 Welcome to this course on aspects of western philosophy, module 16 and lecture 16. And this lecture would be focusing on the contributions of another great and very important empiricist philosopher George Berkeley. Berkeley is a very interesting thinker, because of his there is something called materialism. He was trying to argue that every reality is psychic in nature and objects in this world, the world which we see around, the objects in the world which we see around like this chairs and tables and computers etcetera, all their existence to a mind which perceives them. So, in that sense he is a very interesting thinker and also very controversial. So, we will see some of his basic ideas in these two lectures, this one and the next one before we start discussing David Schum's philosophy. So, Berkeley was born in 1685 and died in 1753 and he was an Anglo-Irish philosopher who was also a bishop, it is very important that he was a bishop, because as a Christian bishop of the Anglican church. One of the major projects which Berkeley undertook was to refute the very notion of material substance or matter. And that is the reason why almost the entire philosophy of Berkeley was preoccupied with this conception, with this notion of refuting material substance and this notion of material substance as a very long history in western philosophy, we will come to that slightly later. As I already mentioned he is famous for his immaterialism or which is also known as subjective idealism which denies the existence of material substance. And these are some of his important works in his treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge, he advocated that nothing exists outside the mind. So, every reality is psychic, this is one theory which he is trying to advocate by saying that every reality is mental, he is also trying to argue that every reality is spiritual. And again another work, the three dialogues between Hylas and Philonus, the two characters, two characters which he invented and this entire dialogue is written in the form of a debate between these two, propounded that the world depends up for its existence on being perceived. So, this was the theory which he was trying to advocate in his entire philosophical project. And now let us see a very briefly Berkeley's problem, as I already mentioned was a bishop and he wants to refute materialism and atheism because the basis of atheism is materialism and this was a problem during the modern age in philosophy. Because in modern philosophy we have seen that with Descartes onwards, there is a recognition of material domain as an independent domain. Material world is important and Cartesian dualism has maintained that the domain of bodies, the material world has got its own rules, its own laws and it is not controlled by anything outside of it, but it has got its own internal mechanism, the laws of mechanics. And this would ultimately lead to a kind of materialism, so there was a prevalent or there was a kind of increasing materialism that is kind of overpowering which the Christian church was concerned about. And as a bishop Berkeley was also concerned about it, so he wants to refute materialism and atheism which actually springs from materialism by refuting the existence of materialism substance. What he thought was once if you can show that matter or material substance is fundamentally unreal or superfluous, then you can I mean your job is very easy then, then you can refute the kind of atheism which would result from materialism quite easily. So this was what he was trying to do and to establish the spiritual basis of all reality and to establish that things there, things owe their existence to a perceiving mind, so that everything, every reality, every object owes its existence to a mind which perceives it. And this is a very interesting notion because once you say that every reality which has been actually termed as to be is to be perceived, that is the kind of proposition Berkeley arrives at to be is to be perceived. So if to be to exist an object needs to be perceived by a mind, then the mind is the ultimate presupposition of all existence, some mind which has the ability to perceive is a presupposition. So ultimately tracing back the existence of all objects to a thinking substance to a spiritual entity is what Berkeley was trying to do. And again there is an argument against matter is set forth in the dialogues which I have already pointed out where there are two characters, Hallis stands for the scientifically educated common sense, other character I mean he is Berkeley himself who is trying to counter materialism and tries to establish a kind of spiritualism or the spiritual basis of all reality. Now let us see this picture. So we will see the immaterialism in the middle of this figure. There is immaterialism in the middle of this figure and this immaterialism is supported by three things. One is the refutation of the idea of substratum. This idea of substratum is actually developed by John Locke in a major way. Of course this concept of material substratum is there ever since Aristotle's times but it finds its more mature articulations in the philosophy of John Locke where he says that there must be a support for these qualities. Qualities cannot hang in the air, they must have a support. So you have a notion of material substratum and Berkeley directly attacks this notion of material substratum and the second one is refutation of the distinction between primary and secondary qualities which we will see in this lecture. The major distinction Locke makes between the two types of qualities, primary qualities which Locke contented that these qualities belong to the object, they are original qualities which belong to the object and secondary qualities are more or less subjective according to Locke. So this distinction again asserts that there is a material substance or there are material substances which are nothing but the support of or the abode of these so called primary qualities. So the distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities would again strengthen the idea of material substratum which again further leads to materialism and atheism Berkeley thought. So once you can do away with this distinction and establish that all qualities are sort of secondary, subjective, subjective to the person or