A Family is a Bridge…

            Little Cia asked her teacher ‘what is a bridge’?  The teacher answered ‘it’s a huge construction built over land or water, where people use it to go in vehicles over it.’ Little Johnny was not happy with the answer which the teacher gave. He stood up and said to the teacher your answer is incomplete. So the teacher told him to tell him what was incomplete. Johnny said a bridge is something that joins two ends of different places.

            Yes my dear friends, a bridge is something that joins two ends. This issue is on the “FAMILY”.  I got an insight that is the Family is a bridge. Before I explain what I mean by Family as a bridge let me put forth two questions. Where you were when you weren't born? And we are familiar sure that, we in the mind of God. Secondly, why are we here in this world?   We are here in this world to love God, serve God and to be happy ever after with God. By these questions, we knew that we are from God and then when he calls us from this world, we have to return to Him.

            So, now the link is when God sends us to this world, He gives us a family (Well, there are some who don't get this gift of a family.) And it’s in the family that we learn to live, learn to educate ourselves, cultivate values like love, honesty, compassion, sharing the goods etc. We are educated and taken care in this family. We are taught the difference between right and wrong. And in most of the families the kids are infused about the notion of God in the Catechism classes. So in this way we see the family is a bridge where we enter from Gods love (philo) to this earth in a family and the family teaches us to turn back to God. Thus, we see the Family is a bridge, which joins the love of God.

First, we belong to a family. And it’s there we are nurtured human values and taught to live life authentically. It’s in a Family, we learn the novelties, methods, skills that which will enhance our life stands in the future. God sends each one in this world as helpless. It’s a given thing that we get free that we are born in a family. This family provides for us, and prepares us for the challenges in the future.

            It’s at home we first learn to walk, talk etc. It’s here that we first learn to love each other. It is  family we enhance our total personality. It’s here that our human, social, intellectual and spiritual development takes place. Not all families are perfect and hence we learn the not so good things of life.

            God too has a great part to play in the family. I was just thinking if our final home is in heaven why is it that God sends us in this world?  We as Christians believe in a Trinitarian God. So, we are sent into a family. This family teaches us all. Then it’s up to us how we live our life. The way we live our life we are to get our reward that is heaven. So nothing comes easy we all need to earn it up. That’s what family teaches us. The breadwinner of the family, the father works very hard to sustain the family and mother plays vital role to keep family going on. A family is about living for the other. Each one has role to play. If all play their role well it is harmonized.

            A family teaches us that we are not alone. We might at first feel that it’s only my mother, my father, my siblings and my grandparents who are my only family. When we come to know about our extended family, it even gets larger. However, later on we realize that the world doesn’t consist of my family but there are so many other people in this world. My own family teaches us that if we have to survive in this world we need to communicate with other people, by building bridges and break the barriers’. And all this is taught to us by our family. The best part of us humans is that we join families together. 

EDUCATING YOUTH TO REAL LOVE.

There are many youth today who are hungering for real love but all that they get is superficial love. There are many lonely hearts. How is it that the youth at such a young age say that they have fallen in love? Do they really know what true love is? Love is made into a concept without knowing what it really is. I feel that the youngsters at their young age are not sufficiently educated about the value of real love and all that they do is try experimenting it by themselves. They think that they have truly fallen for someone when in reality it’s just an attracted or infatuation. And this cycle goes on and on. They get carried away until one day they are hit hard onto the ground, later on not knowing what to do. It goes without saying that they get hurt and their lives become miserable. Later on, some restrain from getting into such situations but some do try their luck. And it works; it may end at times, where the hurt person ends up getting more hurt than before and in future ends up hurting someone else. This leads me to ask the question “What is it that the youths are really searching for?”  But one thing I'm sure of is that most of the youth are in search of true and real love. But what is true love in the first place?

True love is not entirely a human entity; but it also has a divine aspect to it. It is God who in His love provides the grace for His creature to love one another. We are all made for love. There will always be love for the lovable, but there will never be love for the unlovable unless we begin to love them for God’s sake.

