You are totally right, rocket357!
His views did not support his profession.
I can't say what he meant by "spirit". It seems like the intimated definition would not align with the more accepted dogmas.
I can agree that it is a perceivable character flaw standing in one station of society, while supporting contradicting views. I imagine there is more to the story. Its hard to go into detail without discussion on mythologies and religion. Its probably wise to avoid delving too deep into those subjects, as someone will likely always be offended.
So, without entering the realms of theology, I contribute that there are many persons, in the history of opinions, that hold views not held in popular regard by persons of the same cultural or religious backgrounds.
Jacob Boehme and Emanuel Swedenborg are two well know examples. Perhaps Giordano Bruno is an even better example.
Berkeley, being a Bishop and in the maintenance of such views probably does ring of conflicting interests. He just seems to have gotten away with it better than Marcion of Sinope. But, even persons like Marcion caused to some degree the enjoyed reformations that his offended employed.
But, enough of that....
I just recently learned that George had these interesting philosophies. In some ways his controversial insights were defending his cultural station against the deep views of John Loche, which is likely the inspiration for developing them in the first place.
|