to the mind which perceives it. If you can establish that then you are establishing a materialism, they are refuting materialism. The third one is the refutation of abstract ideas which we will see in the next lecture. So these three refutations directly aiming at Lockeian theories, Lockeian doctrines that refutation of material substratum, the refutation of the distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities and further the refutation of abstract ideas. These three would substantiate the kind of immaterialism which George Berkeley was trying to advocate which leads to a kind of subjective idealism which says that every reality is psychic on the one hand and also to be is to be perceived. So this is Berkeley's philosophy in some this figure would explain you. Now let us address some of the most important themes which Berkeley comes across in his philosophical terrier. As I already mentioned immaterialism which says that material substance does not exist. So that is a conclusion of his immaterialism. So he begins with the assumption that this needs to be asserted, this needs to be established. The immateriality or the non-materiality of reality needs to be established from the very outset and Russell makes a very interesting observation in this context. He says that Berkeley is important in philosophy through his denial of the existence of matter, a denial which is supported by a number of ingenious arguments. So this is Russell's argument. The kind of arguments Berkeley puts forward to support is immaterialism are according to Bertrand Russell ingenious. We have to decide whether they are genuine or they are sort of superfluous in the course of these two lectures. Now the distinction between primary and secondary qualities he is trying to argue that that is superfluous and objects over to their existence minds which perceive them which is called subjective idealism. Now let us see what is this material substance all about it is it conceives that or it assumes that the notion of material substance presupposes that or it states that there is an entity independent of the mind or consciousness. Something which is not created by the mind but lies independent lies outside the mind when I discussed John Locke's philosophy I have already explained this John Locke assumes that there is a reality out there. So and all knowledge I have explained this with the kind of a metaphor of inner space and outer space when I discuss John Locke the inner space represents the mind and the outer space represents a reality which is outside the mind which is independent of it. Now the whole notion of knowledge is to how this outer space gets into the inner space or to put it in other words how does the inner space get an access to the outer space that is what knowledge is and empiricists were trying to sort of explain this process and Locke's comes up with a kind of representationalist epistemology which Berkeley finds objectionable. This is representationalism because when you say there is representation there is something which is represented from something which lies outside and which is represented by certain other things in this context it is the ideas in the human mind. So there is a world there are ideas and the human mind there are three things in this process and the world or there is a substance which has qualities and these qualities produce ideas in the mind and the human mind perceives these ideas and their interconnections and arrive at knowledge. This is the kind of representationalist epistemology which Locke advocates which Berkeley finds objectionable. So he says that this idea of an entity independent of mind or consciousness is problematic and Locke's substratum or support of qualities is again a kind of notion which substantiates this notion of material substance. There is a support of these qualities, qualities cannot hang in the air and again an independent domain ruled by the laws of mechanics which Descartes has assumed I have already discussed this. The world constructs an independent material domain against strict Christian belief. So this is what the basis of his the intention behind refuting material substance for Berkeley is as I have already mentioned the belief in or his Christian roots his Christian belief which would like to see that the notion of matter is refuted. Matter does not constitute an independent reality if matter constitutes an independent reality then that raises claims against the omnipotence of God the superpower God and this may lead to a kind of atheism according to Berkeley. Now let us come back to substratum theory which is initiated by philosophers before him and strengthened by many other thinkers particularly John Locke. It says that like since Aristotle we can see that you know the early Greek philosophers who are called as naturalist we have already seen them their contributions in our lectures one of first or second lecture in the series we dealt with these early philosophers the they were naturalist and none of them rejected or even questioned the existence of most of them accepted the existence of a material world because fundamentally their problem was to find out the underlying reality of this corporeal world. So they took it for granted that a world exist and for some philosophers like Thales the fundamental reality was constitute of water for some it is air for some it is fire whatever it is they all thought that there is some material basis or most of them thought that there is a material basis for all reality they never questioned it. But when we come to Plato we would see a philosopher an uncompromising thinker who would oppose who would rather conceive matter as unreal and afterwards when we come to Aristotle we see that matter is reinstated. Aristotle's philosophy gives a very respectable role for the notion of matter because in this scheme of things the four causes the material cause the formal cause the material cause and the efficient cause and the final cause in this theory of causation the material cause occupies an equally important role like the formal cause which is mental. So in that sense Aristotle recognizes acknowledges the importance of matter and so the prevalent view is that qualities of material objects depend on and exist in a substance which has those qualities so that is the concept of material