True love is outgoing, service oriented and ever ready to self-sacrifice. Love is a feeling that one feels than one can never give enough of it to the other. By giving love no one has ever gone bankrupt. Love can’t be seen. It can only be experienced. Love doesn’t come with a price tag and neither can it be weighed. Love simply ‘IS’. True love never thinks how much it will receive in return it simply gives its all.

True love is best put in the words of St. Augustine ‘Our hearts are made for you Lord, they will never find rest, until they find their rest in You.’ Love is simply that which find rest in someone who can be his/her comfort and that's which gives him/her peace.

Every youth feels that each one should be complete but he/she doesn’t know how they will be complete and it’s this which gives meaning and purpose to one’s life. Each one wants to be happy, and to gain this happiness they are even ready to take up to different vices, only to feel accepted and loved. Later they feel attracted towards others which is not true in its essence; it’s just an unreal love, which last for a few days. But it’s only when one gets to the true essence of love, that time he/she feels complete. The true essence of love is no other than God. He alone can satisfy all the aspirations of the heart. God is true love. But in this world His love is manifested by His people. The people are substitutes of God who spread or give love to each other. We are happy that we love someone but we are much happier when someone else loves us. We need love because we are imperfect and that’s how many lovers consider each other as unworthy but at the same time they love each other deeply.

These thoughts seem to be vague but it’s sure that no one will ever find an absolute ideal of love because it can only be God. But it’s only later that the youth realize that, what he/she wanted was the love that doesn’t fall short of love. And that is the infinite love who is God. It’s only by the blessings of God there can be true and real love. And finally a relationship stands strong enough when the foundation is built on the Love of God who is the giver of all Love.

BIRTH AND DEATH OF CLAY

It’s something like moving from a summer sunny day to the wintery cold night.

The birth of clay is when it is born of the clay by the breath of God the almighty.

The most comfortable place in the world without the cares of the world is the womb of the mother.

It’s when the clay is born it starts to cry. Why?

Many say your downhill t death is after the age of 50.

But I don’t think so it’s then, I guess it’s when the clay is born.

From then on the clay is responsible for its own survival.

The clay always is about to save its breath coz if the breath is gone, the clay returns to clay.

And that’s what none of us want.

How scared are we to death when we are certain of it. Can it be stopped? No.

That is one of the eternal truths we know.

How blind and deaf can we be that we can’t hear and see the nature die.

How dumb we grow when we ate to speak of death?

Well death puts all things right but we don’t wanna get it right.

An Insight just occurred to me: when a new baby is born we are all happy we welcome this new born child into the most deadly race in the world: the Human Race. We are happy for the child coz it’s just gonna do like us destruct this world as we do. I’m sorry for being so pessimistic, but that’s what it is. And then we cry after the person dies coz we are now sure now that this person is never gonna follow us anymore.

We grow and grow, grabbing all that want beyond our necessary requirements.

Giving our body all the possible pleasures that we can.

Forgetting that the soul too needs to be cared of.

Oh! How dumb and deaf and blind and lame our soul will be on the last day as we grow ahead.

The more we create, double the times we destroy.

Leaving the nature worse than ever.

The nature never tires about giving coz it knows.

It will give until it can and then cease to exist.

That will eventually lead to the end of the clay.

That’s what death is …..

You see a patient in the hospital suffering in a hospital at the mercy of the nature coz that’s what it is that provides medicines, etc. to him.

But what when the nature can’t provide anymore.

The person ceases to exist.

Oh! How foolish this clay can be.

Trying to beautify the pot or any clayey material.

It only requires one hit.

And there comes down the pot from the table down to the ground, shattering itself into a million pieces.

What was all the use of beautification?

When the clay knew that one day it would shatter and be thrown away only to be back the clay it was once…..

Fudging Figures and Twisting Facts.

Good afternoon to you all gathered here. The topic of my talk is Fudging Figures and Twisting Facts. My talk features four points. First, Age and Time connected to History. Second, Historians: The History Makers. Third, Truth v/s Power. And Fourth, History from Below. So let’s begin with an introduction.

Introduction.

