 Welcome to this course on aspects of western philosophy module 17 and lecture number 17. So, in continuation with what we have been discussing in the previous lecture the philosophy of George Berkeley, we will see some of his concluding remarks or rather we will try to wrap up the contributions of this great empiricist philosopher George Berkeley in this lecture. So, these are some of the issues which we have already discussed and a summary of those things which we are going to discuss in this lecture. So, we have started with Berkeley's immaterialism here and following this there is a refutation of material substratum which we have already seen and this refutation of material substance has been substantiated by the refutation of primary qualities secondary qualities distinction. And in today's lecture we will see another one the refutation of abstract ideas probably these three refutations or rather the refutation of the distinction between primary and secondary qualities and the refutation of abstract ideas jointly would show that or demonstrate that the concept of material substance or material substratum as people like John Locke understood it does not exist. This is what Berkeley was trying to argue and from this we can conclude that material substance is a combination of sensible qualities ideas we perceive are things themselves there is nothing beyond these ideas which we perceive as Locke's representationalist epistemology would argue. So, these ideas are things in themselves for Berkeley then again there is nothing beyond sensations every reality is psychic which is termed as essayed percipi or to be is to be perceived basically see two things in this lecture. The first one will begin with this refutation of abstract ideas which is again a very important aspect of Berkeley's philosophy and we will see how from this or the various refutations he has already demonstrated in the previous lecture also we have discussed it. So, from this George Berkeley derives this conception of or rather what is known as subjective idealism which can be summarized in this Latin expression essayed percipi. So, let us see what are these abstract ideas their abstract general ideas which Berkeley was trying to refute it is the doctrine that the mind can frame abstract ideas the mind is capable of framing such abstract ideas. Here it explains how general terms obtain meaning see for example, a general term like man how does this term obtain its meaning see normally when I say a chair in front of me. So, when I see the chair in front of me or when I see this computer in front of me this laptop computer in front of me I have certain it creates or certain ideas come to my mind or rather in Berkeley's language this laptop computer which I believe exist in front of me is nothing, but certain ideas I get in my mind. So, I am really not sure whether there really exist a laptop computer in this world I can only say that there is an idea of laptop computer in my mind in front of me something which exist here at this moment, but this is a laptop computer which is made by a particular company with a particular shape with a particular color with certain other specifications which is there placed in front of me I can see it and all of you can see this. But now when I say laptop computer it is a general idea. So Locke says that there is something called laptop computer which is actually not this particular specific laptop computer which is placed in front of me, but something which actually is a universal a kind of general idea kind of abstraction from all the laptop computers which are there in this world. So, it would rather contain or it would rather represent all the essential features of those laptop individual laptop computers, but would not be a definite one a particular but a universal and abstract general idea. Now, the problem here is that Locke says see when I say a laptop computer in front of me I get an idea about it. So, there is an idea formed in the mind and I refer to this idea when I say there is a laptop computer in front of me, but similarly when you talk about laptop computer in general whether there is a an idea created in my mind corresponding to this term laptop computer in general whether there is a general abstract idea in my mind. Locke says yes there is and Berkeley says no there is not that is the major distinction because Berkeley says that if you accept that there is a corresponding idea to this word general abstract word idea of laptop computer if there is an idea in my mind then that would ultimately point to the possibility of postulating a substratum which is also abstract general idea the material substratum. So, that is the Ranger Eden in this conception according to Berkeley. So, he wants to deny it he wants to refute it. So, he says the source of all philosophical perplexity and illusion this concept of abstract idea is the fundamental source of all philosophical perplexities and illusions which John Locke and many others have encountered the cause for holding the view that external objects have real existent distinct from being perceived. So, this is the theory this is the kind of conclusion Berkeley is trying to drive us to what is it that material the so called material objects the so called external objects do not have an independent existence they do not exist independent of me or some mind perceiving it for according to Berkeley every object to exist means to be perceived by a mind to be is to be perceived as I it is perceived. So, this is something which he tries to drive us this conclusion it is refutation is the next step in refuting the theory of material substratum precisely that is why in Berkeley scheme of things this refutation of abstract ideas occupy a very important place. Now, again Berkeley says that this theory of abstract idea is one of Locke's most harmful mistakes because it ultimately led to the postulation of a material substratum which according to Berkeley would lead us to materialism and atheism which is according to him extremely dangerous conclusions. Now, the ultimate source of skepticism in philosophy because when Locke talked about material substratum I have already discussed it in my previous lecture when Locke talked about it he said I know not what so it leads to a kind of skepticism I know that it exists but I do not know what it is I have no idea about it I never know it it is always unknown something