substratum. So substratum theory presupposes that an object a substance which has qualities which we can perceive the material substance remains the same through changes. So again in Aristotle we could see that you know an object might undergo changes what happens is that the form the matter remains the same only the form changes different forms shape the matter differently. So this is what happens the matter remains the same. So an underlying unchanging matter is what is important in this theory and when we come to Descartes the Cartesian Devilism strengthens these views matter with an independent domain I have already explained this there is a matter with an independent domain of its own laws the laws of mechanics and Locke's material substratum as we have already explained in the previous lecture. So I am not going to elaborate it here is where material substratum or material substance is conceived as an unknown support Locke says I know not what Berkeley want to refute this doctrine precisely the substratum theory which has its roots probably in the philosophy of Aristotle and got strengthened by many philosophers including Descartes and John Locke. And now Berkeley's questions I will just summarize some of the issues some of the problems which Berkeley found with this theory of substratum can we represent to us as what we mean by matter in this sense because the call notion is see as an empiricist you have certain presuppositions like John as John Locke has already pointed out already sort of brought out those presuppositions of an empiricist philosopher who believes that all knowledge has its foundation in experience either in sensation or in reflection. So they are represented through sensations and reflection so when you talk about material substance can we represent to ourselves what we mean by matter in this sense we see only qualities white color softness a kind of smell all these things we see but we do not see the matter underlying all these qualities we do not see the support underlying all these qualities even in John Locke Locke admits that it is a matter of inference he just infers because you know these qualities cannot just be here and there they need to be supporting they need to be supported by a kind of substance. So even in this philosophy the notion that matter is imperceivable is accepted and Locke says that it is something which is unknown. Again another question is is it not just a word which we use without any understanding behind it just a meaningless word substance substratum material substance all these are words which do not have any meaning are they so again can we describe what we mean by the existence of objects in abstraction from the fact that they are being perceived again is it nothing but the very things we see feel and here is it only the collections of ideas which make up the experience of perception that is very important I repeat it is is it only the collections of ideas which make up the experience of perception and from this Berkeley concludes or Berkeley derives this immaterialism primarily expounded in his work the three dialogues between Hylis and Filonius which I have already explained where this character Filonius represents Berkeley's views immaterialism defutation of material substance subjective idealism etcetera while on the other hand Hylis represents Berkeley's opposite viewpoint the reality of the material substance a view which was held by John Locke and if you see the etymology of the term Filonius it is derived from Filo which means love and knows which means mind so the term means love or lover of mind who argues that all reality is mental and the term Hylis in ancient Greek means would and it implies matter stands for the view that material substances exist so this is how you know it was metaphorically represented in his dialogue and Berkeley very interestingly to note that wrought all these important philosophical works at a very early age as Russell says there are certain philosophers who mature very young and certain philosophers like Immanuel Kant who took a long time major publication has come out when he was 57 years old while I think Berkeley has written some of his very important publication during his 20s and immaterialism so this is a dialogue so Hylis who represents materialism says can anything be more fantastical more repugnant to common sense or a more manifest piece of skepticism than to believe there is no such thing as matter to which Filonius replies I do not deny the reality of sensible things say for example this world around me I do not deny it I am not against that that is of what is perceived immediately by the senses no one can deny that so Filonius explains that he does not deny the existence of this world around him the world of objects around him but there is no ground to believe that we do not see the causes of colors or hear the causes of sounds by sight we perceive only light color and figure by hearing only sounds apart from sensible qualities there is nothing sensible and sensible things are nothing but sensible qualities or combination of sensible qualities so basically Berkeley argues that there is nothing beyond these sensible qualities which I perceive you cannot argue for something to which these qualities are attached to these qualities are supported by a support or a substratum you can only talk about these qualities and this entire world can be explained with the notion of these qualities you do not really require a metaphysical entity like the material substratum to explain what is happening around you in this world so it is a superfluous notion now when you try to understand this entire refutation of material substratum in terms of sense data it basically argues that all sense data are mental whatever you get through your sensations are mental heat and cold are sensations great heat is a pain and pain must be in the mind therefore heat is mental so he is sort of reducing every sensation or every reality because my encounter with reality is necessarily mediated through my sensations and since every sensation can be ultimately reduced to a kind of mental feeling a kind of mental experience you can basically reduce every reality to a mind so he says heat and cold are sensations great heat is pain and pain must be in mind therefore it is mental and the same thing is applicable