Philosophy 110: Seth Bordner’s Article “Berkeley’s ‘Defense’ of ‘Commonsense’ Essay

As Seth Bordner states Berkeley is both foolishly optimistic or chicaneingly dissembling, but (nearly) everyone agrees his is no defence force of reasonable. (Bordner, Berkeleys disaffirmation of Commonsense. ) An appropriate starting point for Bordners article Berkeleys Defense of Commonsense, Bordner is an benefactor Professor who specializes in the history of new philosophy, especially the British Empiricists. He received his Ph. D. from the University of North Carolina and has base a large passel of his work on Berkeley theories.What Bordnar so valiantly attempts, is to give the reader a reform understanding Berkeley. To help one comprehend exactly what his stance was, or what he was move to accomplish with his defense of commonsense and also he goes ab divulge defending it. At the end of the article one might squander a little bit much than clarity into the highly criticized and multiform theories of Berkeley. Bordner also gives us the criteria as to which we wil l better understand Berkeleys theories. Thus clearing up any misinterpretation or misunderstanding of Berkeleys work.He later goes on to explain the grimness or lack thereof of his critics. Berkeleys surmise definitely has many critics, and Bordner gives us a count into all of them. John Locke, who believed in Materialism and was an opponent of Berkeleys Idealism, Jonathon Bennet, who would refer to Berkeleys work towards commonsense objects as, disrespectful. Bordner dwells into George Pappass Pro doal account, as well as John Russel Roberts Religious Image, and their explanation of how far off Berkeley is with his defense of commonsense.Berkeleys opponents were labeled as atheists, skeptics, and of the learned component in society. The sort of, for lack of a better term, warrant thinker types who would galvanize the realness which Berkeley worked so tirelessly to protect. Bordner goes deep into the opposition which Locke provided against Berkeleys theories. Locke was superst ar of Materialism. He believed that we naturally recognize the qualities of bodies that materialize to our senses with the real qualities of the bodies themselves that appear. We proportion to these real qualities the same existence we attribute to the bodies themselves.An existence different from the external to and independent of the existence of our opinion of them, an existence that shall continue even when no perceptions of them exist. Contrary to this, Berkeley was a strong proponent of Idealism. He was of the stance that one should trust their senses, that things we feel and leave are real and that what we perceive to exist really does exist. Locke represents the Learned part of society which Berkeley openly detests. As Bordner states Materialist philosophers are, as it were, vectors of a dangerous intellectual disease. (Bordner, Berkeleys Defense of Commonsense.).It was these types that would discount commonsense as merely an afterthought to the established views of phi losophical principles. It was Berkeleys fear that if the Materialistic ideas of Locke became wide accepted, that the Vulgar or majority would become jeopardized. That the common folk, those who do non have the wherewithal to question the legitimacy of Lockes theories and that they would widely accept it as the truth. Berkeley fears were that eventually if the coarse would become skeptics, which would lead to the questioning of religious beliefs, or worsened atheism amongst the masses.So as an educated man, Berkeleys response when met with a stance of which he could not agree with, he would flat out reject it. I agree with you. Material substance was no more than a hypothesis and a false groundless one too. I will no longer spend my breath in defense of it. (Berkeley). Berkeley continuously favors the Vulgar throughout his defense. They represented the know nothing type, who rarely if ever thought outside the box. The common man who lives in a world less complicated. They are less of a threat, the uneducated, and the ones who would not doubt his theories or become unstable.According to Berkeley, he would have us believe that it was the vulgar were privileged group in society. He consistently sides with the vulgar throughout his defense, paints them as immature fools who are at an advantage when compared to the learned. The sort of people who could not examine beyond what is right in front of them, without having the competence to seek a deeper truth. They lived in a simpler world, a world in which Berkeleys commonsense argument was able to thrive if widely acknowledged as truth amongst the masses. Berkeley also believed that the language ingestiond by the common man was simpler.That it was developed by and for the use of the vulgar. (Berkeley). He frequently makes reference to the vulgar as naive to the real world, that they have no ability of being of sound mind nor do they possess the skill set to question