which is an you are forced to postulate an entity which is unknown and unknowable this leads to a kind of skepticism according to Berkeley. And again Berkeley's major works principles of human knowledge ventures to refute the belief that general terms signify abstract idea. So, you have a general term laptop computer or man or triangle or camera all these are general terms but when I say camera of course something comes to my mind I know what it is but when I say camera there is always a particular camera that comes to my mind but Locke says that there must be an abstract idea of camera which is not any particular cameras I have ever seen in this world but something which is mind is capable of abstracting from the different I would have seen something around 1000 cameras in this world but my mind has the ability to abstract those essential common universal features of all the cameras and put it under one heading the abstract idea of a camera. This is what something which Locke has done when he thought about theory of substratum so Berkeley says that this is impossible so again when you talk about Locke's doctrine of abstract ideas a general term refers to an abstract general idea. The general term man contains all and only those properties that are common to all human beings see for example when the general term man does not include whether this man is black or white or yellow whether this man is tall or short or stout or lean it does not include it does not say anything about it just say man. So the common features of all human beings are there the abstract general idea man refers to the ways in which all men resemble each other that which makes the stout man and the lean man the tall man and the short man the black man and the white man that common feature how do you form these ideas. So let us see what Locke says about it ideas become general by separating from them all other ideas that determine them to any particular existence see I mentioned this example of camera something which determines a particular camera to be that see for example a movie camera made by a particular company XYZ whatever it is. So when you talk about these specifications movie camera black in color made by XYZ company you are particularizing it you are determining it but ideas become general when I separate from them all those ideas which determine them black color movie camera all these company made up of this company all these determining factors are abstracted from that. So that you what remains is that substratum that object which is the camera all the circumstances of time and space that make a particular existence are separated. So you mind abstract all of them separate them such an abstracted idea can represent more individuals than one. So when I say the more I particularize an object the more I determine that object I am reducing that object to one single existence see when you talk about me as a human being I am a human being this is a very general term the moment I say I am in Indian I work in IIT Madras I work in the department of humanities and social sciences I teach philosophy I stay in this particular room I specialize in these particular areas. So all these are the determining factors which would limit me and ultimately pinpoint to one individual. So this is something which you work of the reverse all those determining factors you separate and what remains is the general idea the human being the man. Pacific individual characteristics are omitted and only common characteristics possess by all members are retained. So there is a process of retention as well as omission you omit specificities retain commonalities. Abstracting is a process of living out various elements in an idea so that it appeals to more than one individual or class. So this is what generally about abstract ideas all of us have the ability to frame such conceptions about man vaguely I know what I mean by man I do not have to really go back to platonic universal forms to understand an idea of man which I have we all know what we mean by that but from this basic assumption Locke makes certain conclusions he says that mind is capable of abstracting and forming such abstract general ideas separating one from all others that make it a particular this abstracted idea stands for something real. So from this you conclude that there is something real that corresponds to this abstract idea something which Plato also have done according to Plato there are forms the universal essences every object in this world is a participant on of that universal essence it is a mere copy and he says that there is one original for which all the particular objects are copies. So there is one chair the universal essence of chair according to Plato to which all the chairs which we encounter in our day to day life are copies of so that original so you say that there is something which corresponds to the abstract general idea your mind frames in reality when you construe that picture of reality where something there is corresponding to this the kind of representationalist epistemology which Locke was trying to advocate that is problematic according to Berkeley the idea of material substratum is formed in a similar fashion. Let us see the idea of human I have already mentioned it colored but has no determinate color includes a general idea of color that is all there is a color but whether it is white or black or brown or yellow that is not being mentioned that is not being specified again has a size but has no determinate size never say stout or lean or short or tall strip particularizing qualities. So you have to separate though those particularizing qualities from an idea of a particular creating a new intrinsically general abstract idea. So this is the form and here let us read the section from Berkeley's principles of human knowledge from its introduction where he actually introduces this whole idea of refuting abstract ideas I read it is agreed on all hands that the qualities of modes qualities or modes of things do never really exist each of them apart by itself and separated from all others but are mixed as it were and blended together several in the same object. But we are told the mind being able to consider each quality singly or abstracted from those other qualities with which it is united thus by the means frame to itself abstract ideas not that it is possible for color or motion to exist without extension