to the case of cold as well a sweet taste is pleasant pleasure and a bitter taste is pain and pleasure and pain are mental so taste are also mental orders are also pleasant or unpleasant and hence are mental so orders are also mental all reality is immaterial mental or spiritual so from sense data you can ultimately prove that all reality is spiritual in nature again he takes up this classic lukewarm water which is cited in Locke's philosophy also where when one of our hands is hot and the other cold if we put both into a lukewarm water it may feel cold to one hand and hot to the other this hand is cold and this is hot now I am putting this both the hands into a lukewarm water and now suddenly this hand which is cold feels a kind of heat the water is hot and from this hand I feel that water is cold because this hand is already hot so this shows that everything is sort of subjective not objectively there though water cannot be at once hot and cold it cannot be cold and hot at the same time there is some reality to this water lukewarm water but two of my hands I feel two different sensations this shows that reality is mental therefore these are mental and again when you come to the refutation of material substance all knowledge is derived from sensation and reflection which is the fundamental empiricist notion advocated by John Locke accepted by all the empiricist thinkers we know only ideas if this is the case only ideas are known and we can never know a matter a material world without us then again in our knowledge about material object we are limited to states of consciousness so everything as far as I am concerned the entire world is given to me in the form of ideas so it is nothing but I am I am directly aware of my states of different states of consciousness so ultimately the whole of reality for me is nothing but different states of consciousness mental spiritual psychical we cannot compare our ideas with the bodies because to compare our ideas with the bodies we should be able to experience both ideas and the bodies but as far as I am concerned I have direct access to the ideas ideas are there with me but the objects from where or the material the support from where these ideas come from or these qualities emanate from I have no access to so I cannot compare ideas with something outside them the bodies we do not know anything about them no direct knowledge about them at all we do not know whether they exist or not even with about their existence I cannot be sure about I cannot say anything so it leads to a kind of skepticism lock on material substance himself acknowledges this kind of skepticism by saying that I know not what I know that there must be a support but if you ask me what is it I would say I do not know I know not what we cannot know it so this is a kind of skepticism and again Berkeley would say that the belief in matter the belief in material substratum would lead to a kind of atheism an independent material substance and a world of pure space suggests the existence of an infinite eternal immutable reality alongside of God so you have along with God God as a reality along with that there is again an independent domain a problem which the card actually faced and tried to resolve with this notion of relative substances or dependent substances which Spinoza and Leibniz found problematic Spinoza as we have already seen was trying to resolve this entire paradox with the notion of pantheism which was again not really satisfactory explanation for Leibniz who comes up with this monadology so the entire philosophical traditions where debating on this issue again this will limit God and may even suggest his non-existence this was Berkeley's concern that the postulation of an independent an autonomous material domain would limit God or even may suggest his non-existence the belief in matter leads to atheism and materialism and to counter atheism we have to demonstrate that material substance does not exist the universe can be explained without material substance with God the supreme spirit and other spiritual beings so this was in nutshell the objective of Berkeley the entire universe can be explained without a notion of material substance with God with spirit and other spiritual entities like minds now as I already pointed out in the previous lecture when we discussed John Locke's philosophy when you talk about matter matter is conceived as an inert senseless and non-substance I know not what it neither acts nor perceives nor is perceived in Locke it is passive because it is inert it cannot act only minds can be active it does not perceive because perception is an action perception presupposes consciousness and matter is unconscious so it cannot perceive nor is it perceived because it is unknown you perceive only your ideas but the support of these ideas the so-called substratum is never perceived and mostly made up of negatives so this is Berkeley's complaint when you talk about material substratum you seem to have nothing to say positive about it everything is negative not this not this neither acts nor perceived not perceived and only positive supposition is a support of qualities this is what Locke says it is basically a support of qualities and now the question is how can anything be present to us which is neither perceivable by senses nor reflection nor capable of reducing any idea in our minds nor is it at all extended nor has any form nor exist in any place so how can you talk about such an entity such a substance this is a Berkeley's problem and now Berkeley goes on to examine what is it that behind the construction the construal of a material substance I mean his major opponent in this context was of course his immediate predecessor John Locke and he says that the theory of qualities and the separation or the distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities is one of those assumptions or one of those theoretical basis for construing a material substance independent of the mental images which we have about the world and so here I would not be explaining it in detail because I have already done it when I discussed John Locke's philosophy there is a notion of corporeal body which is a solid extended figure substance having the power of motion possessing a certain color weight taste smell and sound so this is what a corporeal body means