Thus, a philosophical battle of wit begins.
namely, that there is no such thing as material substance in the world." Philonous argues that it is actually Hylas who is the skeptic and that he can prove it. In The First Dialogue, Hylas expresses his disdain for skepticism, adding that he has heard Philonous to have "maintained the most extravagant opinion. Using Philonous, Berkeley argues his own metaphysical views, which were first developed in his earlier book A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge.
In the Dialogues, the name Hylas is derived from an ancient Greek word for "matter," which Hylas argues for in the dialogue. A Hylas is featured in Greek mythology and is understood to represent John Locke. Aside from the actual content, the book offers a glimpse into that period of the Western philosophical mind (as pitiable as it was).Berkeley uses Hylas as his primary contemporary philosophical adversary. The only way this dialog works is as a parody of religious dogma and its blind dismissal of reality, but parody was sadly not the intent. I would say 'curiously', but I know why he did it - to spinelessly (OK, out of practicality) pander to the horrendous religious powers that were, which was his initial agenda, though he failed miserably. After being thoroughly and clearly beaten, he nevertheless declared himself the winner by having his victorious nemesis acquiesce to the preposterous arguments offered. His agenda is clear (that matter does not exist, only the spirit of God), but he is repeatedly beaten badly by his imaginary nemesis, offering only feeble attempts to parry the thrusts with double-talk, contradictions, blind dogmatic 'is' claims, and supreme dances of twisted sophistry. This must be the only time in philosophical history that a thinker lost to himself, and badly.
The Thinker Who Lost the Argument with Himself
0 kommentar(er)