On 14^th August 2011, Shoban Saxena a reporter published an article ‘Wrong Numbers’ on the Times of India. This article spoke about how government and other agencies twisted facts and figures, exaggerated or cited out of the context to prove their point or support their own agenda. Dear friends, if things can be fudged and twisted in the here and now, it is good to ask ourselves how much more of twisting and fudging of facts, figures and data must have happened in the past? Stastical data, facts and figures of the present situation can be cross checked and verified but how can one verify historical accounts of past happenings when there is very little evidence to support it.

Science has grown or progressed through trial and error method. But what about history, if the historian gets it wrong in his history writing, he only multiplies errors.

With this I begin the First point...

1.      Age and Time connected to History.

Every philosopher’s reflection and insights are replies to the significant issues and questions at that particular time and age. It may not make sense to a person who is living in a very different time than that of the philosopher. So it’s wrong to study philosophers in isolation from his times. Another wrong way is to treat all philosophers as contemporaries. If we talk of history most of it is told from one age to the next. And when it comes to the last person it comes with added information. Past is past and it can’t be changed. Present and Future can be changed. The evolving present has a great influence on people who understand the past. A decision or action that was recently seen in positive light could suddenly come to be regarded as an act of violence or oppression. What till the other day was viewed as an act of barbarism could suddenly because of changing perspective become an act of courage and heroism. Past is not static or fixed but can change any time. One doesn’t really know and one cannot even reasonably predict the ‘future of the past.’ By tradition history has been narrated. Written history can have a stronger impact through which one might be better able to focus on the activities of the individuals. The only struggle is to meet the contingencies, whether it happened or not. To get facts one must distinguish between many myths which are taken in consideration over the course of time. For e.g. In the Christian Theology there has been a search for historical Christ. Some historical figures are related to myths. The problem now is can one separate myths from historical figures? Myths are not necessarily the opposite of history. When one takes away the myth one does not come closer to the truth. On the contrary, one ends up distorting the truth about the person. One must be careful not to succumb to the temptation to exaggerate while writing history, especially the history of religions and religious figures. However, one has also got to accept that the myth is very much an integral part of the person around whom it builds up.  

Moving to the 2^nd point..

2.      Historians: The History Makers.

Historians are noted for their careful, meticulous and systematic study. In the past before when the historians researched, they published their findings to the public which was scrutinized, appreciated and criticized. Now the tag of professionals is also given to write popular history. Nowadays history has become popular through movies, novels and documentaries. As it looks more attractive and has impact on the people. History is now no more boring but entertaining. History is belittled by removing some part of it which makes the people feel bored and a fictitious history is created which is exciting and nice. This makes history impressive which makes the people feel attracted towards it. Professional historians may say that the quality of history communicated by these media may not be honest. These historical movies, novels and documentaries may contain factual facts, factual fiction or even fictional fiction but for people it’s the same. For e.g. Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, where the fictitious information was sold as historical fact to popularize and sell the novel.

And now the 3^rd point...

3.      Truth v/s Power.

All history that is given to us is not just a historical account in isolation but a historian’s personal pre-suppositions and biases. It’s difficult to deny the historians pre-suppositions interests, value systems which influence history. A lot of history is interpreted by the historians especially why things happened in such a way. Historian’s version of history can never claim to completely true because he doesn’t have access to all the facts. Historical accounts are affected because of both the context in which the historian finds himself and the limitedness of his perspective. Here we see that the truth is limited this doesn’t mean that every historical truth claim is relative or subjective. It’s possible to arrive at objective truth to a certain extent in history. The face one doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean he knows nothing. What a historian knows may be limited but what he knows is true to fact also. Since no historians can study enough of a person or event from different perspective historian needs to be open to dialogue between different historical versions so that the truth can gradually emerge. Historians can create heroes from small Lilliput’s to great Giants and vice-versa. This can be done innocently or intentionally. Someone who has really done a great difference can be just blanked out from the pages of history but someone who did something small can be raised up as a great hero.  History is not concerned about how the person lived or what were his convictions but as how the person meant to a particular group. E.g. Bhagat Singh for Indians was a freedom fighter but for the British he was terror. Truth is a tool, a useful fiction used by those in power to exercise control over others and manipulate them. This may not apply to all historical writings but there’s no doubt that such things are done by the powerful in economic and politics. E.g. Our P.M Modi during the 2014 elections projected himself as a victim rather than an accused in the Godhra riots where he appealed to the emotions of the majority population. Thus, creating a fiction around the truth of the riots.