and in this description of a corporeal body we could see that in the Lockean sense there are two sets of qualities solid extended figured substance they represent the primary qualities and on the other hand you talk about color having a certain color a certain ways weight taste smell and sound these are the so-called secondary qualities so in the conception of corporeal qualities Locke would blend these two notions some qualities in here in the substance they are called primary qualities like extension figure solidity motion rex etc and secondary qualities are the effects of the body produced in the perceiving subject not qualities of the body itself but in me like color sound taste smell etc I have already discussed this in detail in the previous lecture now this distinction itself according to Berkeley is extremely problematic it between qualities which depend for their existence on the relation between an object and a perceptual apparatus and qualities which a thing has independent of any perceiver that is a distinction one presupposes a perceiver another one is independent of anyone who perceives them that are original belong to the object distinction between what really objectively exist and what is merely subjective and distinction between the sensation of something and the object which causes the sensation the sensation of something the secondary qualities and the object which causes the sensation what is that object the support the substratum distinction between the as t and passive elements in perception and implies that material things have certain properties independently of our perceiving them and therefore they exist independent of all of us independent of the mind which perceives them so this is what that is the reason why Berkeley takes up this distinction finds that this distinction is extremely controversial and extremely problematic because it is this distinction which supports the notion of material substratum which Berkeley was trying to refute and now when you come to primary qualities I have already mentioned their original qualities of the substance they are in the body not just in me who perceive them and they belong to the material object since they belong to the material body to which they belong the material substance as a substratum exist secondary qualities are in me largely subjective and now let us go back to Locke for Locke batter is an inert senseless substance in which primary qualities of extension figure and motion do actually exist and but for Locke they are also ideas in the mind so what is it on the one hand you say that they are there in the objects qualities of extension figure which are originally there and they are also ideas in the mind primary qualities are in the object and also in the mind so on the one hand they are in the object and on the other hand they are in our mind they exist apart from the mind and also in the mind the concept of matter thus involves a contradiction in it so this is precise this is one minor aspect which Berkeley finds objectionable in the very notion of material substance which he highlights it involves a kind of contradiction because by being the qualities they must be perceived by us so we have ideas about them primary qualities are in the object and also in our mind at the same time so basically Berkeley is trying to argue that there is no fundamental distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities if you object primary qualities or if you say that primary college secondary the so called secondary qualities are subjective on the basis of certain criteria then you can say the primary qualities are also subjective by applying the same criteria for example the so called primary qualities are not different in kind from the secondary qualities which are mind dependent if secondary qualities are mind dependent because of some reasons for the same reasons primary qualities are also mind dependent because the basic assumption of primary quality is that they are original but you can never know whether they are original to know that they are original you need to compare it with object which is impossible because as long as you are concerned you have no direct access to the object you have access only to the ideas only to the qualities and again the so called primary qualities the the ideas of extension and solidity which are the so called primary qualities according to Locke I get through the senses of touch and our sensations in my mind so how do I know this so called primary qualities that is the question which Berkeley raises say for example you talk about solidity as an original primary quality or extension as another original primary quality how do we know them and he says that I know them through the senses of touch and they are also sensations in my mind so long as I come to know about them only through my senses they are also in the mind they also depend on my perceiving them with my mind I cannot separate my idea of extension from the idea of color and other secondary qualities so it is impossible to distinguish the kind of so called primary qualities the the ideas of extension from like primary qualities like the ideas of extension and figure and motion from the idea of color and other secondary qualities so it is impossible again when I perceive anything extended I perceive it as colored and having other secondary qualities as well so I cannot perceive something as just extended I would always perceive it as extended having a certain color again primary and secondary qualities are inseparably unite if secondary qualities exist only in the mind the same thing must be true of primary qualities also and here he refers back to the lukewarm water argument which Locke himself has initiated which we have already discussed the same water which appears cold to one hand seems warm to another therefore secondary qualities of heat and cold are affections of the mind heat and cold are not patterns of real beings existing in the corporeal substances which excite them sweetness is not really in the sapid thing when we have fever or on occasions of heated pallet the same thing that is sweet now may feel bitter and to the same eye at different stations or eyes of a different texture at the same station figure and extension appear differently so with this lukewarm water argument he had shown that the