but only that the mind can frame to itself by abstraction the idea of color exclusive of extension and of motion exclusive of both color and extension. So this is precisely the problem and Berkeley's refutation goes in this way the idea of man that I frame to myself must be either of a white or a black or a cranny a straight or a crook a tall or a low or a middle size man whatever image I have about man in my mind is a particular kind of an image it must be either a white or black or brown or yellow some color will be some specific color will be there and similarly other qualities as well I cannot frame an image of man which both omits and includes all the particular characteristics of real individual men and again our experience is always of concrete particular I never experience a general abstract idea of man I always experience man individual men individual human beings particulars concrete human beings when I contemplate the idea of man the image that comes to mind is that of some determinate shape color and other qualities. So you cannot really separate them they are blended they are mixed they cannot be separated from each other we cannot frame the idea of motion distinct from the body moving and which is neither sweet nor slow. So this is something which again motion is according to Locke primary quality which Locke said is something which is there in the object Berkeley says that we cannot frame the idea of motion distinct from the body moving and again we use one name or sign for all particular ideas of the same sort that is something which is agreed we use one name see for example we encounter several human beings and we talk about them we will say that there are 100 men or 100 women or 200 human beings. So that is quite common that is quite natural we use such words in our day to day life since we use one name we come to believe that there is one general or abstract idea corresponding to it there lies the mistake actually it is very interesting like it is very similar to this kind of an argument you would find in 28th century philosophy of language as well or the only difference is that there is no reference to images which the mind forms but there the reference or there the focus is exclusively on language anyway that is something which we will discuss when we discuss the contributions of 28th century philosophies particularly the philosophers of language. Now let us go back to Berkeley he was basically arguing that since we use one name man we come to believe that there is one general or abstract idea corresponding to that that is problem in reality it is just a name chair in reality it is just a name it can be fit to thousands of chairs you cannot particularize it but the tendency of the mind is to believe that since there is one word chair there must be something which corresponding to that particular chair which is neither this nor that but a universal chair or whatever abstract chair. Such supposed abstract ideas are not needful for the communication nor for the enlargement of our knowledge they are superfluous according to Berkeley. Now again abstract idea of material substance the idea of a world without a man this is the problem actually the central issue according to Berkeley's this the abstract idea of material substance the idea of a world without the mind a world of objects or objects in the world which can exist independent of human beings or human minds perceiving them. So this independent existence of objects actually is derived from a conception of materialistic existence or objects in this world exist independent of mind there is what Locke would say a material substratum an autonomous domain of matter independent of the domain of mind the Cartesian dualism mind and body separate from each other something which Berkeley was trying to refute he was trying to argue that every reality is mental every reality is spiritual every reality is psychic. The idea of a real world of matter the autonomous real world of matter ruled by its own laws which would lead to atheism because it ultimately takes us to a materialistic conception of the world and again separating the sensible objects from there being perceived conceiving of matter existing unperceived. So this is something which you can say because when you construe an abstract idea of material substratum for example you do not see it you have no idea about it you in the sense that you have no sensation of this abstract idea but still you believe that or you content that it exists. So here you are conceiving the existence of matter or matter as existing unperceived though you do not see it I know not what this is what Locke says I do not see it I do not perceive it but still it exists we cannot conceive any sensible thing or object distinct from the sensation or perception of it this is Berkeley's ultimate conclusion no object in this world can exist independent of its being perceived by a human mind. So because every reality is psychical. So here let us see this figure the objects of human knowledge we are talking about the objects of human knowledge how do we what do we mean by these objects of human knowledge number one actually imprinted on the senses something which the senses get the sensations what we can call roughly we can call them as sensations the second one is perceived by attending to the passions and operations of the mind. So this is what something roughly we can call reflections that is again an object of human knowledge and the third one is ideas formed by the help of memory and imagination something which I already have experienced it now I recollect them I am memorizing it and recollecting it now I have already memorized it and I am now recollecting it. So all these three are the objects of human knowledge and Berkeley is trying to say that every knowledge all human knowledge is derived from these three sources either through imprinted on the senses ideas which we get senses second one is reflection and the third one is from memory. So all these do not exist without the mind everything exists in the mind. So everything is mental this is what he says now against again he goes he raises certain objects in against abstraction we have general ideas but not abstract general ideas. So this is again a very interesting twist in Berkeley's philosophy because though he begins by refuting the notion of abstract ideas he clarifies that I am not against general ideas say