I really never liked Berkeley's view of reality. He had some insights, of course, but overall his view was disjoined from his profession. Perhaps that's why I have issue with him, moreso how he managed to wrangle two very distinct views of the world without sticking to one.
I mean, the Christian worldview is considerably different from the sensationalist view he personally (apparently) held. How he never reconciled his faith and his philosophy has bugged me for years.
He did say this:
"It is evident to everyone, 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 that they should subsist by themselves."
His use of the word "spirit" here is misleading. Did he mean "spirit" in his philosophical sense, or "spirit" in the Christian sense?
__________________
Linux/Network-Security Engineer by Profession. OpenBSD user by choice.
|