Besedin Artem

Theistic metaphysics of George Berkley’s "Alciphron"

Abstract

The article examines George Berkeley’s philosophy of the 1730s, a period that is seldom analyzed by commentators. The article puts forward two theses. First, in 'Alciphron’ (in particular, in dialogues IV and VII) Berkeley offers a new metaphysics in comparison with immaterialism, which can be described as descriptive, using P.F. Stroson's terminology. Second, in Berkeley's philosophical system, 'Alciphron’ should take the first place — the place of introduction. These theses are supported by analyzing the argument for the existence of the Christian God, presented in the fourth dialogue. The article shows that this argument, which is considered by most researchers only as plausible, can be strengthened by referring to the content of the seventh dialogue. The analysis of the seventh dialogue shows the importance of the so-called natural notions for Berkeley's argumentation in 'Alciphron’. Natural notions are accepted by us without any theoretical justification, they are rooted in human nature. Such natural notions include the concept of accountability. It is connected to many other concepts that characterize our attitude to the actions of free agents (for example, guilt and merit). Our reactions to human actions are similar to reactions to the language of the Creator revealed to us in nature (in the case of God our reaction is praise based on admiration for nature). Natural concepts underlie Berkeley's descriptive metaphysics, the main idea of which is that we cannot but consider phenomena as the result of the actions of free rational agents (finite and infinite). This is justified by a transcendental argument: the condition for the existence of society is belief in natural concepts; society exists and is a natural state for man; therefore, we believe in natural concepts. The use of transcendental argumentation supports the thesis the metaphysics of 'Alciphron' is descriptive.

Keywords

George Berkeley, descriptive metaphysics, proof of the existence of God, physico-theological proof, transcendental argumentation, free will, accountability.

References

1. Berkeley G. (1978) Sochineniia [Works]. Moscow (Russian translation).
2. Berkeley G. (2016) A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge and Other Writings. Moscow (Russian translation).
3. Berman D. (1993) “Introduction”, in D. Berman (ed.) George Berkeley: ‘Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher’ in Focus, New York, pp. 1–16.
4. Berman D. (1994) George Berkeley: Idealism and the Man. New York.
5. Besedin A. (2018) “George Berkeley’s Conception of Accountability”. Ruch Filozoficzny, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 115–133.
6. Breidert W. (2010) “Die Ambivalenz von Vorurteilen bei Berkeley”, in L. Jaff ro, G. Brykman,C. Schwartz (eds) Berkeley’s Alciphron: English Text and Essays in Interpretation, Hildesheim, pp. 287–295.
7. Degenaar M., Lokhorst G.-J. (2021) “Molyneux’s Problem”, in E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/molyneux-problem/ (accessed 05.08.2022).
8. Gryaznov A. (1989) “K voprosu o ŸTranstsendental′noi argumentatsii″” [The issue of “Transcendental Argumentation]. Kantovskii sbornik, vol. 14, pp. 99–106 (in Russian).
9. Hooker M. (1982) “Berkeley’s Argument from Design”, in C.M. Turbayne (ed.) Berkeley: Critical and Interpretative Essays, Minneapolis, pp. 261–270.
10. Kline D. (1987) “Berkeley’s Divine Language Argument”, in E. Sosa (ed.) Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley, Dordrecht, pp. 129–142.
11. Luce A. A., Jessop T. E. (eds) (1948–57) Works of George Berkeley Bishop of Cloyne, in 9 vols, London.
12. Papineau David (2021) “Naturalism”, in E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/naturalism/ (accessed 05.08.2022).
13. Pearce K. L. (2017) Language and the Structure of Berkeley’s World. New York.
14. Roberts J. R. (2007) A Metaphysics for the Mob. The Philosophy of George Berkeley. New York.
15. Strawson P. F. (2009) Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. Kaliningrad (Russian translation).
16. Szécsényi E. (2021) “The aesthetics of the invisible: George Berkeley and the modern aesthetics”. History of European Ideas, available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01916599.2021.2009364 (accessed 05.08.2022).
17. Winkler K. (1989) Berkeley, an Interpretation. Oxford.

Information about the author

Besedin Artem

Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of History of World Philosophy, 27/4 Lomonosovsky prospekt, Moscow, 119234, Russian Federation;
Post: Associate professor;
ORCID: 0000-0001-8799-3161;
Email: artbesedin@hotmail.com.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Acknowledgments

The research is supported by the Russian Science Foundation № 22-28-00752, https://rscf.ru/project/22-28-00752/.