This leads to the 4^th point...

4.      History from Below.

Before I move to history from below let us first know about history from above. History has usually focused on the deeds and achievements of important people of kings and rulers, of politicians and statesman, of the wealthy, the famous and the powerful. This history is referred as history from above. However, the present time has seen historical attention shifting from these ‘extraordinary people’ to more ‘ordinary people’ to the contribution and the deeds of the common person. History from below is a movement which considers the story of ordinary people, workers, immigrants, women and racial minorities. The case in point is the crusade against corruption led by Anna Hazare, an ordinary activist who mobilized mass support and forced the government to pass laws against corruption. This movement has challenged traditional notions about who the historian is and what history is about. It has attacked the presumption that only professional historians are qualified to do history and on the other hand it popularized the view that even ordinary people who are interested in the past of their families and communities can make a big contribution to the understanding of history. Internet has made ‘History from Below’ not only popular but also exciting one. Here people can track back their ancestry and build their family tree across generation. One can write his/her own story and many people across the world can read and comment on it. History seems to have closed eyes towards women. Robin Morgan, a journalist has coined the word ‘Herstory’. This derives a very powerful message which shows the ignored life and contribution of women. It has treated women as if they didn’t exist and they seem to be a different species altogether. But over the years we see that women's haven’t remained silent but they too have bounced back and created histories which have become inspiration to many. E.g. The active role of women in the French Revolution.

And now finally the Conclusion.

In my talk I have spoken some of the important issues that ‘Philosophy of History’ needs to be sensitive to in our contemporary times. It is true that past events are usually interpretations or personal constructs determined by the historian’s perspective. And therefore this makes a Philosophical reflection on history very important. And hence I end by saying ‘History is said to be given but it doesn’t mean it can’t be questioned.’

Thank you one and all.

A 90 Crore rupees dress???????

One evening as I lay on my bed a sudden beep on my cell awoke me up, when I checked my cell I saw that it was my mother calling me. I took the call, and I spoke to her for a long time as I was about to cut the line she told me that the parish priest has told to write an essay about this 90 rupees crore dress worn by a girl and this picture was sent to a nun ad this nun when she saw this just deleted it. The question of the parish priest is why is it that she deleted it? When I heard about this, I said to myself 90 crore seems to be a lot of money.  This news being new to me I was baffled so I just took my cell and googled out. To my surprise I came to know more about that dress and who had worn it and of what it’s made. The dress is stitched with diamonds on it. It was worn by Isha Ambani, the daughter of Mukesh Ambani. It was worn once only for a party. This video has gone viral on YouTube which is about 55 seconds. After viewing all this I got back to the question asked by the priest why the nun did deleted the picture.  So I sat down near my computer taking the mind of that nun and wrote this…….

Hmmm…… one message. Let’s check out. Downloading image. Viewing image. Below the image written. A dress costing 90 crore. What’s so great about it? Oh! I can see diamonds on the dress. Zap… deleted. This might have been possibly happened at the time the nun saw the picture and deleted it.

What might have been going in her mind will always remain in her mind but if I was in her shoes these views might have surely gone through my mind. What….!!!! A 90 crore rupees dress? Oh my God! How can she just waste money just like that? This looks like a pure example of saying that ‘The money grows on the trees.’ Which she has just plucked, collected and just stitched the dress. It’s for sure that it’s her money but instead of stitching such a dress what if she had just made some contribution to the poor. Instead of receiving all the fame which she has received from the public; in adding to that her contribution to the poor would had brought her fame and also blessings of the poor people. Fame brings happiness only for a short period of time. For example if she has worn a dress costing 90 crore today, tomorrow someone else might wear a dress costing 95 crore. So where is the fame then? Fame is something that benefits only one person and at times it selfish. But a contribution would give her fame and also a good name in the society. People are born in this world not to live a selfish life but to live a life of sharing in love. The nun being a religious might have felt the pinch as she has taken the vow of poverty which denies such things. She might have said I don’t have anything to do with this so the image was deleted. If one sees the image of the dress worn by Isha Ambani it’s quite stylish and a bit showing of the body which goes against the religious vow of chastity which the nun has professed and that’s why may be she has deleted. Adding to this point, our country India is a very conservative society, it demands to dress respectfully and not showing if some skin. The nun may also be convinced of this and so deleted it. Another reason could be why such an image should exist in ones cellphone, which doesn’t benefit or suits the purpose of the nun? These may be the possible reasons or even more why the nun deleted such a picture.