general idea of man or chair or camera or whatever which is very essential for our day to day communication if you do not have such general names we cannot probably communicate meaningfully in our day to day lives. So Berkeley never denies the fact that general ideas exist but he only reminds us that though general ideas exist they are not abstract general ideas in the sense that corresponding to them something exist in a world. Every general idea is a particular idea which is used to refer to a whole group. So in that sense its value is pragmatic we can say it does not exist corresponding to that there is no reality that existings. So there is no ontological correspondence to a general idea so that we can have an abstract idea. So general ideas are not abstract general ideas every general idea is a particular idea which is used to refer to a whole group. So when I talk about motion it is a general idea of motion I have but this idea I have about motion involves a body a particular body moving I cannot imagine or envisage motion by separating a particular body under motion. Similarly when I talk about man my concept of man my idea of man is my general idea of man is always corresponds to anyone particular man all ideas are images this is something which I have already explained in the previous lecture. So ultimately he was trying to argue that all these ideas are images and we cannot form an image of an abstract general idea something that possesses no specific qualities because every image is formed with a quality or there are more or less synonyms images and qualities whatever image we can form will be about a particular which we can perceive. So there is no image which we cannot perceive so that there is something which we cannot know existing in the real world and again our perceiving them is the basis of forming such an idea. So this is again further this refutation of abstract ideas by Berkeley leads to the refutation of the idea of a support for sensible qualities which Locke talks about and again refutation of material substratum which is again a Lockean idea which is very important as I have already pointed out for Berkeley's philosophical program this is very important step because he thought that with this he can refute atheism and again assertion that everything exists by virtue of being perceived by the mind. So that is the next theory next concept which you are going to discuss the psychic nature of our reality which can be expressed in the Latin expression aside per se pi so Berkeley and the external worlds. So let us see this what does Berkeley say about the external world on the one hand he has told us that or he has affirmed that all our objects of knowledge come from three sources the ideas imprinted on the senses reflections and then the ideas which are memorized by the mind. Now what about this external world that the chairs and tables and computers and trees and mountains and the buildings roads everything comprising of all these things what about these world. So Berkeley does not deny the existence of ordinary objects such as trees apples and all that what we have already discussed there is no material world but there is a physical world of ordinary objects. So there is a distinction between these two words when you talk about material world philosophically what you mean by this world material world is you can show a world of matter independent of something which the mind which perceives it. So when I talk about a material world of comprising of this chairs and tables and camera and computer what I really mean is that these objects the camera the chairs the tables and the computer and other objects in this world exist independent of me or any one of us perceiving it. So they are always there I just go and open my eyes and see them. So my being seeing them is an accidental factor or it is nothing to do with the existence of these objects it is a very realistic picture which Berkeley is trying to encounter. According to him the chairs and tables and the computers and the objects in this world the physical world of objects exist he never denies it but the only problem according to Berkeley is if you say that they exist independent of minds actually perceiving them. They are mind independent nature the moment you separate them or the moment you make them mind independent you are assigning to them a kind of ontological status which actually you cannot assign to them. As an empiricist you cannot say that there is an independent autonomous domain of material objects because what you have access to are ideas and ideas and images and qualities never suggest an independent autonomous material world. So there are physical objects there are world of ordinary objects the physical world is mind dependent I see them the chair is a chair for me I see it I perceive it it is composed of ideas whose existence consist in being perceived and all the qualities of objects are dependent upon the senses. So my perception my perception tells me about the world objects do not exist independent of the mind the mind dependency of ideas is underlined by Berkeley thoughts passions pictures of the imagination they do not exist without the mind all of us know that our thoughts our passions our pictures of imagination they are all mind dependent and he says sensations to exist in the mind. I have a sensation of a chair what is this after all what is this camera what is this computer what is this chair what is this objects which I see around me nothing but my sensations and since they are my sensations they exist as sensations in my mind. So their mind dependent in that way they are like passions they are like my thoughts and passions and pictures of imagination their existence consist in being perceived or known by the mind the pen I use to write the mic I use to speak the computer I use to work means I can see and feel it. So long as I can see and feel my computer it exists. So it exists as an object which I can see and feel I can use or whatever. So when you the moment you say that it exists independent of any one of us using it that creates a problem. So this is a set precipitate to be is to be perceived the chairs and camera in this room exist because I see them and feel them my mind has an image of them my mind sense it the sensations are imprinted on my mind. So they exist now the question is what happens to them if I go out of this room and cease to