Esse Est Percipi/to be perceived is to be
George Berkeley
I am reading 'Sophie's World', a novel about the history of philosophy, and came across George Berkeley, a remarkable philosopher (empiricist) who sort of echoes one of my thoughts about God. The basis of empiricism is that you only derive knowledge about who you are and the world around you from your senses. And this seems incompatible with religion because God is unseen, unheard, untouched in our normal lives where we see human glory and ruin, hear crass words and poetry, and touch hearts and lives, but not our omniscient God in a way we are humanly attuned to. Sometimes it seems so natural that we feel that to perceive something is to ascertain its existence, which is of course in line with empiricism.
Berkeley, however, extends the argument and questions how our own perceptions arose. If we know something is because we can perceive it, then by logical extension for us to be we must have been perceived by something, or someone, else. I cannot cause my own perceptions because sometimes these perceptions are entirely involuntary - i dream of people I am afraid of, or that I am ashamed of, and I can't stop it. Thus, the someone behind these perceptions must be someone who has access to my consciousness and who is systematic and complex in its perception. That is why Berkeley says God is 'intimately present in our consciousness causing to exist for us the profusion of ideas and perceptions that we are constantly subject to'. Because God perceived us, we are (creation), and that is why we can perceive. He is the source.
Of course, there is the sort of loose end - who perceived God. But I suppose there is the presupposition that something cannot come from nothing, and therefore God (the source) must always have existed. In the novel, Sophie concludes the chapter saying that her world seems to be 'like a bad dream'. God seems to be playwright, and we as his characters have no choice but to follow our lines, unconscious or conscious of our position as figments of a divine imagination. I used to get bothered about this too - hearing about the doctrine of election and the concept of God's sovereign and immutable will - I felt like a helpless pawn in God's chess game. I felt used, cheated, helpless, helpless.
But Berkeley's philosophy opens up another dimension. Because we are 'figments of God's consciouness', we too have been given our own consciousness, God has gifted us with choice - he has imagined the ability to choose into us in a way. He has given us the sense to perceive the wonderful world around us, the intellect to consider his ways, the choice to follow him. I am not a pawn in a chess game, I am more like a child, created, perceived, and now growing under a benevolent gaze as i struggle to look into the eyes of my Maker.
Berkeley, however, extends the argument and questions how our own perceptions arose. If we know something is because we can perceive it, then by logical extension for us to be we must have been perceived by something, or someone, else. I cannot cause my own perceptions because sometimes these perceptions are entirely involuntary - i dream of people I am afraid of, or that I am ashamed of, and I can't stop it. Thus, the someone behind these perceptions must be someone who has access to my consciousness and who is systematic and complex in its perception. That is why Berkeley says God is 'intimately present in our consciousness causing to exist for us the profusion of ideas and perceptions that we are constantly subject to'. Because God perceived us, we are (creation), and that is why we can perceive. He is the source.
Of course, there is the sort of loose end - who perceived God. But I suppose there is the presupposition that something cannot come from nothing, and therefore God (the source) must always have existed. In the novel, Sophie concludes the chapter saying that her world seems to be 'like a bad dream'. God seems to be playwright, and we as his characters have no choice but to follow our lines, unconscious or conscious of our position as figments of a divine imagination. I used to get bothered about this too - hearing about the doctrine of election and the concept of God's sovereign and immutable will - I felt like a helpless pawn in God's chess game. I felt used, cheated, helpless, helpless.
But Berkeley's philosophy opens up another dimension. Because we are 'figments of God's consciouness', we too have been given our own consciousness, God has gifted us with choice - he has imagined the ability to choose into us in a way. He has given us the sense to perceive the wonderful world around us, the intellect to consider his ways, the choice to follow him. I am not a pawn in a chess game, I am more like a child, created, perceived, and now growing under a benevolent gaze as i struggle to look into the eyes of my Maker.
No comments:
Post a Comment