My opinion as a student of philosophy, I personally would not condemn her or be a critic of her. In fact, I appreciate her of the new innovation that she has brought into fashion. But if she had thought of how much money she’s spending would have made the difference. Showing of her skin also is not my part of the business. If she wants to show off let her but I'm no one to stop her. Well the only thing I can do is tell and if it makes sense to her well fine. Each one has a mind which reasons out and its each ones responsibility to do good and love one another.     

Berkeley's Human Knowing.

1.         Introduction.

Berkeley asks whether philosophy solves or creates problems. And he is of the opinion that it creates more problems than it solves. Berkley’s aim is not philosophical at all but rather the removal of philosophical obstacles to correct living. We have a few faculties and we being finite are left baffled and surprised by the infinites uncovered by our sense and reason. We tend to blame our confusion on our faculties where it is how we deploy our faculties that cause trouble. Berkley thus aims to uncover the principles that led to philosophical confusion. Our confusion is not derived from our faculties or the objects that we consider but from our using of wrong principles.[1] He tries to explain this in his ‘A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge.’

2.         Abstract ideas.

Berkeley emphasis the danger, that the mind can frame abstract ideas. Any one new to philosophy might think that logic and metaphysics are all about the study of abstract ideas, when in fact no such abstract ideas exist. The properties that something possesses cannot exist separately or in isolation. Qualities are always found mixed and blended together. However some philosophers claim that mind can consider qualities separately and isolated from others.[2] The doctrine of abstract ideas has been prone to create metaphysical confusion. Believing in the abstract ideas is perhaps the philosophical mistake, and Berkeley finds it remarkably that so much scientific and mathematical progress could have been made while their exponents remained in such philosophical confusion over fundamentals like the nature of abstraction.[3]

3.         Language.

Language is a set of artificial relations between ideas, although Berkeley expressly states that language can have other functions besides reflecting associations of ideas. Berkeley thinks that a key philosophical error is assuming that all language exists to communicate ideas, and that every meaningful symbol must stand in for a determinate idea.[4] Some of the difficulties that follow from mistakes about language might be avoided if we attended more to our ideas and less to words. Words have a bad habit of misleading, or imposing upon, our understanding. We can have benefits from throwing off philosophical error derived from language. The first benefit will be a reduced susceptibility to the doctrine of abstract ideas. Secondly, we would then have a reduced risk of getting involved in purely verbal disputes, rather than philosophical debate.[5]

4.         Human Knowing.

Berkeley defines the object of human knowing are ideas and ideas in turn can be of only three kinds: ideas imprinted on the senses, ideas acquired through attending to ‘the passions and operations of the mind’ and lastly ideas formed by the help of memory and imagination.[6] The sense of sight yields ideas of light and colour. The sense of smell yields ideas of odour. The sense of touch yields ideas of hardness and softness, etc. Thus, for example, a certain collection of colour, taste, smell, shape and texture we call ‘an apple’, while other collections of ideas constitute a stone, a tree, a book, and the like sensible things.[7] Besides all the ideas or objects of knowledge, there is likewise something which knows or perceives them, and exercises diverse operations as willing, imagining, and remembering about them. This perceiving, active being is what Berkeley calls mind, spirit, soul or myself.[8] Berkeley always talks of mind or spirits but never of persons. This mind, soul or spirit is an active thing that is able to perceive ideas and operate on them. The mind is not identical with any of its ideas but is rather the thing wherein they exist, or, which is the same thing, whereby they are perceived. Berkeley held that it is true that physical objects really are the things that we directly perceive and it is true that the objects of our immediate awareness really are mind-dependent entities. In Berkeley's system, real objects are those whose perceptions are more vivid, continuous and steadfast and less subject to our voluntary control, than perceptions of illusory objects. Berkeley held that physical objects are collection of sensible ideas and that sensible ideas must be directly perceptible. He denies that sensible objects can possess absolute existence, that is, their existence in a way is not related to perception but ‘out of minds of spirits or distinct from being perceived.’ Berkeley upheld the real existence of physical things but rejected utterly the absolute existence of material things.[9]