what the learned portion of society might. The y show lack of interest in speculation, be shake up as he says to them nothing thats long-familiar appears unaccountable or difficult to comprehend. They complain not of any want of evidence in their senses, and are out of all danger of becoming skeptics. (Berkeley, Introduction to the Principles, whole shebang 225.) When applied to a modern day situation, Locke and Berkeley would represent the powers that be. This could be in the form of political party alliances, corporate interests, or possibly religious ties. What Berkeley saw in the Vulgar was a chance to control the majority, or the masses. Its his mark to grab our attention and make us believe in what he is selling, campaigning on, believes in and so forth. As consumers, lost souls, or right/left wing types we will follow in unity to what we can attach ourselves to. That we are too simple to make just and strong decisions based on our own aptitude.So by gaining our allegiance Berkeley could control us with fear and unwi llingness to question his extraordinary intelligence. This is what Locke represents to him. Locke brought unrest to his world. The idea of chaos amid the masses did not sit well with Berkeley. Locke did not deem the theory that the vulgar naturally and unreflectively believe that the perceived world is the real world. (Bordner) to be absolute. Berkeleys theories could be characterized as monotheist. Sure, at the time of his writing his defense of commonsense there would have been a few detractors with regards to this. but when applied to a modern world, that would not be the case. The multitude of religions and belief systems would conjure up a different sort of debate. Robertss critique, although flawed by Bordners accounts, does bring into account the basis of religion. He acknowledges that those in agreement with Berkeley would knowingly acknowledge a presence of higher spirit, and/or perfection. When one becomes more familiar reading about Berkeley, you would become more awar e of his agenda and reasoning for writing his defense.Berkeley would have a much more difficult time engaging the modern world, a world which is free of religious constraint and open to a more globalized view of religion. Berkeley was of the thought that God was needed to cause our sensations. That without him, one could not embark truly into the idea of commonsense. Berkeley himself was commonly known at the time as Bishop Berkeley. He wished to always include God in his discussions and one would also have to be of the same mindset to wholeheartedly accept his argument of commonsense. Obviously, thus lending to the idea of why Berkeley was in much(prenominal) opposition of scientific views and reasoning.The learned part of society was of sound mind and in a position to undermine such thoughtlessness as the commonsense theory. Its as though he was working(a) as a missionary, approaching the common man with his crude suggestions of commonsense and that the belief in God will guide one to enlightenment. Berkeley seems to be ignorant to the world around him. With a Eurocentric holistic perspective he sought out those who opposed him or questioned God. And as a member of the clergy it is undoubtedly safe to say that his view of the world was swayed in the interest of the church.Thus not reflective of psyche the philosophical community would openly accept as representing truisms nor worthy of non-speculative minds. By attacking the learned or educated in his world he was openly inviting skepticism from the established minds within the world of philosophy. His out of nowhere thinking and drastic change in theoretical analogy was bound to have enemies. Berkeley would go on to openly contradict himself in further writings, in letters to Percival and his dialogues that would later surface, creating even more questions about his thought process when writing his defense.He himself creates doubt about his dependable intent and how powerfully he believes in his own de fense. In closing it might be said that Bordner did a worthy job in his attempt to help the reader understand and grasp the concepts of Berkeleys Defense of Commonsense. that what he did not do and what many still fail to do is have a true understanding of intent. Berkeley was obviously an intelligent man, but ones whose interests were swayed by both religion and obvious personal gratitude. wizard may never know truly if he was a believer in his own theories or if they were mere propaganda, established to control the masses and to settle unrest. Nonetheless his theories and work were groundbreaking, well thought out, and persuasive. And to this day create intriguing discussions amongst both the educated and the vulgar alike. Works Cited Berkeley. (n. d. ) Dialogues 2182. . Dialogues 2229. (n. d. ). . Introduction to the Principles, Works 225. (n. d. ). Bordner. (n. d. ) 322. . Berkeleys Defense of Commonsense. . Journal of the History of Philosophy (2011) 321.