perceive them just go out of this room what happened to this camera and the chairs do they cease to exist Berkeley replies they still exist because if I were in this room I might perceive them or someone else can perceive someone else who is there in this room can perceive. It is unintrigable to say that things exist when no mind perceives them. So this is Berkeley's conclusion to exist is to be perceived to be in the mind. So existence of an object is identified or is identical with what perception of that object by a mind. So every object every reality is mind dependent the being of a thing can be equated with its being perceived by a mind and here you can have a picture which would summarize this position knowledge of reality is through ideas on the one hand and something which knows or perceive these ideas which is called solve or the mind I will come to that like later and when you talk about the ideas the ideas are passive existence consists only in being perceived all ideas are passive they cannot create anything in us they are passive they are things in themselves since they are passive they cannot generate anything new then when you talk about something which knows or perceives ideas which is the mind which is a solve they are active minds are active human minds are active existence consists in perceiving ideas and thinking. So now from this we can say that Berkeley is trying to establish the existence of human mind. So that is another problem which Berkeley encounters in his philosophy later on David Hume comes up with devastating criticism against Berkeley on this aspect because the same logic he would have applied in the case of mental substance as well this is what Humeans would argue the logic which on the base of which the existence of material substance was refuted Berkeley should have applied the same logic for refuting the existence of mental substance as well but what Berkeley says is that all these presupposes a mental substance something which knows or perceives ideas they cannot be itself an idea because it is of ideas willing imagining remembering about ideas for all these activities you need a substance a spiritual substance active substance which supports or perceives ideas should itself cannot be an idea as ideas are passive. So interestingly here Berkeley introduces the notion of support which he refutes in Locke's philosophy but of course there it is material support here it is spiritual or psychic the active mind solve or spirit he talks about its existence consists in perceiving ideas and thinking. Now when we talk about ideas in the mind they are inert fleeting dependent beings they depend on the ideas they are not independent of the mind they do not subsist by themselves but a subsist in the mind they are supported by or exist in minds or spiritual substances but when we talk about the minds they are active indivisible substances and cannot have an idea of it as it is the thing which has ideas. So something which has ideas you cannot have an idea of it now in a sense this is what Berkeley's subjective idealism is to be perceived that expression would actually summarizes Berkeley's subject position of subjective idealism. Now the problem is that if you subscribe to a kind of subjective idealism in this fashion this might ultimately take you to a kind of solipsism if everything exist is an idea in the mind then this leads to a kind of solipsism. If what will happen if everything is an idea in my mind reality is mental then what happened if I cease to exist does the world to come to an end the moment I cease to exist does the world also cease to exist because you have already stated that in all reality the world depends on the mind for its existence I and my ideas alone exist this is solipsism I can always construe that conceive that I alone exist and this entire world is nothing but a creation of the ideas in my mind. The world is in my mind you can actually say that this is the conclusion we can derive from Berkeley's extreme form of subjective idealism my mind creates the world. So now Berkeley responds to this kind of a criticism by arguing that by introducing the concept of God he resolved this solipsism. So it is quite interesting all these philosophers when they encounter a crisis a conceptual crisis goes back brings the notion of God and resolves all the problem this is what Descartes also have done. So here Berkeley also does the same thing he introduces God things owe their existence to a mind Berkeley says I have only stated that to be is to be perceived does not mean that every object in this world depend for their existence on my mind I said a mind. So even if all the finite minds in this world cease to exist because they are finite my mind is finite similarly the minds of all the human beings in this world are finite even if all these minds of finite individual beings in this world cease to exist the world still may exist because the world is still being perceived by God the infinite mind the eternal mind is always there which perceives it. So the world exists in the mind of God when all finite mind cease to exist the world still exist in the eternal mind the mind of God if I do not perceive them then some other mind should perceive them if there is no one to perceive them then there is the eternal mind which perceives everything at once. Now what is God suddenly you see that God is being introduced and all the problems are resolved and what is this God there must be some cause for the sensations or ideas in my mind. So here again you can see that this sum of the arguments which Berkeley initiates to prove his point resembles the traditional proofs for the existence of God here again he says that there must be some cause of the sensations or ideas in my mind this cause must be an incorporeal active substance or a spirit not a material substance which is a non entity the objective cause of our ideas. See for example I can imagine something in my mind and create a world for myself but many things in the safe where as far as my sensations are concerned when I open my eyes now what I see in front of me is not under my control I see a camera I see tables I see chairs I see a television I see many human beings. So these are not my creations these are not my perception of these objects are not under my control they are in a sense imprinted on me on my mind without my knowledge without my wish who does it and there