Mental objects or processes like ideas, thought or passions cannot possibly exist outside the mind.[10] It seems equally obvious that combination of ideas cannot exist outside of being perceived by some mind. We can acquire ‘an intuitive knowledge’ of this truth simply by reflecting on what the existence of sensible objects means. For example if I say a table exists I can say this if only I can see and feel it. Berkeley further states that it is impossible to form an idea of existence that is completely independent of any notion of perception[11]. For all objects that are present to the senses, existence is the same thing as being perceived. All sensible objects are simply combinations of ideas and ideas cannot exist unperceived, so no sensible object can exist unperceived.[12]

One of the greatest errors of abstraction is thinking existence can be abstracted away from perception. Light, colour, heat, etc., are merely ideas and can have no existence outside the mind. Dividing ideas from their being perceived is completely impossible.[13]

5.         Primary and Secondary qualities.

Some philosophers distinguish between primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities includes extension, solidity, shape, motion, etc. and secondary qualities involve colour taste sound, etc. they say that our ideas of secondary qualities don’t resemble anything existing outside the mind but they insist that our ideas of primary qualities are patterns or images of things that exist outside the mind in an unthinking substance which they call it matter. By matter we understand that it is an inert, senseless substance in which extension shape and motion exist. But Berkeley says that extension shape and motion are clearly nothing but ideas existing in the mind and ideas can’t be like anything but other idea and that consequently neither nor things from which they are copied can exist in unperceiving substance. So the notion of matter involves a contradiction.[14]Many believe that primary qualities exist in matter and secondary qualities reside in the mind and that secondary qualities depend on the purely corporeal qualities of matter. Berkeley claims that such separability of primary and secondary qualities will not do as the primary and secondary qualities are inextricably intermingled. Berkeley says primary qualities cannot be conceived in isolation. Since ideas of colour must reside in the mind and primary and secondary qualities cannot reside in separate substances, it follows then that primary qualities can only exist in the mind.[15]

Large and small, and fast and slow (form a part of motion and extension), are generally agreed to exist only in the mind. That is because they are entirely relative: whether something is large or small, and whether it moves quickly or slowly, depends on sense-organs of the perceiver. So if there is extension outside the mind, it must be neither large nor small. This leads him to conclude that there is no such extension or motion.[16] Berkeley says number also is an inevitably mind dependent and numerical properties vary according to the acts of the mind.[17] He talks of ‘unity’ as an abstract idea.[18]

6.         Ideas.

Berkley says that all our ideas, sensation or things that we perceive are visibly inactive and they do not possess any power or agency in them. Our ideas or object of thought cannot produce or affect another. To be convinced of this we need to attend to our ideas which are wholly contained in our mind, so whatever is in them must be perceived. Attending to the properties of our ideas we will not perceive any power or activity in them so it follows that ideas are passive and torpid. An idea can’t do anything or be the cause of anything nor can it resemble anything that is active. From this it’s clear that extension, shape and motion can’t be the cause of our sensation.[19] We perceive a continual stream of ideas: with new ones arising, some changing and old ones disappearing totally. This process goes on at all times. Then something evidently should be the cause which produces these ideas, but this something just can’t be another idea, since ideas are passive and inactive. So he says that it must be therefore be some substance but he rejects material substance. He concludes by saying that the cause of ideas is an immaterial active substance which he calls ‘spirit.’[20]  A spirit is an active being. It is simple, undivided, active being: as it perceives ideas it is called the ‘understanding’ and when thought as producing ideas or doing things with it is called ‘the will.’ Understanding and will are different powers that a spirit has; they aren’t parts of it. Hence there can be no ideas formed of a spirit, for all ideas are passive and inert, therefore they can’t represent any active thing. It is impossible to have an idea that that is like an active cause of the change of ideas. The nature of spirit is such that it cannot be perceived; all that we can do is perceive the effects it produces. To perceive a spirit would be to have an idea of it, which means to have an idea that resembles it; and this is not possible because the ideas are passive and inactive.[21] Berkeley says that one can have power over ones thoughts, however the ideas that one gets through the senses don’t depend on ones will. In the same way in broad daylight one may open his eyes, and it’s not in one’s power to choose whether to see anything or to choose particular objects to see, the same holds in hearing and the other senses. Ones will is not responsible for the ideas that come to one’s mind through any of his/her senses. So there must be some other will or spirit that produces them.[22] 