secondary qualities differ from person to person or for the same person under different circumstances so to that extent they are largely subjective and the same thing is applicable in the case of a prime so called primary quality like figure or extension because to the same eye at different stations or eyes of a different texture at the same station figure and extension appear differently hence they are not patterns or resemblances of qualities existing in matter we cannot say that they are anything quote unquote original to the world of object now existence of object in the world they are real things in the sense that God arouses them these sensation in a regular coherent order so there is of course I see this chair in front of me or the camera in front of me as the same camera which I have seen it 10 minutes back there is a coherence there is a continuity that is because God arouses these sensations in us in a regular coherent manner and material substance is a mere combination of sensible qualities so this is what Berkeley was driving us to demonstrate that material substance is a mere combination of sensible qualities such as extension, solidity, weight and the like and not a support of accidents or qualities without the mind so there is nothing like a material substance that exists independent of the mind possessing an independent autonomous domain it is a mere combination of these qualities so in one sense we can say that the question is are ideas copies copies or resemblances of things that exist without the mind in an unthinking substance the thesis counted by Berkeley so this ideation theory so long as it conceives ideas are mere copies ideas as copies is objectionable to Berkeley because it assumes that or it presupposes that if an idea is a copy then there must be an original and that original is the substratum but if you apply the empiricist methodology can never come to know about what that real original substance is that lead to a kind of skepticism and for Berkeley more important thing is that it leads to materialism and atheism an idea can be like nothing but an idea you cannot compare an idea with something else an idea can be compared only with another idea a color or figure can be like nothing but another color of figure you cannot compare it with an original so called original material substratum so he basically says that every quality of an object can be reduced to a sensible quality to a sensation so this is what Berkeley is trying to drive us to the theory that every quality of an object can be reduced to a sensible quality to a sensation. Sensations are conscious and immaterial they do not refer to a material entity from where they are coming from or emanating from they themselves are real they are things in themselves they are essentially psychic there is nothing beyond sensations hence every reality is mental so ultimately this is what Berkeley was trying to argue that every reality is mental so let us see Berkeley's conclusions since there is no such thing as matter or material substance existing independently of us anything is nothing but a collection of sensible qualities which are mind dependent number one so everything is mind dependent there is nothing that a matter or material substance existing independent of us number two to be a sensible thing is to be a collection of sensible qualities perceived by some mind a quality which a mind can never perceive is not a quality at all if it is a quality then a mind should be able to perceive it so to be sensible something needs to be a quality which a mind can perceive ideas we perceive are things themselves so we will wind up this lecture here and before we end let us have some of the further issues which we would be discussing in the next lecture so the problem of abstract ideas because that is another one which and the beginning of this lecture I have pointed out that one supporting argument for substantiating the notion of material the existence of a material substance is with regard to the existence of abstract ideas the mind has the ability to frame abstract ideas like the idea of a material substance the basis of framing this idea the mental ability to do that so Berkeley would try to argue that this is impossible or it is not possible for the mind to make an abstract idea we can of course make some general ideas about man for example there is a general idea of man or general idea of a chair which I mean but the moment you talk about an abstract general idea it acquires a kind of metaphysical status something which exists it assumes that or it presupposes the existence of something which is beyond these qualities which we see around us so that is something which Berkeley would find problematic to establish subjective idealism and the classic statement of subjective idealism is to be is to be perceived and the threat of solipsism so ma once you say that every reality owes its existence to a thinking mind then this might lead to a kind of this is this is subjective idealism this might lead to a kind of solipsism which says that only me and my mind and its creations exist so everything is created by my mind only I exist so the threat of solipsism is there and here Berkeley would bring or introduce God the important role the greater role played by God in his philosophical framework I will conclude with this quote from Bertrand Russell Berkeley advances valid arguments in favor of a certain important conclusion though not quite in favor of the conclusions that he thinks he is proving this is the paradox he thinks he is proving that all reality is mental what he is proving is that we perceive qualities not things and that qualities are relative to the recipient this is what Russell says about Berkeley we will conclude this lecture here and in the next lecture we would start our examination of this notion of abstract ideas and how Berkeley advances his criticism against this concept of abstract idea and how we refuse it and then from that refutations and all the refutations he had carried out in this what we have discussed in this lecture he derives is immaterialism he derives is what is called as subjective idealism which ultimately says that every object owes its existence to a thing in mind is to be perceived a site perceived by so we will discuss all these issues in the next lecture thank you