This was a pretty interesting treatise on skepticism (and the only philosophy book I've ever read with a "twist"). Worth reading, even if you're not a philosopher, because it's very simple and relatively terminology-free. Lots of fun, very erroneous arguments also. ( )

I remember following Berkeley's logic, more or less, and being not quite ready to agree with him. ( )

Três diálogos muito bem escritos, em um embate divertido entre um imaterialista (idealista), defendendo a bizarra posição do autor (ser é ser percebido, tudo que existe, existe dentro de mentes), contra um curioso e incomodado materialista recalcitrante. Philonous emprega todas as variações da pentelhação "tudo é correlacionado", "tudo é para nós", "não há como pensar algo fora do pensamento, porque ao fazê-lo, estamos pensando o fora para nós, dentro do pensamento", enquanto mostra que um empirismo radical leva a negar a matéria, a existência exterior à mente, e afirmar Deus, a mente que a tudo percebe. (o que para os padrões atuais, soa, é claro, como "negar o pensamento científico") ( )

Skip it and read Hume, who says the same stuff more quickly, takes it further, and doesn't go god-mad. Or if you must have a taste, only suffer the first dialogue - it's downhill from there.

This doesn't feel like a dialogue: Berkeley has given his man Phil all the words and prepared thoughts he needs, and left his opponent only breath enough to ask the right questions, and say variations of "Oh gee Phil, I guess you're right! I must admit I have no thoughts really on that!". The first dialogue does present the strong argument for Idealism, and some very nice reasonable advice of trying to stay skeptical, not taking inferences too far, and not introducing superflous ideas where things can be given simpler explanations. He then forgets all that and brings his god into it; he believes all reality is only in our minds (could be!), and that things continue to exist when there are no people about, because everything is in the mind of god. ( )

Read this for a college Phil course. Radical idealism definitely ain't my thing. I rebelled against it pretty strongly even then, when I didn't know enough to know why. My ultimate reaction to Berkeley and most other stuff in this philosophical vein is "Yeah... So?" I'm just too much of a throughgoing pragmatist to play along long enough to get much out of it. ( )