing the fire like you're smelling
(25:57):
the fire, but like there is no fire apart from its perceptible
attributes anyway, or, or another one.
So, so like Locke would distinguish color as something
in your mind, not in the thing itself.
So we like to think that this big red can again is is red
itself, but that red is actuallyin your mind.
(26:17):
Why? Well, you'll notice there's not
a big streak of red right here. So how on earth am I seeing it?
Well, light is bouncing off of it going into my eyes, being
interpreted by my brain, and I see it as red.
You can't say that the red is inthe can because a color blind
person would see it and say it'sa different color.
Animals that don't see in color would say it's a different
(26:38):
color. You can have certain things
happen to your brain, injuries and stuff where you don't see
things as the right color. So if it's changeable, notice I
can't really just change the shape of the can in my mind.
I mean, I can through a thought,I can change it.
But like as I perceive it, that seems to be in the can itself.
But the the color is in me, right?
(26:58):
It's it's it's way over here. And yet in my mind, I'm still
able to see it as red. But there's no red streak right
here that's actually physically causing that to happen.
Well, anyway, Berkeley thinks all that doesn't make sense.
He thinks that you shouldn't separate primary from secondary
from tertiary qualities. You should just say all the
qualities are what we can perceive.
OK, Hope some of that blows yourmind.
(27:20):
Just wrecks. You're like, wait, what is
happening? I can't see the like.
I can't get to the can. I can only get to my thought
can. Yeah.
But maybe that's the only can that exist.
And that's Berkeley's point, Right?
And so that way you don't have to be a skeptic.
You can know that you're what you, what you perceive is is
knowable. OK, He says this So, so, so this
(27:46):
is what's tricky with his idea. OK, OK, great.
Berkeley thinks everything is idea.
It's perceived always by God's mind.
It's also can be perceived by other smaller minds like us or
animals or bugs or whatever. Cool.
That's awesome. So that seems like he's saying
that we've already talked about that I have a desk and if I
leave the office and no one's perceiving it, the desk
(28:08):
disappears. But again, he's thinking that
that would be true if God didn'texist.
So he says this. This is also in principles of
human knowledge, that consequently, so long as they
are not actually perceived by me, or do not exist in my mind
or that of any other created spirit, they must either have no
existence at all or else subsistin the mind of some eternal
(28:29):
spirit. That's his point.
He is saying that if there was no God and no other minds
perceiving the table, you would have to step out of the room and
wonder whether or not it actually still existed because
nothing's perceiving it. Again, when you step back in the
room and see it, you're perceiving it again.
That's not the question. The question is it still there
when no one's perceiving it? And if so, what is it matter?
Cool. What's matter?
(28:50):
We don't know. It's this colorless, tasteless,
shapeless. It's like the human being from,
you know, community. Like it's, it's so generic that
it doesn't actually stand for anyone particular human.
Let me give you a summary. He says this in three dialogues.
This is kind of a summary of hiswhole system, which I think is a
(29:11):
is a helpful, helpful summary tohave here.
He says those things they immediately perceive are the
real things. And the latter that are things
immediately perceived are ideas which exist only in the mind.
That's a pretty good summary of what he what he's saying.
OK, I want to read you. I don't know, hold on.
First of all, I think there's a lot of a lot of sound going on.
(29:32):
Somebody's doing some, some yardwork.
Somebody's doing some yard work outside.
I want to read you a quote that is very famous.
It's written by Ronald Knox. I've actually included it here
in, you know, my book was what some would say is the best intro
to philosophy ever written. Let's see who endorsed this
book. Nelson Mandela endorsed this
book. Looks like Taylor Swift endorsed
it. She said, I didn't understand
(29:53):
this 'cause I'm a little ditzy, but maybe one day you'll be more
famous than me. Thanks, Tay.
Tay. That's what he that's what she
lets me call her. And I've got a little section on
here. Here's the quote.
Or the famous Limerick by a guy named Ronald Knox about
Berkeley. Listen to this Limerick.
It's fantastic. There was a young man who said
God must find it exceedingly oddto think that the tree should
(30:16):
continue to be when there's no one about in the quad.
Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd.
I'm always about in the quad andthat's why the tree will
continue to be since observed byyours faithfully.
God, it's a fantastic quote justto they just describes Barclays
system. He's trying to say that even
(30:38):
when you're not in the quad, this, you know, area outside of
a building, whatever, God is still observing the tree.
And that's how you know that it still exists.
Now, let me tell you why Berkeley's such a big deal if
his system is right, and I'm certainly not saying it is and
most people don't think it is, but if his system is right, it
answers the mind body problem. It destroys skepticism.
It gives a new proof for the existence of God.
(30:59):
It gives a standard for morals. It solves the issue of what
substances are, and it solves almost all the problems in
physics. So when I say he is a formidable
philosopher, he's amazing. But there's some problems with
this system. Let me give you a few.
The biggest one people bring up,I think, is absolutely asinine.
(31:19):
And it's this, well, that soundsweird.
Who cares if it's not like if, if all the logic and all of the
demonstration, all the argumentation point in some
direction, You have to consider it.
Not saying he's right, but I'm just saying you can't dismiss an
argument because it's weird. Every view's weird.
I mean, Berkeley would flip thison you and say your idea of
unperceived matter, which feels like some sort of fairy tale,
(31:40):
stuff like that is weird. So you can't just say it's
weird. The bigger problems are this.
Is there some circularity in hissystem?
Is the concept of God also in your mind?
Is that something that you're perceiving?
Or how do you know other humans exist?
You might be a mind, but it might lead to syllabusism and
there are no other minds. Also, a lot of people critique
(32:05):
him because he believes that allthe things that we perceive are
ideas, but he also thinks that there are minds that are
perceiving them. So there's two kinds of things,
minds and ideas, the perceiver and the thing that is perceived.
Well, how do you know that there's a perceiver?
Guys like Hume will critique this idea by saying, wait, we
just have this stream of experiences.
We don't necessarily have a soulor an US or a self.
(32:28):
How could you? And he, he tries to deal with
this some in some of his works, Berkeley does where he's like,
listen, you can't think of mindslike an idea because then they
would be idea. They'd be things that are
perceived. They're the things that do the
perceiving. It's something that I have that
allows me to see the other stuff.
It's not the stuff itself. Does that create some sort of
division, some sort of bifurcation between minds and
(32:50):
and ideas? So what do you think of our boy
Berkeley? Do you think there's such a
thing as matter? If so, what do you mean?
Because I bet as soon as you start defining matter, you're
going to start defining things that people have perceived with
their senses. And then you're back to an idea
because again, you only perceivethrough your senses in your
mind. All your senses go back to your
mind. What do you think about Barkley?
(33:11):
He's common sense undone. He's really smart.
His idea is crazy. It if it works, it solves a lot
of problems. It seems very counterintuitive.
Post in the comments, quick click, retweet, regram.
Like put it on your Myspace withyour Papa Roach song.
Add it to Wolf or whatever that one is WOOF from the office, I
(33:35):
think or whatever. So thanks for joining us.
Let me know your thoughts on matter and ideas and we will
talk to you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com