The ideas of sense are stronger, livelier, and clearer than those of the imagination; and they are also steady, orderly and coherent. Ideas that people bring into their own minds at will are often random, but the ideas of sense aren’t like that: they come in regular series, and are inter-related in admirable ways.[23] Berkeley holds that the laws of nature are thus the rules whereby the external spirit produces and regulates our ideas.[24] This stability of natural law allows us to make plans for the future and to regulate our expectations for the benefit of life, hence provide more evidence of the wisdom and benevolence of the Great Spirit that regulates the world of sensible things.[25] The ideas imprinted on the sensed by the other of nature are called ‘real things’ and those that are caused by our imagination, being less vivid, and constant, are more properly called ‘ideas’ or ‘images’ of things that they copy and represent. But our sensations, however vivid and distinct they may be, are nevertheless ideas; that is they exist in the mind, or are perceived by it, as truly as the ideas that mind itself makes. The ideas of sense are agreed to have more reality in them, than ideas made by the mind; but this doesn’t show that they exist outside the mind. They are less dependent on the spirit that perceives them, for they are caused by the will of another more powerful spirit (God) but still they are ideas and certainly no idea whether faint or strong can exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving it.[26]

7.         Spirits.

Berkeley considers our knowledge of spirits is generally incomplete and imperfect. However, it’s not the defect in our understanding that we cannot form an idea of spirit. An idea is impossible; our failure to form an idea cannot be held against us. Perhaps, another kind of sense could yield ideas of spirit, just as we have ideas of triangles by using our sight. The doctrine that spirits could be apprehended via ideas has had unfortunate philosophical and religious consequences. Berkeley speculates that many may have been led to skepticism about the existence of the soul through trying and failing to find any idea of it. Berkley seems puzzled at why such attempts have been made, since the truth is an idea cannot resemble a spirit.[27] Berkeley says clearly that what we can know of other spirits in through what they do, that is, they arouse ideas in us. Some of the changes that we perceive among our ideas inform us that there is a certain particular agent like myself, which accompany those ideas and concur in their production in my mind. About our own ideas we know immediately but the knowledge of other spirits is not immediate, it depends on the intervention of ideas that we take to be effects or signs of agents other than myself.[28]

8.         Conclusion.

After going through this text ‘A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge’ by Berkeley. I have come to the conclusion that the thing that he tries to explain is that ideas are just passive and torpid. And our ideas can’t produce or affect others. And it’s the spirit that causes the ideas; this spirit is not material but an immaterial substance. We can’t perceive the spirit but we can only perceive the effects the spirit produces. He talks of the Great Spirit who regulates the world of sensible things, this Great Spirit is God.

---

[1] Talia Mae Bettcher, Berkeley: A Guide for the Perplexed, (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008) 14-15.  

[2] Alasdair Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009) 24.

[3] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 29.

[4] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 30.

[5] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 31.

[6] George Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, ed. Kenneth Winkler (Cambridge:      Hackett Publishing Company, 1995) 23.

[7] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 35.

[8] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 23.

[9] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 36- 37.

[10] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 23.

[11] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 37-38.

[12] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 39-40.

[13] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 40.

[14] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 26.

[15] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 45-46.

[16] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 27.

[17] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 47.

[18] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 28.

[19] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 32-33.

[20] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 33.

[21] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 33.

[22] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 34.

[23] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 34.

[24] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 70-71.

[25] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 71.

[26] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 35.

[27] Richmond, Berkeley's Principle of Human Knowledge, 140.

[28] Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principle of Human Knowledge, 81.