Take a photo of a barcode or cover
methylblue's review
medium-paced
4.0
This is a pleasent read, but I actually think its also an interesting case for idealism. I took it somewhat seriously on that front and I have to say, it really makes you wonder what else Berkeley has to say. It also makes you acutely aware of just how wrong the fictional divide of "Empiricism" vs "Idealism" really is.
brookljn's review
slow-paced
2.5
Some of the theism conclusions are flawed but the overall concept is super interesting
virtualmima's review against another edition
0.5
It's easy to pretend that everything is relative if you refuse to discuss anything except for the interactions between humans and objects, and the opinions formed by humans about these objects. It's a good thing that scientists and philosophers paid no attention to Berkeley because if they did we'd be back in the middle ages.
kyokroon's review against another edition
3.0
Since I first heard about Berkeley's subjective idealism I has grabbed my intention. The notion that to be is to be perceived was so strange, yet at the same time so difficult to counter that it blew my mind.
Now, a few years later I'm still very interested by his subjective idealism. I don't think he's right (at all), but it's a very interesting theory and I think he's on to something (the fact that we can't imagine anything without its properties for example).
These dialogues were very long and it took me longer than anticipated to read and finish them, but I do think it was worth it. When studying philosophy you sometimes gloss over the orginal texts, or you only look at a part of someone's thoughts and findings. I understand why completely of course, but it's still interesting to find out more about it yourself.
Berkeley's objective idealism is something that made me sigh out loud when I first heard it. Personally I really hate it if philosopher start bringing God(s) into their theories, literally a 'deus ex machina'. It's just that everytime a problem arises that's too big for a philosopher to tackle or something that undermines their philosophy they yell "BECAUSE GOD!" and then they are supposedly done.. sigh...
At one point, Hylas (the 'scientist) asks Philonous (Berkeley) about God and how something can be a certain way, and Philonous replies that we shouldn't try to understand God's powers because he's divine, but Philonous himself uses God's powers all the times to explain things and that just drives me mad.
Also, Philonous seemed not that fair to me. In the third dialogue he constantly stresses that the way words are used by the 'common folk' is not necessarily it's true meaning, but in the first he constantly tries to trick Hylas with common meanings of words.
In conclusion, this was a very interested read, and I recommend it to anyone who likes (metaphysical) philosophy, but don't expect to have your mind changed completely upon finishing it!
Happy reading!
Now, a few years later I'm still very interested by his subjective idealism. I don't think he's right (at all), but it's a very interesting theory and I think he's on to something (the fact that we can't imagine anything without its properties for example).
These dialogues were very long and it took me longer than anticipated to read and finish them, but I do think it was worth it. When studying philosophy you sometimes gloss over the orginal texts, or you only look at a part of someone's thoughts and findings. I understand why completely of course, but it's still interesting to find out more about it yourself.
Berkeley's objective idealism is something that made me sigh out loud when I first heard it. Personally I really hate it if philosopher start bringing God(s) into their theories, literally a 'deus ex machina'. It's just that everytime a problem arises that's too big for a philosopher to tackle or something that undermines their philosophy they yell "BECAUSE GOD!" and then they are supposedly done.. sigh...
At one point, Hylas (the 'scientist) asks Philonous (Berkeley) about God and how something can be a certain way, and Philonous replies that we shouldn't try to understand God's powers because he's divine, but Philonous himself uses God's powers all the times to explain things and that just drives me mad.
Also, Philonous seemed not that fair to me. In the third dialogue he constantly stresses that the way words are used by the 'common folk' is not necessarily it's true meaning, but in the first he constantly tries to trick Hylas with common meanings of words.
In conclusion, this was a very interested read, and I recommend it to anyone who likes (metaphysical) philosophy, but don't expect to have your mind changed completely upon finishing it!
Happy reading!