Berkeley’s Theory of Radical Dependence Berkeley’s Theory of Radical Dependence By Gavan Jennings Berkeley’s Theory of Radical Dependence By Gavan Jennings This book first published 2018 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2018 by Gavan Jennings All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-0362-3 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0362-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction................................................................................................. 1 The Age of Reason: an Age of Transition............................................. 1 Berkeleian Scholarship .......................................................................... 2 Chapter One ................................................................................................. 5 The Notion of Radical Dependence Introduction............................................................................................ 5 Platonic and Aristotelian Cosmology .................................................... 7 Neoplatonic and Plotinian Cosmology................................................. 11 The Cosmology of Avicenna and Averroes ......................................... 15 Christian Cosmology ........................................................................... 17 Christian Neoplatonism ....................................................................... 19 Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 25 Deism Introduction .......................................................................................... 25 Berkeley’s Historical Milieu ................................................................ 26 The New Science ................................................................................. 29 The cosmos .......................................................................................... 32 Newtonian physics ............................................................................... 34 The New Philosophy ............................................................................ 37 Cartesian mechanism ........................................................................... 41 Atheism’s Debt to Deism ..................................................................... 43 Berkeley’s Attitude towards Deism ..................................................... 46 Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 51 Radical Dependence Introduction .......................................................................................... 51 The Philosophical Commentaries ........................................................ 52 An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision ......................................... 59 A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge .............. 60 Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous .................................. 69 De Motu ............................................................................................... 75 Alciphron ............................................................................................. 79 The Theory of Vision Vindicated .......................................................... 84 vi Table of Contents Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 89 Siris Introduction .......................................................................................... 89 The Chain of Being .............................................................................. 93 Unity and existence .............................................................................. 98 Person in Siris .................................................................................... 100 Evaluation .......................................................................................... 102 Man in communion with God ............................................................ 107 Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 111 Conclusion Synopsis and Evaluation.................................................................... 111 An Alternative Theory of Dependence .............................................. 123 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 135 Bibliography ............................................................................................ 141 INTRODUCTION The Age of Reason: an Age of Transition The life of George Berkeley (1685-1753) spans a period of dramatic transition in the culture of the Western civilisation, a transition which ushers in the Enlightenment and a decisive and seismic shift away from the remnants of the Medieval worldview. Berkeley was keenly aware of, and opposed to the anti-metaphysical spirit of these, the inaugural years of the Enlightenment, and saw clearly the direction in which contemporary thought was moving as we witness in his frequent expressions of dismay at the increasingly materialistic tendencies of the times and the waning of the Christian, or simply theistic, worldview. He was aware too of the decisive role of the new science as well as philosophy in the changes that were taking place. Berkeley was keenly aware that the Enlightenment spirit contained within it certain principles which, while not yet fully explicated, were antipathetic to the Christian worldview that had shaped Western thought, and was clearly motivated by a desire to shore up a theistic worldview against Europe’s cultural slide towards deism and atheism. While European thought in the first half of the eighteenth century could not be said to be overtly atheistic, Berkeley clearly observed the incompatibility of the Age of Reason with the Christian conception of the relationship between God and the world. What rationalism sought was a God who worked within the constraints of man’s intelligence: a God to whom all men of differing creeds could subscribe in an age when consensus on theological matters was a rare commodity. While rational speculation about God was promoted by Berkeley, he, unlike deists such as Toland and Collins, does not dismiss the guidance of revelation in forming his philosophical conception of God. His philosophical speculation on God and his relationship with the world is deeply informed by the uniquely Christian notion of creation strictly understood as a free divine action (a necessary creation being incompatible with a transcendent God) in which the world in its totality is produced (thereby being utterly dependent on God). Berkeley also adheres to the traditional Christian conception of the provident and benign relationship of the creator to the created, and to man in particular. Repeatedly, as we shall see, Berkeley 2 Introduction attempts to bring these truths of revelation within the ambit of reason. He tries to show how the doctrines of creation and providence do not belong only within the realm of faith but can also be known by reason unaided by faith. This is not to say that Berkeley was a rationalist: he never attempts to reduce revelation to what is only humanly knowable and in his theological writings never tries to cast doubts on the mysteries of Christianity. On the contrary, Berkeley tends to make little of the difficulties reason encounters in examining theological questions, even going so far, as we shall see, to assert that knowledge of God’s existence is more certain even than that of the world around us. While Berkeley defends, philosophically, the notions of creation and divine providence, the rationalists began by denying, explicitly or implicitly, both these doctrines. The first result of this rationalism in natural theology was the deistic denial of the utter dependence of the world on God, both for its existence and for its workings. Christian cosmology’s assertion of the world’s contingency was eclipsed in his era by the reappearance and growth of cosmologies asserting a self-sufficient universe. These are the cosmologies which either deify the universe (materialism) or reify God (pantheism); and both are incompatible with a Christian God. We will be examining these more closely later, in particular the cosmology of materialism which is of particular importance in the formation and evolution of Enlightenment atheism. Berkeleian Scholarship While Berkeleian scholarship has often adverted to the role played by the notion of radical dependence (of the entire world on the divine creative act) in all of Berkeley’s thought, its critical importance tends to be overlooked. That Berkeley’s philosophical writings combat the materialism of the age is generally acknowledged but rarely contextualised within the long tradition of Christian thought: theological, philosophical and even mystical, which is founded on a cosmology of a creation contingent on a transcendent Creator. As a result arguments of secondary importance, such as those concerning epistemology, are mistakenly prioritised, and even then only examined out of their proper context. At times Berkeley is studied insofar as he provides the link between Lockean empiricism and Humean skepticism. Even the renowned Berkeleian scholar A. A. Luce underestimates the centrality for Berkeley of the defence of Christian cosmology against deism. Marie B. Hungerman is one of those who does indeed recognise what underlies Berkeley’s system of immaterialism: Berkeley’s Theory of Radical Dependence 3 Perhaps Berkeley’s basic motive is to clear the way for our acceptance of nature’s dependence upon God. The Irish bishop’s final view of nature is as the language of God addressed to the human mind. What Berkeley wishes above all is to insure our attention to nature precisely as a set of theistic signs leading men to recognize God and to participate in His providential plan.1 Indeed all of Berkeley’s philosophical work centres on this desire to show that nothing in the natural world, whether it be sheer existence, order, change or any other of the multitude of phenomena found in the world, can be properly explained without recourse to the immediate activity of God. Science may explain sensible phenomena in terms of matter, gravity, or any of a number of such principles, but, for Berkeley, these must be taken as mere schematic representations of phenomena: matter, gravity, etc., are nothing in themselves. As Stephen R. L. Clark observes in his summation of the role of religion in Berkeley’s thought: There may still be critics who imagine that God only entered his philosophy to fill the gaps between one finite observer’s perceptions and the next, or to save his episcopal reputation. The truth is that the works for which he is still chiefly known were written when he was a struggling research fellow at Trinity College, Dublin, but already deeply religious.2 Clarke, correctly in my view, observes that none of Berkeley’s writings can be understood without bearing in mind that his motivation is the furtherance of the cause of religion and virtue. 1 Marie B. Hungerman, “Berkeley and Newtonian Natural Philosophy.” PhD diss., Michigan, 1960, 254. 2 Stephen R. L. Clark. 2005. “Berkeley on Religion.” In The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley, ed. Kenneth P. Winkler, 369-404. New York: Cambridge University Press.