is a kind of regularity it is not that they are jumbled there is a regularity there is an order. So there is an orderly sort of arrangement of ideas which I come across and who is responsible for that Berkeley says God the objective cause of our ideas the objectivity order significance and necessity of our ideas suggest an active intelligent substance as their cause the ideas imprinted on my senses are not creatures of my will the supreme will or spirit that produces them determines the order of our ideas shall follow when you have sensations. So one after another there is a particular order and this order is not my creation it is determined by the supreme will or spirit which is nothing but God the steadiness order and coherence testify the wisdom and benevolence of its order who is God. So again you can see the reminiscence of that argument from design introduced by traditional philosophers particularly the scholastic thinkers the connection between ideas we call laws of nature are instituted by God. So this so called laws of nature uniformity of nature unity of nature including probably the gravitation principle discovered by Newton all these are nothing but instituted by God. The order in the universe is established by God and he eroses in us certain ideas in a certain order one after another he has connected with the idea of foot the idea of nourishment. If I am hungry then I eat something then there is there is some sort of a satisfaction. So there is an order hunger which is being satisfied by foot and then now I get the kind of relief from hunger. So all these are interconnected. So what Berkeley says is that this connection is actually is instituted by God it is not that foot causes nourishment but the idea of foot the idea of nourishment these two ideas are put together by God. So that there is a connection between them again with the idea of sleep the idea of refreshment that these two ideas one does not cost the other because ideas are inert and passive inert and passive ideas cannot create something else. So the idea of sleep and the idea of refreshment these are connected with one another one follows another not because one is a cause of another but because what related one with another in the same way. With the visual sensation of fire the bodily sensation of warmth these two again are ideas they are not connected with each other in terms of some causal principle but their arrangement they are made arranged in such a way by God that one follows the other. Something like the pre-established harmony of Leibniz which we have discussed. Noticing this connection between our ideas we believe that the ideas cause each other which is not the case and here one might raise a question can we say that the spirit heats instead of fire because sensation of fire cannot be the cause of the sensation of warmth. Berkeley has already told us that it is God who initiated or God who has instituted these corrections. So can you say that it is spirit who eats instead of fire when we have pain can we say that I have an idea of pain there is an interesting story where there is a stone and someone asked Berkeley what is it and Berkeley replies it is a stone instead of it is a stone Berkeley says there is an idea of stone. Now eventually what happened was Berkeley went and hit his toe on the stone and he said oh there is a pain. So what is it then people asked him what do you mean by this oh this feeling what do you feel now he said an idea of pain he never said pain an idea of pain he never said stone an idea of stone but we cannot speak our day to day communication our day to day conversation cannot be in this fashion in our day to day conversation a stone is a stone it is not an idea of stone a chair is a chair not an idea of chair a man is a man not an idea of man a pain is a pain which I experience I have to treat it. So there is a gap between what philosophically what is right and what is right and what is ok in the common sensical world. So you have to negotiate that and Berkeley says this does not sound old because we must think with the learned and speak with the vulgar when I think I should think like a philosopher I should realize that these are all ideas and they are not interconnected by means of a causal relationship the relation the connection whatever I see around is nothing but they are all instituted by God all these are part of my philosophical vision about this world but when I enter into a day to day normal conversation with my friends with my fellow human beings I cannot employ the language of a philosopher. So though I think like the learned like a philosopher when I speak I speak with the vulgar with the common man I would say that please take your seat please take that chair and sit on it please take the pen and write I do not say idea of pen and idea of writing that would seem a little old no doubt and those who accept Copernican theory still speak of the sun rising they know that the sun does not rise the sun is a star it does not rise and the earth is revolving around that all these scientific theories the complex scientific theories all of us know but still we say that the sun rises in the east. So Berkeley's ontology let us summarize consist of three things there is God who is the institutor of all connections or relationships that interconnections between ideas we perceive is due to God's order then you have the ideas and the spirit in the mind of the spirit has ideas and these ideas are arose in the mind arose in the spirit by God and Berkeley's conclusions are ideas imprinted on the senses really exist but do not exist independent of the mind things perceived by senses are not generated from within by the mind itself but imprinted by a spirit who is God and all order and regularity in the world owe to God. So let us summarize our discussion on this the most important aspects to be remembered are number one refutation of material substratum there is no material substratum number two which follows from this is that every reality is psychic in nature to be is to be perceived aside perceived by everything that exist is nothing but an idea an image and all the connections which we see around in this world all the order and regularity in this world are due to God instituting them. So with this we will wind up this discussion on the philosophy of George Berkeley the next lecture will be on the contributions of David Hume. Thank you.